Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 10

< August 9	August 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Pokemon crater[edit]

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

Hey, why exactly is this page blocked? There should just be some information on www.pokemoncrater.com. I just wanted to see what its rated and all... cause i play it, but wana know other people's opinion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was nomination withdrawn.

NedCar BV: Mitsubishi Colt - smart Forfour[edit]

This is some strange hybrid of Mitsubishi Colt, Smart Forfour and NedCar that somehow lingers forgotten and redundant, breaking a few conventions by the way. Does anybody oppose? Bravada, talk - 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two sections into Mitsubishi Colt and NedCar. Put remaining redirect up for RfD. If it passes, copy page history to both talk pages. Deco 21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have dumped whatever information was to be salvaged to the Mitsubishi Colt article. Nevertheless, whatever remains cannot be made a redirect, as the article tries to deal with subjects of THREE separate articles, and from what I've seen, RfD is only for one-off redirects and not for disambiguation pages. Besides, this would be a pretty pointless disambig page, as it is fairly certain that nobody would ever search for that name rather than the articles themselves. So, we're back to where we were. Bravada, talk - 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitsubishi Colt, to preserve the chain of GDFL contribution, since that's where the merged material ended up. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can do that, please do. I have no idea how to. Thanks. Bravada, talk - 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and boldly redirected it. If anyone feels that this was inappropriate, feel free to revert (after noting your objection here, if it's not too much trouble). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now I see what you meant. I guess now the AfD is pretty irrelevant, so how do I close it? This needs to be nominated at RfD now! Bravada, talk - 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to close this, add the template {{at}} at the top and {{ab}} at the bottom, and a line at the top about how the result was keep because the nomination was withdrawn. IIRC, anybody's allowed to close withdrawn nominations. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other point: redirects which are the legacy of merges can't (or at least, shouldn't) be deleted because it leads to misappropriation of the merged material (i.e. nobody will know who first contributed it to the site). That's what I meant by citing the GDFL above.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - I have nominated it anyway and we'll see what comes. The so-called content that I moved from here is nothing spectacular, so nothing would have happened if I didn't - Wikipedia's Mitsubishi person ;) will surely develop the Colt article even further. Bravada, talk - 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming[edit]

List with impossibly vague criteria: "...a commercial failure for a video game hardware platform is generally defined as a system that either fails to become adopted by a significant portion of the gaming market place, or fails to win significant mindshare of the target audience." Characterization of the items on the list as "commercial failures" is largely OR synthesis. JChap T/E 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this could be a great article. It's encyclopedic, verifiable, and quite interesting for our readers. - Richardcavell 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether or not something is a "commercial failure" is subjective and, thus, inherently unverifiable. It may be interesting, but so is a conversation about "Negro league players who had the most successful major league careers," but there is not a WP list for that. JChap T/E 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, we have similar lists that have survived AFDs before (preparing dinner to search for them). I suggest removing every unreferenced game, and start anew. -- ReyBrujo 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The few games that are on there have some references, but it is the assertion that the games are "commercial failures" that is OR synthesis. JChap T/E 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I say it is a commercial failure, it is original research. If IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, eWeek, CNet, etc, say it is a commercial failure, it is not. If they make original research, it is not our task to judge. -- ReyBrujo 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different list: "Computer and video games someone has said are commercial failures." That list would be objective and not utilize the subjective criteria of the list being discussed. I'm still not convinced that such a list is encyclopedic, however. JChap T/E
Films that have been considered the greatest ever, Films considered the worst ever, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever. Maybe renaming it to Computer and video games that have been considered commercial failures is better for you? -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "commercial failure" has written original research all over it. -- Koffieyahoo 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep commercial failure is determined by the external references used in the article. While the article may have original research in it the Subject does not. Keep per comment from Richardclavell. In response to Jchap2007's comment above - subjective and verifyable are not inextricably linked and objectivity is not a requirement for verifyability from reliable sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The American Heritage Dictionary defines subjective as "Proceeding from or taking place within an individual's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world...existing only in the mind; illusory." I don't believe that such a thing is verifiable. On the other hand, so-and-so made such-and-such statement would be objective (and verifiable). But "List of computer games, hardware, etc. that someone has declared to be a commercial failure" still would not be an acceptable list. JChap T/E 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing to do with OR. This is an informative and well-referenced list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some are clearly objective--ET, PacMan (2600), etc. are clear failures largely responsible for various happenings in the game industry. LactoseTI 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs some expansion. The list is referenced and original research does not apply here. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This was cited by Kotaku and I have personally found it to be interesting. Perhaps changing the criteria to "hardware or software that does not return its investment" or something as objective. Konman72 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has some pretty good potential. It needs some expansion, but it does not warrant deletion. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat reluctantly, delete - the previous, much longer version was terrific, but if it's just going to be this current version, delete. I don't think it's very accurate... Psychonauts, for example, seems to be a "cult hit" and gets a lot of positive reviews... despite very poor sales, I don't consider that a commercial failure. Kat, Queen of Typos 03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the very definition of "commercial failure". Sure it was a critical success, and was well received by those that bought it but it was a huge commercial failure. It is usually used as a nech-mark when discussing commercial flops since it bombed so hard the developer had to declare bankruptcy. Just saying. Konman72 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeded, bad sales and low profits are what make something a commercial faliure not what the critics thought. An article should not be deleted for applying a term accuratly. --Edgelord 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have reintroduced the removed content with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I'll personally look after this article to make sure that it is given sources in the near future. Dwayne Kirkwood 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richardcave. --Corporal Punishment 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is referenced. I also disagree with the OR cliam because there are 4 list about games and movies considered the best and worst ever and they survived deletion for a combined total of ten times. None of those articles have been deleted as OR and I don't see anuything significantly different about this list that makes it OR. If anyone want proof I know where to find 9 of them quickly. --Edgelord 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ReyBrujo. It's true that currently much of this article is unreferenced, however, with stringent rules for inclusion and mandatory referencing for each entry it can very be an encyclopedic article, as similarly noted in this AfD. --SevereTireDamage 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automotive flops and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures for my reasoning. I need to catch my breath, and just can't explain it again right now. AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a list it seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. As an article, it is highly subjective and opinion. Displaced Brit 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would benefit from more sources and probably more stringent inclusion criteria, but I see no reason why this can't become a verifiable and encyclopedic article. BryanG^(talk) 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to point out that while the list of failed gaming consoles is I think, a quite good idea (but what, no Shanda EZ, guys?), a complete list (or okay, only a list of those produced by notable game companies) of video games which were commercial failures would ridiculously long, containing maybe as much as 60%-80% of all games released (after all, this is very much a hit-driven industry), and this even before accounting for vapourware. The number of games released is obviously much higher (thousands more) than the number of automobiles that have been commercially marketed (though the list wouldn't be as large as say, List of commercial failures in fiction publishing or List of commercial failures in the Hollywood movie industry). If the list was only to be selective and so deliberately shortened to a manageable size, then the question arises about how this selection was decided, and if it is a subjective choice. Can someone come up with what this selective criteria would be? Such criteria would also help with the POV/OR objections raised in this discussionBwithh 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, the opening line is a staggering and very misleading understatement about the industry:"The computer and video games industry has seen several commercial failures since its birth in the late 1970s". Only several? (Wow, this must be by far the most successful entertainment media industry of all time). And it should be early 70s, not late 70s. Bwithh 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Bwithh. This is the list that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends... Morgan Wick 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nom. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per nom??? Morgan Wick 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Actually I was trying to say Per above that means same as on above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its current state there seems to be a lot of OR, with few entries cited. Also, the title itself implies POV, and would limit the list to games that have been specifically labelled as a "commercial failure" in a primary source, not games that were simply less successful than had been hoped. --Mako 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I would support is moving all the POV and uncited stuff to the talk page and then moving it back to the article as citations are added. The article also needs to be moved to a less POV title Mako 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a great article, and only helps to highlight consoles and how the market works. Could use more citations, aswell as less POV. Believe it or not, failure is a part of the industry aswell, and it should be touched upon. Havok (T/C/c) 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the article is currently very inaccurate and misleading about "how the market works" Bwithh 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It needs sources, but I love this article. I think it's a great idea for an article, I think it has much encyclopedic value, and I wouldn't dispute that anything mentioned in the article was a failure. -- Kicking222 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I just added a few citations (not hard at all, but I only did hardware, the games themselves might be tougher and therefore may need pruning), and some of 'em are great reads in themselves. Recommended: Gizmondo Bizarro! But I feel the games that can be referenced should also be kept. Bustter 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the video games section as excessively inclusive list and Rename list as List of video game console commercial failures as per my objections above. Will revise my vote if someone can come up with reasonable answers to the issues I raise Bwithh 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for all the games but some games do appear to be well sourced. E.T for example is well covered and I don't see any reason to remove that. The game list may need to be limited but I believe that an complete deletion is a mistake. Also the Psychonauts section is well sourced as well --Edgelord 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It has many, many references stating the games as commercial failures (i.e. not OR). If a few entries are uncited, just remove them, move to the talk page, or add a citation needed template, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Crystallina 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete video games section as impossible to keep up and Rename hardware list per Bwithh. Of the thousands of video games released every year, it strikes me as impossible to a) manage the list and b) decide what a commercial failure is. I agree with the editors who say it's too subjective. The 'commercial failures' wikilink doesn't go to a page about what a commercial failure is - it goes to Category:Commercial failure lists, which...(wait for it).. includes this list. I'm going around in circles and it's making me dizzy. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gray Porpoise 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but any unsourced entries should be removed until they can be WP:Verified. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. While some have sources, alot won't...and it will lead to many edit wars over opinion. RobJ1981 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF AND ONLY IF each game that is listed has an Independent, reputable, third-party source that Verifies the game was a failure by statements issued by the game designers. Otherwise, this list is OR. No one but the Game designers/publishers know if it is a 'commercial failure'. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verify or Delete. Hate to break this list, really, it is quite thorough and interesting, but like dozen of people have mentioned already regarding the commercial failure lists: what is the objective criterion defining commercial failure? Net negative profit? Then you must verify with profit figures. Cdcon 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting and fairly well written article, with some sources. JIP | Talk 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not implicitly vague or original research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a move. Whether something is regarded as a commercial failure is quite subjective. I would prefer "List of video game products regarded as commercial failures" or some such thing. Deco 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic. While subjective, it is passable. --Scienceman123 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. You can set a bar on what's considered a "commercial failure" and back each thing with sources. Therefore, the article can work. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but delete every entry that doesn't have a citation(or find one for it). The entry for Psychonauts is what every item on this list should look like. Mitaphane _talk 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of those iffy articles. I propose that very strict sourcing be used for it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment List "too long" or "too difficult to maintain" are not valid arguments. Difficulty simply is not a criterion for deletion; and the sort of expertise required to maintain an entry like this one is not in short supply.
  - Comment: I mean nothing along those lines, it's just not always easy to define a "failure". There could be a lot of POV problems is what I meant. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR, most items are referenced in the linked articles, just not on the list. It could use soem clean-up in this regard. Ace of Sevens 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Ace of Sevens-- not OR if followed by major references -- Solberg 01:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Keep, useful. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a very useful article, if a bit long. Maybe split into commercial failures by generation? Just thinking out loud here. Definitely keep, though. Ruaraidh-dobson 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request I voted Keep, however I think the article should be renamed "List of *major* commercial failures in computer and video gaming." -- Solberg 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
- Seconded There are lots of commercial failures in any industry. Some of them aren't particularly notable. Ace of Sevens 07:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rename if you have to. I would have closed this a long time ago as speedy keep if not for the very few deletes. SynergeticMaggot 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I do suggest adding a more specific definition of what constitutes "failure". For example, include a sentence saying something like "For purposes of this article failure is defined as reliable, independent news sources referring to the product as performing very poorly in the marketplace." That would help avoid the inclusion of borderline products that some people thought were failures and some don't, and also help avoid uncited inclusions.Dugwiki 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as article merged -- Samir धर्म 12:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day (short film)[edit]

A short film produced by students in Nottingham with no IMDB citation and no substantial claim to notability beyond local press coverage -- Samir धर्म 00:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I agree with merge -- Samir धर्म 12:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info to Chilwell School and redirect. If need be, I'll do the work, just let me know. Akradecki 01:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Akradecki. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge, non-notable film, and adding trivial information about extra-curricular student projects to school pages is a bad precedent... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be merged into Chilwell School. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that the project was among the first, and without doubt the most successful, of its kind, perhaps creating a page for the project itself, separate from the Chilwell School page would be a possibility? The project was significant to education and the teaching of media in particular. If not, I am happy for the page to be merged with Chilwell School. Tom 10:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chilwell School. It's unreferenced and mainly a local story. If it gets nominated for a notable award, then it can come back into its own article. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly happy for the article to be merged into Chilwell School and redirected, as Akradecki suggested. (I do, however, strongly disagree with Kinu as the extra-curricular project was far from "trivial"). If the film does well at the forthcoming "Bang" short film festival, then I assume it could come back to its own article? Akradecki, if your offer to carry out the work still stands, that would be great. Tom 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE There is no point in merging. Take your pick of WP:NOT violations. Verifiable by Reliable, Independent, Third-Party Publications and sources beyond local press coverage? Has it achieved any awards? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — per Akradecki American Patriot 1776 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Akradecki — It's agreed! Tom 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - text (with a little cleanup), has now been merged over to the Chilwell article. All that remains is to blank the text here and add a redirect tag. Didn't want to do that until the AfD was closed. Is there an admin in the house who can speedy keep the article so a redirect can be made? Akradecki 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: doesn't need admin. I've just redirected the page for the time being, but I'll put it up for RfD. Ohconfucius 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment don't bother with the RfD, let this AfD close and the closing admin will delete the redirect -- Samir धर्म 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of widespread usage of this term -- The vast majority of the sources in this article are simply talking about regular photo manipulation, and do not use this term. --SB | T 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxtography[edit]

Two or three day old neologism with no reputable published sources on it

This is a very new term, there are no reputable published secondary sources as of yet. I am of the opinion that there could be a redirect to Photo manipulation in the page, but it doesn't merit its own page due to it's unverefiable nature.Thanatosimii 01:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the term "fauxtography" is too new to qualify for Wikipedia, then where should the information contained in this article be placed? Is there a different entry name that should be used? Is there an existing page where it would better fit? Dicentra

The problem is that the info is itself not suitible for wikipedia whatsoever, because it is not from published or peer reviewed reputable secondary sources.Thanatosimii 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another blogger neologism. -- Koffieyahoo 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term is not in widespread use. Dicentra, in answer to your question - the data could get redistributed to one or more of the following articles - Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Reuters, 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories (I'm hoping this one gets renamed), and Pallywood Korny O'Near 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Different kinds of Neologism. There must not be neologism in Wikipedia's article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We ought to change this, its a protologism. A neologism before its actually widespread in use for wikipedia to utilize it. Neo/Proto-logism, whichever, its one of them. I note that the non-blogger references seem to refer to things the bloggers want to call it by this word. If this word is actually referenced in something like that new york times article, I'm all for keeping it. But not by my check of the reference links so far. Kevin_b_er 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Photo manipulation is a perfectly fine term for it, no need to cover every made up word. Scoo 06:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see below. ~~Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Photo manipulation could mention the word fauxtography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 07:32Z~~
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stare at pixels long enough and you'll eventually see your own politics. BTW, what does "altered electronically" mean?
Delete with vehemence. Another so-called 'blogger' thinks they can make up words because they got a free page to type their boring opinions on. W guice 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, Not for things you pull out of your butt, WP:So many policies WilyD 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, rename and merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy into a more general article about the current controversy regarding news agencies' use of questionable photography changed; see below VoiceOfReason 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This story has gotten to the point where the blogs are themselves reporting a story--not just making comments about a story reported by someone else. So if the blogs use a new word, that should be treated the same as if the New York Times published the story and used a new word. We would not say "you need a published or peer reviewed verifiable secondary source before we can use a word from the New York Times".

Most of the comments above seem to ignore that blogs can be news sources. New terms used by blogs who are wearing a news source hat should be treated as new terms used by other news sources, not as new terms created by Joe Blow on the Internet. Wikipedia *is* for things I pull out of my butt--if I'm the Times, or if I'm someone else in a similar position. Ken Arromdee 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The two aren't even comparable as sources. If a blog uses a new word, that should be treated the same as if the New York Times used a new word? Er... no. That position kind of assumes equal credence for both, which is ridiculous: the point about blogs is that any idiot can get one, whether they can design fancy websites and create stupid portmanteau words or not. It's still just original research by a private citizen. W guice 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blogs may be reporting this story, but they still do not in general meet WP:RS. I agree, however, that the details in this article are verifiable enough and notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, but the word itself is still a protologism and does not deserve an article. ~~Hence my merge recommendation.~~ VoiceOfReason 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The details actually *aren't* verifiable without reference to blogs, because the blogs are drawing conclusions (these two photos show the same woman, this seems to be a 4 hour span, etc.) In order to have this story at all, you must accept the blogs as reliable sources. A word made up and used by the major sources of a story isn't a neologism in the sense barred by the guideline. Ken Arromdee 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to draw the line. Surely before the blogs did their digging, Reuters publication of one of the Hajj photos would have been considered a reliable source, but they've admitted that they were fake. Surely before the blogs did their work, CBS would have been considered a reliable source on the Killian documents. How many errors must a major news source make before it's no longer a reliable source, and how many blockbuster scoops must a blog score before it's considered reliable? When it comes to the qualification of a reliable source, I have a strong predisposition to err in favor of inclusion, trusting Wikipedia readers to be able to judge for themselves which sources are reliable and which aren't. For example, I would have no problem with an article citing ZombieTime's analysis of the photos in question; it's original reasearch (but on the part of Zombietime, not the hypothetical article creator) and it's got enough documentation to enable a reader to decide for himself whether or not it is credible.

This article isn't perfect. It does cite some plainly unreliable sources, and its title is a blatant protologism that doesn't merit inclusion. But there is some salvagable content here, and it should be salvaged. After careful consideration, my opinion remains cleanup, rename, and merge changed, see blow VoiceOfReason 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki the first paragraph to wiktionary, per WP:NEO. TheronJ 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheronJ. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a repository for the breaking newsworthy item. The neologism is not about photo manipulation, nor is it about the current mideast crisis or Adnan Hajj, but is about the breakdown of purportedly reputable sources of information. Photo manipulation and other relevant topics should reference fauxtography. K012957 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, although the article should definitely be renamed to something less protological, with Fauxtography redirecting to the renamed article. As I said on the talk page, suggesting that Fauxtography redirect to Photo manipulation would be akin to saying that Rathergate should redirect to Forgery. Fauxtography may be a neologism, but it still has a definition, and that definition refers to a specific scandal, not to photographic manipulation in general.

The article is poorly-named, no question. But the subject matter is certainly notable. It should be renamed, expanded, edited, and merged with redundant existing articles like Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, but it should be kept. VoiceOfReason 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming it sound like a good idea; thanks for being a voice of reason. :) For a new name, how about something like "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy"? Korny O'Near 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a platform for blogger original research. Gazpacho 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, totally non-notable. RFerreira 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The story should be told at Adnan Hajj, since everything on the page is about him. DJ Clayworth 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another neologism. I'll bet none of the sources mention the word "fauxtography". JIP | Talk 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Blogs are not reliable sources. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy; the merged article could be called 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy, per Voice of Reason & Korny O'Near. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 20:19Z
Weak keep Enough evidence of ongoing use for me. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move. We don't have an article on most of the many words The Colbert Report has invented, and that's probably viewed by more people than these blogs. The phenomenon itself is notable and widely reported, but its article should be given a boring, generic name that people would actually understand. Deco 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. Many of the comments pro and con are cogent, but neglect the fact that deception by image manipulation is a new phenomenon which has no name of its own, and hence only falls within the area of lie, cheat, and so on. Retouch, a term used to refer to improving or altering an image, or trick photograph, both apply more to chemical emulsion imaging techniques. Fauxtography may be the answer for the digital era.Ghlkq 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)ghlkq[reply]

This is user's sole edit. --Wafulz 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Wikipedia does not need to wait for other media to legitimize facts before documenting them. Moving them to the Adnan Hajj page or Reuters page will not work, as examples are being found by other photographers and other "news" organizations (i.e. AP). Staged photographs do not fit on the Photoshop page. Some news sources reporting on this today, include...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0608090045aug09,1,1178315.column?coll=chi-news-hed
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/15237540.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060808-095636-1444r.htm
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODkyYjMyNzA2MDM1NGZlYWZmZGFjZTllYjRhMmVhMGM=
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25538&l=i&size=1&hd=0
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288406,00.html
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23719—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roenigk (talk • contribs) .

- Comment Actually quite the opposite is true- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We won't post things in anticipation of them becoming popular/commonplace. Also, none of those links use the term "fauxtography" itself- they just mention photo manipulation. --Wafulz 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NEO. Wikipedia shouldn't be collecting neologisms. --Wafulz 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who put this up for deletion, and I almost want to change my own vote, because of the disregard for the rules which people are performing by excercising such predjudice against this page. Come on people, the problem is that there are no reliable secondary sources as of yet, not that "evil bloggers" are trying to rule the world, or that neolgisms must be squooshed without mercy. The issue here is lack of established credible sources because it's way too young to have sources that qualify under WP:RS. Thanatosimii 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere sensible, or slap a "current event" tag on it and reconsider when no longer current. Ace of Risk 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the root of the argument here is the whole reliable source problem. The only reason this topic exists is because many of the sources considered as reliable, have repeatedly published questionable material, and have taken little responsibility for their actions. This topic also covers more than just photo manipulation, it includes staged pictures. The concept of publishing pictures to distort events is what the topic is about, not specifically about chaning pictures. Due to the number of publications dispensing this material, I do not see that it should be rolled into a single occurrence. This may need to be discussed again in the future, but for now it seems to be a reasonable place to give the details of what is happening in the sources previously considered to be reliable. RedLyons 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adnan Hajj photographs controversy into an article called 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy per Quarl. If the word "fauxtography" ever catches on, it will undoubtedly be applied to situations that have nothing to do with the current war in the Middle East. And if the word "fauxtography" doesn't catch on, then it shouldn't have an article at all. Either way, Fauxtography should not be an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created an article titled 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy, since that seemed to be somewhat of a consensus approach here, taking in some of the information from the Fauxtography article, although this one is differently structured. Korny O'Near 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversy per Korny O'Near. VoiceOfReason 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies StuartH 07:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism no redirect, salvaging factual info. Mukadderat 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I'm a journalist, I've always hated manipulated photos, and it's time they were stuffed down the bastards' mouths. This may be a neologism, but it is a REALLY old problem.Scott Adler 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is on par with Rathergate, and should be kept in terms of the story ViteroHoratio 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word is popping up everywhere. If it eventually dies out, we can kill it, but for now keep.--Alabamaboy 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is becoming rather notable within the press. -- Freemarket 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of neologism in Wikipedia. They are still notable and so is the word "Fauxtography". It is becoming used within the mainstream media as well as the blogs. -- HowardDean 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plainly a neologism with little currency outside certain blogospheric circles. We can always revisit this in a few months if it has any legs, but I expect it'll soon be forgotten. -- ChrisO 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of file sharing software[edit]

Listcruft that performs no function that the category Category:File sharing programs doesn't already perform better. Very little editing history [1] IslaySolomon 01:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redirect to the category. I found all of these having blue links. Lists have red links, categories don't..but they're all blue, so thus no advantage. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is plenty. Kafziel 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess that the user that started this article (Nadyes Talk Contribs) intended to make a Comparison of file sharing programs article, but he never finished his idea. However we already have a Comparison of file sharing applications article. Razvan Socol 07:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move to WP:BJAODN as example of redundant article. --TheM62Manchester 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. - Patman2648 10:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category needs to be applied consistently - a list would be more useful if it was sorted by protocol, architecture etc. This "blind list" conveys no information, and a well used category needs no further maintainence. Ace of Risk 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the philosophy that lists can always be replaced by categories ignores how wikilinking works - since at least one real article links to the list, it's worth keeping. WilyD 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that link add something more to the LimeWire article than inclusion in the file sharing software category provides? -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not even a good wikilink, just an entry (the only entry) in the "see also" section. Kafziel 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that no one would "Go" directly to this page and the category would come up in search results, so a redirect is not neccessary. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category is fine, and better organized. Reywas92 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-referential and excessive. The category is better. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cat is sufficient. The wikilink does not justify it; one can link to categories as well, if necessary. Deco 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspers[edit]

Doesn't really merit its own article. The school's page is a stub with no section on the athletics, where this should go before it gets its own article. fuzzy510 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Manhattan College. None of the other teams in the MAAC have their own pages. Plenty of room at the parent article for this. Kafziel 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not necessarily delete this article because this can be merged into Manhattan College as Kafziel said on above. This article is about Manhattan College. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Manhattan College. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — into Manhattan College American Patriot 1776 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article International Institute of Management. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

See talk page for closing arguments. `'mikkanarxi 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-Z of mutants[edit]

Unneeded list, all info here is covered in Category:Marvel Comics mutants, List of X-Men teams, and Decimation (comics), and subsequent main articles about its characters. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it appears this "A-Z" list is more of a "A-B" list. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomplete, original research, unverifiable. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete bad name. ReverendG 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Merge with Mutant (comics) or something or just keep it. I find the information valuable and encyclopedic. Try to find some citations and it will be great. Konman72 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete table is neato but all those characters are in Category:Marvel Comics mutants. the info is already there. this is unnecessary. Somerset219 03:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge — per Konman72 American Patriot 1776 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is no need for it considering the information already exists on the other pages listed. -X22oo 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plus, the title is misleading in that it sounds like it's about nonfictional mutants. Doczilla 08:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename as per nom and Konman72.—Ben FrantzDale 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not fulfill Wikipedia's naming conventions, and there are already similar articles that supply similar information. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct, this list is redundant. Cdcon 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, fails WP:NOR and WP:V. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but let's do it for the right reasons. WP:OR and WP:V are not violated. There is no original research unless collating freely available information is research (actually, isn't collating freely available information called making an encyclopaedia?). The article is fully verifiable, there is nothing made up on the page. It should be deleted simply because it's repetition of information contained elsewhere. Mallanox 02:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Chris Griswold 05:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer energy conservation strategies[edit]

Per What Wikipedia Is Not, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This article is almost entirely advice and suggestions. It belongs in Wikibooks, and surprise, it's already there! Nova SS 02:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John254 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it not a how-to. Fg2 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a different article, it would not deserve to be deleted isn't a compelling argument - do you plan to rewrite it? WilyD 12:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia should not give advice and is not Jimmy Carter :) Gazpacho 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Ben FrantzDale 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a how-to guide. WilyD 12:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, per nom. If someone wishes to rewrite this into an article and not a How-To Guide, I might change my position. I would not oppose the article being recreated later as something encyclopedic rather than an instruction guide. This topic is encyclopedic; this article is not. Scorpiondollprincess 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Isopropyl 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete/transwiki. I don't even think that changing the mood (from imperative to indicative), voice (active to passive), and from 2nd person to 3rd person could elevate this to the level of an encyclopedia entry. Even if this were done, the article would still basically be a guide on what consumers could do to save energy. It belongs in Wikibooks and Wikihow. Ufwuct 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant - it's in Wikibooks. If any content is NPOV-salvagable, it should be merged to energy conservation. Deco 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deleted by Deltabeignet under CSD A7 (non-notable group). Closed by SynergeticMaggot 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Xi Omega[edit]

Local-only fraternities and sororities are, in general, not notable. No expression of notability in this article, and it would be even less appropriate to turn this into a list of the multiple unreleated chapters of Alpha Xi Omega nationwide. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree with the nom on one part - if this were to be expanded to the point where it gave background of the organization (at a national level) and other goodness, it would be a decent article. But as it is, it's better off dead. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Alpha Kappa Lambda was rechartered as Alpha Xi Omega in 1997. (from U.C. Berkeley page.) Somerset219 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads to me as though the Cal chapter of AKL was rechartered, not the fraternity as a whole. The fact that the Cal chapter is AKL's founding chapter may make that somewhat significant, but I doubt it. Delete. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — per Somerset219 American Patriot 1776 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:Angr 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another of your so-called "fraternities" or "sororities". JIP | Talk 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. I would like to see evidence that the various chapters around the nation are fundamentally unrelated and share no leadership or traditions. If this is the case, none of them are notable; otherwise, the current information in the article still has a place in a finished article on the nationwide fraternity. Deco 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest evidence that they are unrelated is that one is a fraternity and the other found quickly is a sorority. That puts them in two separate branches of the tree, as it were. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per {{db-group}}, article makes no claim to notability. -- pm_shef 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important group. VanHalen 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local organisation only founded nine years ago. Not notable. -- Necrothesp 22:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Lenox[edit]

Deleted in May through prod but recreated. Non-notable minor fictional character from an American soap opera. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non- Notable Character from a show I've never heard of. --Corporal Punishment 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions, the show on which he appeared. I've never watched the show and I've still heard of him. By a bizarre coincidence, the actor who played this character died in real life the same day the character died on the show. I recommend a redirect rather than a keep because most of the information in this article already appears in Passions. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy per G4, for recreating deleted items. Not owrthy of an article in its own right. Redirect to Passions Ohconfucius 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, G4 only applies to articles deleted through AfD, and this one was deleted through prod. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Restoring an article deleted through prod is a contesting of the prod, so the appropriate next deletion step is AfD. I have two or three articles that I've nominated currently that way. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to Passions Doczilla 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC) No, wait a minute. Keep. I just remembered when this made news. The character was historically noteworthy due to his bizarre nature even before the freaky coincidence involving the actor's death. Doczilla 08:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh Ryan Evans (the actor in question), since most of the relevant content is already there and he was the only one to portray the character. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you reckon the character name to be a common enough search term to warrant a redirect? Given that historical coincidence, the Evans article is in order. If it helps people find it, I can support a redirect from this to the Evans article, as well. —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change my vote to a weak Keep, since I just noticed that Evans's portrayal of the role got him a nomination for a daytime Emmy (see 28th_Daytime_Emmy_Awards). That would seem to make the role notable enough within the context of the show to merit an article. Could still use some sources, though; anybody want to hit the library stacks and dig through the back issues for Soap Opera Digest? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fancruft, but somewhat notable and nowhere to merge ("Passion" seem to have an elaborate set of articles, so it makess sense to keep this one separae as well). Mukadderat 19:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mukadderat. WP:N is not policy, so even if you've never heard of the show, many many other people probably will have. If enough people watch the show that the article was created (twice), then it seems that this is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. --Daniel Olsen 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nupur Lala[edit]

Although some spelling bee winners deserve a page for various reasons, Nupur Lala doesn't really seem to need one. She is on the Spellbound page already, so a seperate article about her seems redundant. Her link in the Scripps National Spelling Bee page could be redirected to Spellbound (documentary) Clamster5 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know what policy should guide this, but I think that the winner of the spelling bee featured in Spellbound probably deserves her own separate article, especially if it is expanded with more of a biography (if references exist). At very least should be redirected InvictaHOG 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Spelling bee winners should be kept and also she has featured in the documentary. I just don't think this article can be expanded. --Ageo020 04:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Doczilla 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep I've argued this before and I'll argue it again: Anybody who wins the National Spelling Bee- which inherently involves beating many millions of other people and competing on national television- deserves their own WP article. Even if there is no other information about the winner, they at least deserve a stub. National Spelling Bee winners are, at the very least, as notable as Go players, or World Series of Poker champions (and certainly poker players who have never even won a WSOP bracelet, and there are hundreds of players on WP who never have, including my favorite poker player), or reality show contestants (many of whom do not have WP articles, but some of whom do). So there it is- if you can win a highly-publicized, televised competition (with almost a century's worth of history) over millions of other people, you deserve your own article. -- Kicking222 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The nominator has been very critical of spelling bee articles in the past, including vandalizing them; see what is written by/about him in this previous AfD. -- Kicking222 11:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to count her as an athelete (sketchy, but work with me here) and thus judge that she's won a championship at the highest level of competition in her field - which takes her past WP:BIO, which is good enough WilyD 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning a large-scale competition publicized on mass-audience TV *and* being featured in a well-known documentary more than satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Crystallina 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spellbound (documentary). You can argue that she is notable per WilyD's rationale, but this is never going to be more than a stub, and there is more information on her in Spellbound (documentary)#Nupur_Lala than there is here. If she climbs hops up Everest naked on a pogo stick or trains fish to speak then she might need her own article, but not now. Yomangani ^talk 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she'll never be more than a short article (and she can definitely be more than a stub), that's not really the point. She's notable entirely outside of the Spellbound documentary, so it's an inappropriate merge target WilyD 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you if the article on Spellbound didn't already have more information on her than her article does. Merging is appropriate when two articles have a substantial overlap (if for nothing more than maintenance). Although having looked at the Spellbound article a redirect will do, as there is nothing to merge. Yomangani ^talk 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's has notability outside of spellbound, so it's not an appropriate merge target. More appropriate is to merge the relevent section of Spellbound into here. If Joe DiMaggio had better coverage under the Coffee article than his own article, it'd still be inappropriate to merge hi,. even if he is Joltin' Joe, hawking a cup o' joe. Same here. WilyD 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to disagree - I think since WP isn't a paper encyclopedia it makes little difference where her information is kept, but it would unbalance the Spellbound article to pull her bio out of there. Anyway, neither of us is saying "Delete" so it's not really an issue. Yomangani ^talk 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move the relevant content from Spellbound to this article, leaving only a brief summary and link. Should help expand it a bit. It may remain short, but oh well. Deco 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with WilyD -- Whpq 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mukadderat 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of public relations firms[edit]

WP is not an indiscriminate set of lists, and there is a perfectly good category available. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I stated in the talk page, the list is a valid list per WP:LISTS for development purposes. Firms listed do not seem indiscriminate, they do appear to be notable from what little Googling I've done. hateless 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft. Viridae ^Talk 10:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least one article links here. What the passionate anti-listers oft times forget is that lists are useful as part of the wiki web. List has a clear, well defined purpose. WilyD 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What's the point of a list when a perfectly good category exists? Imparts no new useful information apart from introducing a few more red-linked names. Ohconfucius 12:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no room for expansion to supercede the capabilities of a category, and it has the potential to get dirtied with dozens of small-time, non-notable firms. AdamBiswanger1 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Sorry, but I can't see the list has a clear, well-defined purpose apart from poorly duplicating the work of a category (see the entry for Edelman). It's highly US-centric too, so cleanup is necessary if it's kept. The one other page that links to it is Public Relations via a "see also" link, so it isn't going to cause major disruption if it is deleted. Yomangani 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some lists have value on wikipedia. This is not one of those lists. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has useful redlinks. Once those are stubbed out, deletion is fine. Deco 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redlinks, if not exist anywhere else in wikipedia independently, mean nothing. Mukadderat 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Someone make it more obvious that it's not online-only early in the article so we don't go through this again, nearly or otherwise. Morgan Wick 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISold It[edit]

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB guideline. Alexa ranking of 37,915 [2] --TBCTaLk?!? 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see here[3]. They have a store down the street from me. It's an actual chain of stores, pendant on the "ebay phenomenon". Somerset219 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry, I accidently mistook it for an online retailer. Thus, I'm withdrawing this nomination (so basically it's a speedy keep).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenix Records[edit]

Non-notable recording company. The author has only made four edits, all of them to this article. This Google search brings up no real/independent sources; local baseball teams are listed higher than anything I can find. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:CORP, and WP:MUSIC --Wafulz 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about it. Somerset219 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable American Patriot 1776 05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and unverifiable. I couldn't even find a "Phenix Records" or "Phoenix Records" in the Indiana phone book. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article Phoenix Records is unsourced, and has non-notable informations. *~Daniel~* ☎
Delete non notable record label per WP:CORP. The principal gets 3Ghits as "Tina L. Redden" and 116Ghits as "Tina Redden". Seems like she's a genuine gospel singer with independent distribution. The company's website lists it as having 5-disc product line- quad erat demonstratum. Ohconfucius 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 which is what it was. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialismo[edit]

Delete we already have a Socialism article that deals with this directly. The article is also essentially a fork article, it solely refers to Cuba for some reason. I would also venture to say that part of the reason for its existance is to promote the following image which features the user who created and is the sole contributor to the article: Image:CubaSocialismo.jpg. Jersey Devil 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revolutionary Socialism or to Communist Party of Cuba--TBCTaLk?!? 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shouldn't it be redirected to Socialism?--Jersey Devil 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Socialismo seems to refer to revolutionary socialism more than just socialism in general.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any real content in this page to merge to be honest.--Zleitzen 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that redirects are different than merges. See WP:REDIRECT and WP:MERGE for more info.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry I was in an edit conflict and wrongly read merge in my haste! Redirect to Socialism as per the Spanish wikipedia page Socialismo--Zleitzen 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Socialismo does not "refer" to Revolutionary Socialism. It is just the Spanish translation for "Socialism".--Jersey Devil 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Socialismo is just Socialism, no more no less. And the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution page needs to lose that pic as well. It's a serious subject dealing with a collective accused of harrassment and many beatings. Unfortunatley the pic doesn't really help. --Zleitzen 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Propaganda page for a neologism. Somerset219 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Restore "Sociolismo" The creation of the "Socialismo" page was my mistake, and I haven't fixed it yet. The original entry was "Sociolismo" and I thought it was a misspelling, but it's not. The page explains it. The photo will remain, and I will photoshop it so it is just of the billboard. The CDR are a nasty bunch, but the billboard DOES add value because it's an example of their propaganda. --DavidShankBone 04:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this sounds rude, it's not meant to be, but if you could just photoshop yourself out of it then I'm fine for the CDR page! But the content of a "Sociolismo" page would need to be sourced.--Zleitzen 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What DavidShankBone said. "sociolismo" appears in connection with subverting allocation policies in this document supposedly translated by CANF in 1988. Gazpacho 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a short draft on the talk page of the "socialismo" article for "Sociolismo" - using a reliable source. Thanks David, you've actually highlighted an article that can be expanded and slotted into the Economy of Cuba series.--Zleitzen 05:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment but...but...the billboard spells it with the letter A!!! Bustter 12:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialismo and Sociolismo are two totally things, sociolismo in Cuba means a form of cronyism. The article should be changed to Sociolismo with no pic, the pic is referring to Socialismo which is socialism.--Zleitzen 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole "SociAlismo" page was a mistake I created--I won't be so hasty in the future to tear down pages, and for that I apologize. If anyone wants me to fix it back to Sociolismo, then I am happy to do so. The billboard would obviously no be relevant to "sociOlismo." But I think discussion on whether to delete SociAlismo could end, because I admit it was created in error. I can do it, but I'd rather a more experienced person do it so that it is done right. I can research the SociOlismo article some and source it. --DavidShankBone 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allnurses.com[edit]

Non-notable website; fails WP:WEB guideline. Alexa ranking of 45, 327 [4].--TBCTaLk?!? 03:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Richardcavell 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Can't see how it's notable. :) Dlohcierekim 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. AdamBiswanger1 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not very notable under WP:WEB. --TheM62Manchester 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as WP:NN. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn American Patriot 1776 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably not notable and has issues of maintaining a neutral point of view with regards to the moderators. Cufece 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above--Peephole 14:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted For Truth[edit]

Non-notable internet neologism and dicdef; fails both the criterias of WP:NEO and WP:WINAD guidelines.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Somerset219 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicdef, and no hope of ever becoming more. Resolute 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and neologism. *~Daniel~* ☎ 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to List of Internet phenomena. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 07:06Z
Merge to list of internet slang. I see it used everywhere: its quite common. But it sure as heck doesn't deserve its own article. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Quarl and Dark Shikari. About the only purpose I can see for an article here is to explain what the acronym QFT means in this context. Once you know what it stands for, it's self-explanatory. Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if some other article wants this, per what everyone above said --Xyzzyplugh 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it, no redirect. It isn't worthy of an article, but could be at home as 10 words on a listing of acronyms in use online... -- Xinit 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with redirect. It is used all the time, the first time I saw it used I looked it up here, and I recently directed someone here to explain its use. This article serves a valid purpose, and it isn't like the 2k of space its taking up is hurting anyone. stufff 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Internet slang phrases per Dark Shikari. Owoc 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-kernel[edit]

Creator of subject created article. Violates WP:SPAM, WP:OR, and WP:VAIN.03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 August 2006.

AfD not properly linked on article page - now fixed LinaMishima 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- thanks, LinaMishima. I'm not sure why it was such a struggle to get this listed. Could the links in the template I dropped be defective? Thanks for signing me. :) Dlohcierekim 14:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst I personally think that this subject may warrant a reference quest, and it is certainly verifiable (it was presented at an academic conference), I strongly believe in setting an example against vanity. Whilst the content could be expanded in a usefull manner, to leave this would set a horrible example to vain people everywhere. LinaMishima 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SoSP is the most exclusive conference on operating systems. It's quite difficult to get a paper into it. On the other hand, there's no way to know whether this will have staying power. Gazpacho 04:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment After sleep, I might try to track down the paper. The paper itself may reveal more about it's worth to be in wikipedia. Suspect it would be better used on an Operating Systems theory page as a reference, rather than as it's own article - most academic OSes see little real world use or notariety. LinaMishima 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've decided this can wait until the paper gets a few citations. Gazpacho 05:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waiting to determine if paper citation is a hoax, sufficient notability, or not, but right now it's vanispamcruftisement. Morgan Wick 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is describes an OS from a one page paper that accompanies a poster in the SOPS poster session. The paper itself says little more than what the wikipedia article says, although the authors are working on a more elaborate paper [5]. Moreover, since we're talking about a SOPS paper from 2005 you would at least expect some citations to show up in google scholar. However, although the paper is there (when you search for Gu and Stankovic) there a no citations at all. Actually, also with google sec I'm unable to find any other papers that cite this one. Hence, in my book WP:VAIN applies. -- Koffieyahoo 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Koffieyahoo. Mr Stephen 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Categories exist; if anyone wants this list to complete categorisation, I will restore it to userspace on request. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows currently in syndication[edit]

This article is yet another bloody list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a small introduction which I shall reproduce here in full: "This is a list of television shows currently in syndication in the United States." A list then follows along with a second list "Shows entering syndication for the 2006-2007 television season" which is just made up of a brief preamble, this time slightly larger, and another list. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. Displaced Brit 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I object to the organization and find the list almost unmaintainable, but it's not a ridiculous idea. I'll let other people comment. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High mantainance lists (as opposed to ones with fixed membership, only growing) would be better as catagories. Plus, lists are best used when an explaining citation is needed for the entry to make sense - which in this sense should not be needed. LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also suffers from being entirely American in origin, inappropriate for such a broad name LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest taking a looking at Wikipedia:Categories vs lists or WP:LIST--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of television shows currently in syndication in the United States; it helps the reader navigate through articles of a related topic, thus fullfilling the criterias of the WP:LIST guideline. --TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal opinion is that sub catagories would be easier to maintain, and more appropriate, as Lists are best used when the entry onto the list should be qualified. But that's my personal stylistic opinion, and ultimately doesn't disagree with you as such. LinaMishima 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename, but only because of the amount of red links here. I'd rather use a category otherwise. BryanG^(talk) 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Lists are good for encouraging content expansion, whereas this is impossible with catagories. LinaMishima 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a big list with useful info. --Caldorwards4 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a part of me that thinks this is a WP:POINTed nom, especially given the list's length and history. Morgan Wick 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This will be IMPOSSIBLE to keep up to date. Doczilla 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles shouldn't say Current, especially not in the title. Jesus Murphy! WilyD 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not implying Black current should be deleted. It's good. WilyD 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per TBC's suggestion. This is a legitimate topic that people researching the media world might find incredibly useful. Failing a renaming, at the very least, categorize it. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a large, unmaintainable list, so it is better suited as a Category. Cdcon 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. Too broad and unmaintainable for a list. I would support a list (or category) listing shows produced specifically for syndication, as opposed to just listing the hundreds of rerun series out there, too. 23skidoo 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize per 23skidoo. -- Slowmover 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it a category. As an article it's just going to be a whopping mess. --Wafulz 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lists. They do not violate the proscriptions against original research or directories. Lists do not have to be complete to be valuable. Fg2 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This applies equally to catagories, to which in terms of completeness lists do have the advantage, as non-existant articles can be featured. However one could argue that an out-of-date list is of little value, and this list's subject matter is prone to seasonal changes. As catagories are easier to keep up to date, this would make a catagory more viable LinaMishima 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless list of original research, outdated information, and no notable links to it. -- Xinit 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems like a bad faith nom, user is just out to nominate lists for deletion "I hate bloody lists!" --CFIF (talk to me) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. -Sean Curtin 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this potentially useful list. NTXweather 13:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArchINFORM[edit]

Non-notable website; fails WP:WEB and WP:ADS guidelines. Alexa ranking of 53,849 [6].--TBCTaLk?!? 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(see below) ~~Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 07:04Z~~
Strong keep. This appears to be a serious academic database project, and a very useful reference for (especially modern) architectural history, which I have seen linked to (and have myself linked to) in Wikipedia articles. It includes a lot of professional photographs and drawings, bibliographies, biographies of architects and notes on individual buildings. It has prominent partners, including the publisher K. G. Saur Verlag and includes biographies from its Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. That a specialized online database has a low Alexa ranking is hardly surprising but completely irrelevant. It also claims (here) to have been covered in major architectural publications, which I have no reason to doubt. up+l+and 07:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: please notice that we even have a template for linking to this website: Template:ArchINFORM. Whatlinkshere shows the many pages that use it in their external links or references. The German Wikipedia (which obviously has an article on ArchINFORM) has a similar template, which is transcluded in many more pages than its English-Wikipedia counterpart. up+l+and 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being referenced on Wikipedia and being informative are not criterias for notability (see WP:WEB). Also, the link you gave describes architectural magazines that have given the website a review, which falls under trivial coverage ("brief summary of the nature of the content"). By the way, how is the traffic ranking not at least partly relevant to determining a website's notability? After all, traffic ranking is based upon the amount of visitors to a website.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this should be judged in analogy with academic books (see the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria (academic books)), where we would accept a smaller printing run than for, say, a novel. Another criterion for academic books is if the book is "printed by a reputable or well known academic press". This website includes content provided by K. G. Saur, which is one of the most respected academic publishers in the world. If this had been a book, it would probably have been allowed as an academic publication. Including articles on often used reference works and authors, whether in print or online form, is helpful for Wikipedia and its readers. As for the reviews, I don't know if they are just "brief summary of the nature of the content" as I haven't actually seen them. I would, however, argue that a printed academic publication being reviewed in the pertinent academic journals would add to its (and its author's) notability, and see no reason to treat a website differently. up+l+and 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm a bit confused about your analogy. You've stated that the website is notable because it includes content provided from a notable publisher, which is completely different from being published by a notable publisher. Using your analogy, if a newly started wiki had articles from a notable source, the wiki would be notable regardless of how influental or how popular the wiki may be. Also one should note that Wikipedia:Notability (books) is still a proposed guideline. --TBCTaLk?!? 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - K. G. Saur is an official partner (along with some image archives etc) allowing use of its copyrighted material (which is different from just taking stuff from out-of-copyright publications, as Wikipedia does, and as anyone could do). As for Wikipedia:Notability (books), I already pointed out above that is just proposed. Are you disputing the general principle of the proposed section on academic books in the proposed guideline? up+l+and 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You should have clarified your sentence, stating that K. G. Saur is a partner of ArchINFORM, not just a contributor. Also, I'm not disputing the content of Wikipedia: Notability (books), I'm simply stating that its still a proposed guideline, thus the criterias may still be in development and not yet represent the majority consensus of the Wikipedian community. Either way, I do admit that the low Alexa ranking might be due to the fact that it's both a foreign and an academic website. --TBCTaLk?!? 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry TBC, but you are arguing in decreasing circles. This site is very notable indeed. Perhaps it would be a good idea to check these things out before listing pages here in future, then you won't find yourself having to defend the impossible, which carries the entailed risk of making yourself look rather silly. Not that I am suggesting you have so far!Giano | talk 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- TBC's nomination was fine. The notability of the subject is non-evident to someone outside the field of Architecture, even now (I hope the article will be improved to show notability of the subject, if it is kept). Nothing inherently wrong or silly-looking with nominating an article that ends up being kept; it happens all the time in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-11 20:17Z

Most things are non evident to those that have not studied them - which is why we are building an encyclopedia to broaden horizons not keep them as they are. The point of a stub, no matter how humble, is that it will grow if given the opportinity Giano | talk 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this about "defending the impossible" and "looking rather silly"? Keep in mind that though I may not be completely familiar with the field of architecture, I'm still entitled to have an opinion on architectural related articles and to nominate the article if I feel that the notability is questionable (afterall, this is a discussion). Also, the stub has technically been "given the opportunity" to expand, as its been on wikipedia since January of last year. --TBCTaLk?!? 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no article. That's a dictionary entry. Doczilla 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- pm_shef 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important and well known architectural data base used by thousands of students and architects daily (and me writing Wikipedia articles). Even in its original state the stub was worthy of retention. I'm perplexed by this was considered worthy of listing here. Giano | talk 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Giano. Certainly notable - every architecture student has heard of it. If you're concerned about notablility see how many architecture articles reference it. Indeed wikipedia has it's own template for referencing archinform Template:archINFORM eg.{{archINFORM|arch|1072}}--Mcginnly | Natter 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, convinced by arguments above and also did some web research - seems notable. I guess Alexa rank isn't useful for academic websites. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-11 08:19Z
Keep, i agree with quarl. VanHalen 20:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for reasons given by Uppland, Giano, and Mcginnly. DVD+ R/W 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasons above--Peephole 14:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The translations from German are abysmal, but the information has already gone into many Wikipedia architectural articles. What could motivate such a proposal for deletion? --Wetman 22:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ann Wheatcroft[edit]

Non-notable porn site star, all links lead to porn sites. IMHO, it should be deleted (1) as advertising; (2) as unverifiable by any reliable source; and (3) as non-notable pursuant to WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO TheronJ 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not look good naked. plus everything that was said above. Somerset219 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Cited source doesn't look reputable and I was unable to find any other sources on the matter. -- Koffieyahoo 04:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though I liked the old woman trying to haul her old husband away from the "actress" in that picture. Resolute 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source provides links to multiple newspaper article scans. All newspapers are mainstream national and local UK papers. Article provides link to website where actress publishes her work - can delete link if felt to be advertising. Deletion because she doesn't look good naked would remove most Bio's from Wikipedia. If you want to verify the sources then contact the paper's or court in question and they will provide transcrips as is custom in UK. Actress is notable in UK for the Porn she specialises and generates national TV and Newspaper coverage as well as local. Not being famous in US is not a criteria for deletion. Publicgirluk 06:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those links are to a porn site, perhaps if they actually linked to the supposed paper, you might argue that. Its hard for me to take you seriously when you [7] say shes "notable" Somerset219 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) Somerset, you can (and are required to) discuss the material without personal attacks. (2) Publicgirluk, even assuming the first porn site linked has an accurate reproduction of a York Evening Press article, I still don't see that Wheatcroft meets WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO yet. If she's only notable for (a) being arrested (twice?) for public nudity and (b) being the star of a porn site, I don't think she's notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by theronJ (talk • contribs)

Comment silly me Somerset219 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:BIO. Not notable, eccentric behaviour. There are laws concerning public nudity just like there are laws concerning theft. She would pass unnoticed with her clothes on, and indeed one could argue passes unnoticed WITHOUT her clothes on per photo. Could warrant a line in exhibitionism, public nudity, flashing or streaking, though. Ohconfucius 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if only due to press coverage. --TheM62Manchester 09:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting arrested for "disorderly behaviour" isn't really that big a deal, and if that's her main claim to fame, she fails WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verify or Delete. Please link to something credible. Cdcon 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohconfucius. -- Slowmover 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mukadderat 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television comedies without laugh tracks[edit]

This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a brief introduction followed by list with various subdivisions. The article also lists only English language programmes from four countries - the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom - and focuses mainly on American programmes. I am sure there are programmes in the other hundred sixty some odd countries that are comedies without laugh tracks. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate and I can even think of a few that are not on the list.03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the above AfD, keep and rename to List of television comedies without laugh tracks in the United States; it helps the reader navigate through articles of a related topic, thus fullfilling the criterias of the WP:LIST guideline.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your proposal is that it also includes Brtish, Candian and Australian programmes. Displaced Brit 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then rename it instead to List of television comedies in English without laugh tracks--TBCTaLk?!? 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catagorise and/or delete few red links, making this a good list to turn into a catagory. However, I am worried about verification of the absense of a laugh track. LinaMishima 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 04:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is ridiculous and impossible to verify all of them. Doczilla 07:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catagorize or delete as per LinaMishima. —Ben FrantzDale 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize or Keep. Since it is a list that is easily verifiable, and makes no analysis, I don't think it is original research. Strikes me as an interesting way of categorizing articles. David L Rattigan 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no categorization. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pathlessdesert 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. I agree that this list is a bit too much, but people might legitimately find a category featuring this information useful. It's probably not something someone would directly search for, but, upon seeing this at the bottom of the article, they might dig deeper. - Thorne N. Melcher 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. Prohibitively large list. Cdcon 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would probably make more sense to have Category with laughter track than without, as the laughtrack is slowly dying out. jnestorius^(talk) 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indiscriminate collection of trivia. wikipediatrix 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not categorize, per Wikipediatrix. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no categorization. I don't see why anyone would look for a comprehensive list of this. Gazpacho 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize where verifiable, Delete the rest. I do not see how an article with an annotated list is necessary simply to note the binary fact that a sitcom did not have a laugh track.-- danntm ^T _C 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless as a list. Pure category. Mukadderat 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Original research is original research whether in its own article or in a larger one, but apart from Wikipediatrix no-one has really seemed to pay much attention to that, and we have no consensus for deletion. Outcome defaults to keep; AfD does not govern merges, anyone may do that if they feel like it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone[edit]

With apologies to the large number of Harry Potter fans I fear will descend on this page to vote keep based on their fandom rather than policy, this page fails to be an encyclopedia article and is entirely original research created by a group of fans listing the differences major and minor between the book and its movie adaptation without any analysis. This would be okay on a Harry Potter fansite, but has no encyclopedic value and is merely an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. More specifically, this violates point 7 of WP:NOT by essentially placing two plot summaries side-by-side without meaningful analysis (which would really not be possible on such a topic). Indrian 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this gets nominated for deletion, I suggest that the related articles (Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) should as well--TBCTaLk?!? 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly second that. The reason I only nominated one is that I did not want to confuse the issue with an extended series of debates without seeing how the first one turned out. Indrian 15:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as fancruft and as per nom. Fans encouraged to use Wikia instead Bwithh 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic material. People can deduce this themselves, as Differences between eyes and ears. Somerset219 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, unless someone can find a reputable source that describes these differences. -- Koffieyahoo 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the movie's article. Same for all of the other films.--Ageo020 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Cruft, cruft, cruft. A merge might be possible, if such can be done in a non-OR and NPOV way. Morgan Wick 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete unless extensive citations are provided. Doczilla 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the individual film and/or book articles just like every other book/film conversion Konman72 10:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into movie's article per Ageo020. —Ben FrantzDale 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or expand with critical commentary). Needs context of broader article. Authors should work to add (third-party, sourced) critical commentary to explain significance of these differences. Fairsing 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, but no Delete. This belongs in the film's article. If it gets too long it may need its own article. Given the wide audience of the book and film, this information should not be deleted outright. Cdcon 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the film's article per above. BryanG^(talk) 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pottercruft. Inherently original research, and not important enough for a merge. There's not a movie in existence that doesn't differ from its book counterpart. wikipediatrix 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Interesting information, but not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film's article. We don't need a separate article on this. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, should not be deleted as it is useful information. --musicpvm 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into where relevant. Mukadderat 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archweb[edit]

Non-notable and currently defunct website; fails WP:WEB and WP:ADS guidelines. No Alexa ranking at all. [8]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Ben FrantzDale 12:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a load of rubbish if the websites now defunctPlowright 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a defunct website with no signs of historical significance. --Wafulz 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mukadderat 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; default to keep. Petros471 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structurae[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:ADS guidelines. Alexa ranking of 124,221 [9].--TBCTaLk?!? 04:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. —Ben FrantzDale 12:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a lack of third party verification.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wafulz (talk • contribs) .
Keep all the reviews at Alexa are 5 star. It is one of the few high quality web resources for engineers, which are out trafficed by more popular topics. For its field I think it is important. DVD+ R/W 01:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Definitely useful website. ""lack of verification" simply means laziness. The site is even registered at the Library of Congress! [10] Mukadderat 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. -Doc 14:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Team Advanced[edit]

The article nominated under this AfD is part of an elaborate hoax of which the mastermind appears to be [email protected], who uses an alternate account and several anonymous users to perpetrate. Other related AfDs under this hoax include 4 Comics, Asad TV, Jack Popat, Glass the Land and Thenomo. As you can see, he is rather elaborate in this hoax. I prod'ded this but it was removed by an anonymous user. Please delete this and all the other articles quickly. Danny Lilithborne 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete [email protected] has only created hoax articles which have no references or sources. Seems like he has a wild imagination --Ageo020 04:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author's hoax history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Kill this hoax so fast you make our heads spin. Doczilla 07:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't confuse me by saying the AfD is a hoax. I don't care whether the AfD is a hoax or not, the articles are still crap. Bustter 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whoops, fixed ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy all hoaxes. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — die hoax, die American Patriot 1776 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egameaddiction.com[edit]

Another non-notable website; fails WP:WEB and WP:ADS guidelines. Alexa ranking of 707,331 [11]. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Fist (film)[edit]

Article is about a film that is rumored but does not contain any sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Chris Griswold 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is imdb a valid source? - [12]. Hammer Raccoon 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB is generally not considered a good source for this sort of information. Lion's Gate did give a press release when they acquired the film, but this was two years ago.[13] Avi Arad confirmed it to be in development[14] also in 2004, but even then it was considered a "low priority". Superherohype (don't know how reliable it is, or not) [15] claimed Ray Park said last year it was still in development. It's hard to say if this movie is still truly being made, but there hasn't been any statement it's been cancelled, either. --SevereTireDamage 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a rumor mill. Doczilla 07:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (Actually, make that speedy delete!) Doczilla 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When film projects die, nobody issues a press release. and even when a project is dead as a doornail, all it takes is money to bring it back to life. No crystal ball here. Bustter 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If and when it begins filming a new article can be created, with no loss given the super-stubby nature of the current article -Markeer 15:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This movie will get made. Marvel wants to make tons of movies using these characters and yes Iron Fist is one of them. Briaboru
Merge to the entry on the comic book until the film actually enters pre-production. -Sean Curtin 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Stewart[edit]

3 month old stub article about city council politician, but who has spoken out on a lot of issues relatin g to education, poverty and race. and one of many democrats who have given platform to Robert Mugabe Does not appear particularly notable. Perhaps having been ruled by The NYC campaign Finance Board to return $10,144 in campaign subventions also helps. I put him to the vote. Ohconfucius 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — has enough notability, but the article needs to be greatly expanded American Patriot 1776 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City council members are not notable. RedRollerskate 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Mukadderat 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politicvs[edit]

This article seems to be more of a homepage than an encyclopedic article. I've asked Tolukian (talk · contribs), the article's creator, to address the original research issue. This has not happened. According to the article, the article is the group's website. From what I've seen, this article violates WP:OR and WP:NOT, and possibly WP:NPOV. BigNate37_(T) 05:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this article belongs on Wikipedia and as such I nominate it for deletion. BigNate37_(T) 05:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. (911Ghits) An individual student-union type establishment within a university does not appear to meet criteria for notability (with one or two notable exceptions eg Oxford Union). Unsourced, may violate WP:V. Ohconfucius 06:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Although this maybe unnotable, i've seen articles about student orgs throughout wikipedia. the problem here is that this is unsourced. --Howard the Duck 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of this discussion has been added at the Filipino Wikipedians notice board. --Howard the Duck 12:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if its vain, keep if it is notable, don't wana flood wikipedia w/ all the student orgs of the world. Let's ask User:Tolukian the one responsible for starting it. :) --Noypi380 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tolukian (talk · contribs) has not responded to my ~~two requests~~ request for his attention, which was to address policy issues with Politicvs. I've asked Tolukian to come to this discussion and respond to the concerns expressed. To me the fact that the Wikipedia article lists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicvs as the group's official website shows that this group is using Wikipedia as a hosting service. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a free webhost. BigNate37_(T) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that, and the info below, strong delete :) --Noypi380 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable, only 73 members and founded less than a month ago, couldn't find any external information Canadian-Bacon ^(contribs) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn yet. Mukadderat 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Numbers are roughly evenly split either way. However, AfD is not a vote, and there is certainly a large burden of argument to show that a fast food restaurant's menu is something that belongs in an encyclopaedia. The essential points of the argument that it does belong in an encyclopaedia are:

it includes information that isn't available elsewhere (i.e. discontinued items). If it isn't available elsewhere, then it isn't verifiable, and it doesn't belong here. I acknowledge that this isn't an argument that has been discussed fully below, as it ideally would be, but verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of writing an encyclopaedia and I consider it more important than any potential argument for me not to consider it.
RFerreira's argument that someone may wish to read a Taco Bell menu who doesn't have access to a Taco Bell or the Internet. I believe Wikipediatrix and JIP have the weight of argument, in that the only purpose of reading a menu is so one may order food from it; conversely, no-one would wish to read a Taco Bell menu when they have no opportunity to order food from Taco Bell.
There are also numerous keep arguments with little bearing on policy, along the lines of "it's useful" (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - of course it's useful, that's why you'll find this information nailed up in Taco Bell or on their website, but that's not a reason to include it in an encyclopaedia), appeals to precedent (no such thing here), appeals to WP:POKEMON, and appeals to the incomprehensible (I've no idea why this is "important for culture").

It's a fast food menu, with a liberal seasoning of unverifiable trivia. The argument needed to show that a menu is somehow an encyclopaedia article isn't present here. I expect this to be a controversial close, but AfD is not a vote, and I see no way to summarise the arguments in a way that makes this out to be an encyclopaedia article. Delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Bell menu[edit]

This article is nothing more than a copy of Taco Bell's menu. I don't see any encyclopedic benefit, especially since our readers can be better informed/kept up to date by just linking to the menu on their website. See also, WP:NPS. --Hetar 05:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not explicitly under WP:NOT, but nothing but a chunk of list information that is tantamount more to a recipe. Don't need article dedicated to menus. Anything encyclopedic can be in Taco Bell. Kevin_b_er 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taco Bell . —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 07:01Z
Merge into Taco Bell. The list of ingredients bulks out the article, giving the impression that there's more content here than there actually is. A shorter version of the menu could be easily incorporated into the main article. --Mako 07:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be advertisement. Doczilla 07:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move content to Taco Bell. --TheM62Manchester 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Taco Bell's own website is not as comprehensive. Discontinued items are not listed there. Skeletor2112 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep potentially useful, merge to the Taco Bell article. - Patman2648 10:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Taco Bell Konman72 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to /dev/null per WP:Whisky Tango Foxtrot WilyD 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This has useful information, especially since it includes discontinued and seasonal items--not all this is available on Taco Bell's website. The article doesn't read like an advertisement or recipe to me at all. Ryanminier 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge, then delete: a mere recitation of facts that are, in any case, under continual change. We don't have a copy of the telephone book online, and we don't need a copy of the menu of every restaurant in the world. A mention of any particularly notable dishes can be merged into Taco Bell; the rest should go. -- The Anome 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really can't stand it when people pull out WP:NOT for every AfD discussion, but honestly, Wikipedia is not a menu. AdamBiswanger1 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Taco Bell. --Gray Porpoise 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertising, because the significance of each menu item is not established, nor is any attempt made at doing so. Cdcon 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something that would be out of date evertime Taco Bell does something new. How would maintain it? Let me guess - The Category:Wikipedians who eat at Taco Bell? JungleCat talk/contrib 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, not all Taco Bell locations have the same menu. wikipediatrix 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge -- Taco Bell is notable enough that we should be able to document their menu items here. RFerreira 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why should Wikipedia cover Taco Bell's menu? If you want Taco Bell's menu, go to Taco Bell. JIP | Talk 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As you should know, that is not economically feasible for all of our readers. RFerreira 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Hmmmm, how much does it cost to go to Taco Bell and look at their menu in your hometown? It's free in mine. The question's moot anyhow, because you don't actually have to go a Taco Bell to read their menu, it's freely available elsewhere online. wikipediatrix 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sarcasm won't take you far. You are incorrectly making the assumption that there is a Taco Bell in every country and that everyone who reads Wikipedia is connected to the internet. There are several projects, both complete and underway, which aim to provide Wikipedia in an electronic but off-line format.RFerreira 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was completely serious. Sorry you misinterpreted it as sarcasm. And I thought it went without saying that I obviously was referring to those who lived near a Taco Bell. I don't think anyone would bother traveling to another city or country simply to look at a menu! And I really don't think it's Wikipedia's problem if not everyone has internet access, especially for learning about Taco Bell's Zesty Chicken Border Bowl. wikipediatrix 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - There indeed aren't Taco Bells in every country. There aren't any in mine, for example. But still, why should I care about the menu of a restaurant? It's not as if I can order food from Taco Bell through Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please too big to merge see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items discussion Yuckfoo 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yuckfoo. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my prior rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a joke, menu items don't belong here. RobJ1981 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article already provides useful information. To be more viable I think it should include a history, or a nutrition section. The need for this article is definitely there. Since when did we delete articles for lacking information. Besides the menu on the Taco Bell site does not have near the information.Epachamo 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely pointless and unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the list of ingredients is excessive, the "discontinued items" is worthwhile and maybe discussion of how the menu has changed over time. Also, are there any menu items specific to certain regions, as there are with McDonalds? Lastly, I'm trying to get on tacobell.com and it's requiring me to upgrade my "flash player", which I care not to. Instead, I get a 404 error page. At least Wikipedia doesn't require proprietary software to view articles such as this. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Massively unencyclopedic, wikipedia is not an advertisement. -- pm_shef 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WTF indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable. Varies over place and time, no context. By all means merge anything you want to anywhere appropriate. Dlyons493 Talk 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, unmaintainable. —tregoweth (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important for culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanHalen (talk • contribs)
Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The appropriate standard is WP:NOT, not WP:Think Outside The Bun. - David Oberst 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important menu items with Taco Bell - Enzo Aquarius 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Expandable and useful with more info not available elsewhere (as long as it's sourced) such as in the Other Items section or McDonald's menu items#International variations. TransUtopian 03:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AudeVivere, the discontinued items argument is most convincing, and we have a similar list for McDonalds menu items. Yamaguchi先生 08:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi先生. Ifnord 17:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Market (Washington)[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) Jon513 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. establish notability or delete HomeTOWNboy 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe Central Market (Washington) is a meets the Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) criterea since a quick news search showed several articles from major newspapers covering it in detail: ("Store Wars" by Jake Batsell. Seattle Times. Nov 23, 2003. pg. A.1, "Once Exotic Foods Now More Accessible" by John Owen. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Mar 31, 2004. pg. E.2; these should be available through Lexis-Nexis from your local public library's website). I know my stub article has little detail, I hope like many Wikipedia articles others will expand it. To explain why I created it, I visited a sister-in-law in Texas and we went to Central Market (Texas) and so I did a little research about the two (WHOIS records, etc.). When I saw the Wikipedia page on the Texas one I thought I should create a corresponding page. I have no connection to the company and the article is obviously not advertising. In other words, this is precisely the sort of article people go to Wikipedia to look for. Additionally, if you don't agree that Central Market (Washington) is notable, the Central Market (Texas) article should also be market for deletion (it is also a small chain operating only in one area). --Joshuadfranklin 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small chain operating around one city; fails WP:CORP. BlueValour 03:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - WP:CORP makes no mention of small chains; many others are notable, such as Powell's Books or Harrods. --Joshuadfranklin 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would add that the article makes no assertion of notability. BlueValour 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - Again, WP:CORP has no requirement for "assertion of notability", or even a description of what constitutes an assertion. --Joshuadfranklin 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since 5 days was up and the only objections were for "notability" (please read this) I've removed the AfD and linked this discussion on the talk page. --Joshuadfranklin
Important - The AfD was improperly removed by Joshuadfranklin against Wikipedia policy and hampering this discussion. BlueValour 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - Since it has been over 5 days I simply followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_process which states "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE), remove the AFD Header from the article." --Joshuadfranklin 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The decision, as you well know, is that of the closing admin who may extend the consultative period if they judge appropriate. If you remove it again, it will be deemed vandalism, and it will be referred to RFC. BlueValour 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further, placing messages on Users talk pages such as [16] and [17] presumably in the hope of gaining support is an unacceptable practice which, again, hinders the AfD process. BlueValour 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - This is the first time I have dealt with the AfD process, I see now that Wikipedia:Deletion_process says clearly that it should be done by an admin. Unfortunately I missed that earlier. I am trying my best to follow the policies but I would appreciate a helpful reminder rather than harsh words. As for the talk pages, I was responding to a message left on my talk page about this article: [18]. I was not aware that discussing the AfD process via talk pages was "an unacceptable practice". Additionally, I was not trying to gain support; those users wanted to delete the article, so I wanted to hear their response to my argument. So far I have not heard any explanation of why it does not meet WP:CORP#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations criterea 1. I have already found non-trivial coverage in major newspapers. --Joshuadfranklin 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Central Market grocery store chain in Washington State is probably less notable than the Central Market that operates in Washington, D.C. -- that market, a landmark that was once one of a series of city-owned marketplaces in D.C., is of some historical interest.(Corrected my original comment -- Central Market is not still active, it is Eastern Market, Washington, D.C. that is still active. But both are of historical interest. My point is that, if kept, Central Market (Washington) should disambiguate the similar, equally-or-more notable case in D.C. zowie 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability not asserted. Does not seem to be a location, historic or otherwise per Eastern Market, Washington, D.C.. There is ingherently nothing special about a grocery shop which operates in Wahington state and which refuses to participate in mass mailings. CM's own website mentions 3 outlets but no mention of size. I also nominate Town and Country Markets for a similar fate per WP:CORP. Certainly no point is served having both entries. Delete both per WP:CORP. Ohconfucius 06:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all grocery chains do mass mailings, I would think that refusal was notable. I have no problem merging with the Town and Country Markets article. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't located the article, cited by Joshuadfranklin above, in The Seattle Times' archive. But there are 3 paragraphs on Central Market in this article. Uncle G 10:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is the "Store Wars" article, thanks for finding it online. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Washington outfit but definitely keep the Texas chain...the Texas chain's fifth outlet is 75,000 sq ft, and grocery trades have written several articles about their toe-to-toe battle with Whole Foods. No such buzz on the Washington chain, though that could change in time....right now too small.

This page from the construction company says the Mill Creek store is 56,000 sq ft: [19] (it also has a nice picture). Not sure why size of store is an issue, though. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Town and Country Markets. BlueValour 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability not a problem. Small, but mostly harmless article. Cdcon 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability /is/ a problem - if you wish it kept please specify how it meets WP:CORP. BlueValour 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joshuadfranklin explained how it did above. JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No he hasn't. He's claimed multi-major paper coverage but not produced any. BlueValour 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP only specifies that the references need to exist; it doesn't mean that they need to be produced. Since they're cited in the article, I don't see any problem. JYolkowski // talk 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is surreal! We don't know what they say so how can we base anything on them? Even if they do mention this chain, passing reference in local papers doean't meet the case. BlueValour 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also see that the Mill_Creek, Washington article says "home to Central Market, probably Mill Creek's largest and most popular grocery store, even attracting people from other cities to shop there. At Central Market, small bands play on Saturday afternoons while the store serves barbeque chicken and green beans to the residents." This was added back in July, before this AfD discussion, and not by me: [20]. --Joshuadfranklin 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any number of cities around the world are going to have similar types of stores, and a small group of three in the Seattle area is not in itself notable. If WP:CORP is to have any meaning at all, size, distinctiveness, notability outside its local trading area, or some sort of encyclopedic justification is surely required, which does not seem to be present here. With respect, I believe that some of the Keep voters may be confusing "verifiable" with "notable", which in turn is not the same as "mentioned in local papers in the normal course of business".

User:Joshuadfranklin's examples are unfortunate choices for his argument. The Powell's Books article informs me that the main store "is the largest independent bookstore in the United States.", and it would appear to have been something of a pioneer in online book retailing. These are the sorts of things which establish notability, whereas the stores in question do not seem exceptional in any way. The Central Market (Texas) chain has 8 (larger) stores, and is part of a 300-store regional grocery outfit. The article also tells me the Austin stores combine to be the second largest tourist draw there, which again contributes to notability (unless it is an indication of a dearth of other attractions in Austin). Harrods is of course an internationally known name with notability to burn.

Town and Country Markets should definitely be deleted (redirected if this article should survive AfD), as the corporation and the three smaller stores are even less notable. - David Oberst 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (working around those asked to come here to 'vote'). Ian¹³ /t 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TPWW[edit]

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

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

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

Doesn't look notable to me, especially given the inactive periods mentioned in the article. I could use some more opinions, though. --Spring Rubber 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destor (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2006

I don't think it needs to be deleted. James

Weak delete - the number of users may make it notable (not sure if there's a threshhold number), but it just doesn't feel notable. BigHaz 08:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's one of the most long-standing and popular wrestling sites on the Internet. and was even in a book. --MikeMetaled 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is JT, a poster at the site and I was the one who started the article. There is much more about the site then what was mentioned, but I have left it to other members of the site (as well as visitors) to add their own input to the article. The site has been around for a total of 8 years, and does have a following notable enough among wrestling fans and smarks to be on Wikipedia. I actually started this article after looking up TPWW on Wikipedia and decided to start my own when I couldn't find one. Also, there is much more about TPWW then what I mentioned (popular articles, other trademarks), but have left it open to more knowledgable people to add to the article...and it will take more than one day (which is less then the amount of time given to the article before the deletion notice) to build it up. jayteecool 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note the inactive period of time...the site was never inactive. I mentioned the slowdown of the site to note the impact of the forums community which became even more popular during this period and lead to the revival of the news & column section, as well as other areas of the site. Also during the time, the forums led to some of the most popular staples of the site which were created on the forums. jayteecool 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a big forum; it has about 400 active users. PTWC 7:02 5 August 2006

Also, it was listed on DirectTV's top 100 websites in 2000.

Very popular and noteworthy site. Keep it.
Weak Keep The notable posters part needs to go, however. Danny Lilithborne 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep.

An excellent web site, I made changes to a few things on the page as per suggestions made, and cleaned up the grammar and spelling errors. It is definitely an entry worthy of keeping around as TPWW is certainly one of the most popular wrestling websites on the internet today. -Shaved Munkey

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 153,185 [21]; has not been mention in any majoy media sources (no evidence of being mentioned by DirectTV); and 39 Google results [22].--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the evidence of the DirectTV mention. [23] --MikeMetaled 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Definitely non-notable 203.45.253.41 13:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I have to say this so often that I should write an essay about it. Forums have a very high standard for notability on Wikipedia. They must not only be popular, but have a reason for notability outside of the fact that they are a popular forum. My classic example is that of EVE Online, which has a forum with over a hundred thousand active members, over 370,000 threads, an Alexa rank of 5000, and millions of posts, yet it doesn't even get a mention anywhere in Wikipedia, even in the EVE Online article. Why? Its just not notable. There's no reason someone outside of the EVE Online community would have heard of it. Thus, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unencyclopedic article (bordering on advertisement) for a seemingly non-notable site (which, as User:PTWC stated above, only has 400 active members). Its Alexa rank is an unencouraging 153,185. -- Kicking222 11:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per active member count, Alexa rank, no references, etc etc etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
Delete fails WP:OR, WP:Websites with Alexa rankings below 100 000 really need some sort of importance to get articles , what have you. WilyD 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem to be notable - but that's coming from my perspective. I'm sure the only people who would ordinarily come in contact with this article would feel differently. Small, but mostly harmless articles should be kept. Cdcon 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise WP:SPAM is only a guideline, not a policy, but it really makes a lot of sense. WilyD 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is whether or not its a vanity page. That's the only spam criterion it might trigger. I see the article as a good-faith, not-vanity attempt, but I can understand if you feel differently. Cdcon 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be both made in good faith and spam, it merely requires the creator not to realise that Wikipedia is an attempt to build an encyclopaedia, rather than free web hosting for their non-encyclopaedic content. WilyD 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above well-stated arguments. Wickethewok 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, article fails to establish independent relaible sources giving the site non-trivial coverage.-- danntm ^T _C 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also ask why people are so convinced this is an advertisement when the site has been around and established for 8 years, with several new members every day. It clearly doesn't need to be advertised, we just want a notable website acknowledged. MikeMetaled 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a notable website, than surely you can ferry it past WP:WEB and shepard it past WP:V - until then, I'll have to argue for deletion as WP:DUCK tells me it fails WP:VAIN or WP:SPAM, but most importantly WP:V WilyD 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, Neutral and verifiable RaveenS
Delete per WP:WEB, Mukadderat

Keep A site that has no signs of slowing down. The forums are huge and so is the actual website. The article is pretty much harmless.

Bullshit that this got erased. There is some crap on Wikipedia and this couldn't crack it?

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Johnson[edit]

Notability of the subject is not asserted, and I challenge her notability. Not to be confused with Alderman from Newton, Mass ; Denver city councillor ; or indeed Professor of Laws at Texas southern University. See her fuller bio here. Actress turned playwright, with a few small parts on TV and stage. Ohconfucius 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO test for notable actors. Google test ambiguous given mulitple Marcia Johnsons out there. Fairsing 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The combination of actor and playwright credentials adds up to notability for me. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mukadderat 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily kept, nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickalene Thomas[edit]

delete per WP:V, WP:AUTO. Asserts notability with "having exhibited nationally" is hardly adequate. Seems to be up and coming artist but still failing WP:NN 853 Ghits. I also nominate her redirect page Mickalene thomas for deletion Ohconfucius 05:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep even if notability were established as a guideline, there's some question here of what constitutes notability. I have only one friend who makes a living at fine art (knew a lot more who tried and failed), he started working seriously at 19 and he was 30 before his first gallery show. His works sell for far more than I can afford now -- BUT you can't find him anywhere on the web but his own website....check this out if you will 853 Ghits? that's plenty. Mickalene's work is easily found through a Google image search, and none of it seems to be self-hosted or on vanity sites like deviantart. Bustter 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it began as autobiography, it seems reasonably neutral in tone. Getting a solo show is something of a coup, and she was apparently an artist-in-residence at the Studio Museum in Harlem.[24] I think she's notable enough to pass. Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep per above. As an artist myself, I know the difficulty of starting up and the difficulty of being accepted by any gallery. I have had three solo shows, but all in one city - being recognised enough to have been exhibited nationally is a fairly sizeable achievement. And, as said above, Google doesn't often pick up artists below a fair level opf fame except through sites like Deviantart. Grutness...wha? 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable-enough artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD withdrawn for a speedy close. Ohconfucius 13:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gilbert[edit]

Unelected political candidate; article was speedied a few times, but author has protested. Does not meet any WP:BIO criteria as far as I can tell. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I think 0.9% of the vote in a district of 20,000 people says it all. michael ^talk 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author adds more information. He claimed on his user page that Gilbert "makes (some) valid points against Kris Hanna," which could make the page worthwhile. Give him a chance to expand it before deletion. Garrepi 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Making good points" does not establish WP:Notability. The issue is whether the subject meets WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage" - maybe allegations against Hanna made headlines and turned the voters off? I know nothing about this guy, but it seems like the author should have time to prove his case. Note that I favor delete if notability is not established. Garrepi 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The page has been updated with more info, there's no possible way it can be considered too lacking in content now in comparison to other 2006 SA election articles. And by the way michael, it's not about the 0.9% that means he should get the page, I think it's his direct opposition to the sitting independent in that electorate that is the reason why. Timeshift 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment At the risk of encouraging another indentation, can you provide examples of press coverage that he has received regarding this opposition? I oppose a number of politicians myself, but a page about my views does not belong on Wikipedia. The fact that he got .9% of the vote (~180, apparently) makes him look non-notable. Garrepi 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment You're kidding me... now we have to quote the PRESS to make an article worthy? Of course he's not gonna make the press, he's a green independent ffs! Have you run as an independent against a popular re-elected independent? If so, please add an article of your own. You know what, No Rodeo never made the press either. We'd better delete them too. Why not just go on a wikipedia-wide whichhunt and delete every article that didn't make the press. ffs, all I try to do is improve wikipedia and I get jumped on. Why do I even bother. Timeshift 06:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. You have to demonstrate that someone other than the subject himself has written and published something non-trivial about him. Candidates for elected office are generally considered notable if they (a) win or (b) lose but do so in a fashion spectacular enough to cause non-trival press coverage. Candidates about which nothing is written apart from a single row in an election results table should be represented in Wikipedia in the same way: as a single row of an election results table in (say) Electoral district of Mitchell (South Australia) (see Reading West (UK Parliament constituency) for an example). Uncle G 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A combination of a poor poll result and the fact that we need independent coverage conspires against him. "Direct opposition" in a political sense is also a bit of a vague term, and doesn't amount to notability. BigHaz 06:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability for someone with 180 votes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-10 06:57Z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mako 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of verifiable claims to notability. One article in The Advertiser seems to mention him, but the good folk at news.com.au aren't hosting it any more. Are there any other sources that the author could use to verify notability? --Mako 07:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete per WP:NN. Subject not notable at all. No notability asserted in the article. per WP:VAIN Sources are all the subject's own web pages.Ohconfucius 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 23 hits on an Australia New Zealand database which are relevant to him. Against that, he got less than 1% of the vote in his electorate.Capitalistroadster 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a delete to me, but I would be interested in what sort of mentions he gets in the hits Capitalistroadster found. JPD (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the person becomes more notable. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or Delete. Advertising, because all links are not independently sourced. Could be made into a better article if good sources of biographical information can be found. Cdcon 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If this article is extensively rewritten in such a way that notability is expressed, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will reconsider. RFerreira 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Roisterer 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Mukadderat 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Kooyman[edit]

Vanity. Find no signs of notability to meet WP:BIO. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NN. The subject may qualify for an entry into her class yearbook, though. Ohconfucius 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertabase Pro[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Does not meet WP:CORP Sleepyhead 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP/WP:SPAM. --Porqin 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would very much welcome any suggestions on making the entry conform to Wikipedia guidelines. There are many entries on companies and their products. I'm unclear as to why this is up for deletion. The entry is not an endorsement but provides information. Thank you for any help or clarification.

Comment Suggest you first have a read of Wikipedia:Notability_(software). On the face of it, the software doesn't seem to meet these criteria. Dlyons493 Talk 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Mukadderat 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SplendidCRM[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Does not meet WP:CORP Sleepyhead 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. --Porqin 12:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied (Liberatore, 2006). 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Anscomb[edit]

Vanity. No content expept name and link to internal PDF of users resume. Does not meet WP:BIO. Also recomment deletion of resume Image:July Resume.pdf WP:NOT A free host. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we're also not "Who's Who in the Legal Profession" for that matter. BigHaz 07:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty and made it a userpage - as it is apparently User:Banscomb writing his autobiography. The redirects in the main namespace should however be deleted. andy 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mastadex Hero Editor[edit]

This non-notable character editor for Diablo II survived a previous AfD nomination in March 2006, mainly due to lack of interest. You can see the nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastadex Hero Editor.

I'm relisting it today in hopes of attracting a few more editors to the AfD. The article is non-notable and vanity. Receives only 160 unique Google hits, where "Jamella Editor" gets more than 10000 (and we don't have an article on that!). Also, fails to pass ANY of the points in WP:SOFTWARE. Frankly, I don't think we need this article more than we need an article about all the test programs I've created in my career... Sarg 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete to take a weight off your back Bustter 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, doesn't look too good. I'm surprised to hear that Jamella doesn't have an article though; seems more like a missing page than a reason to delete this one. Icewolf34 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable cheat program. FWIW, back in the 1990s, I used to write a couple of these, albeit for simpler games... One game's hiscore file even said "don't even think about messing with these!" but it was surprisingly easy to reverse engineer. JIP | Talk 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Character editor -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been up for merging for quite a while: I wrote the character editor article just because this article "survived" AfD and felt this might be worth mentioning in an article about the generic concept. No one has bothered to merge it so far - and even I couldn't, considering how few "interesting" features this generally non-notable software has... It's just a character editor that's utterly unremarkable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said in previous AfD. Just not notable enough and there's little interesting stuff to be said about it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key MBTA bus routes[edit]

delete per WP:NOT. wiki is not a directory of information on public transport. More relevant, up to date and accurate information is always available directly from the transport authority. Wiki adds no value by being a repository of this brainlessly copied information on routes, itineraries from the operator. Ohconfucius 11:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Porqin 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination does not describe the article, which includes history as streetcars and trackless trolleys. This merged article was created as an alternative to a separate article for each route. These routes have a long history with relatively few changes. --SPUI (T - C) 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a bag of crapPlowright 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SPUI's comments. Bus lines, with enough history to make notable, is worthy of WP's coverage, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1. I don't see anything brainless about this article, the histories of each bus route are usually not available via any transportation authority. hateless 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable and better than 15 stub articles on each individual route. JYolkowski // talk 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the formatting of the article may not be superb, it hatelss incdicated, provides more depth on significant Boston-area bus routes than one is likely to be able to readily find from the MBTA website, and it is (as indicated by JYolkowski) much better than a bunch of short, separate articles on each bus route. Thus, this article provides deeper coverage--than likely available from MBTA--of significant bus routes in one single, unified article.-- danntm ^T _C 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable history and priority information not readily available from the operator. Fg2 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Try an article describing why buses form an essential element of public transport in Massachusetts Bay. Ga rr ie 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per danntm. Although I agree this needs a cleanup. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines[edit]

delete per WP:NOT. wiki is not a directory of information on buses, trams, municipal railways. WIki adds no value by being a repository of this information. More relevant, up to date and accurate information is always available directly from the transport authority. The need for some wikipedian to brainlessly copy info on routes, itineraries from same would be obviated. Ohconfucius 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Porqin 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metro and cable car lines are undeniably "notable". The others, in their present form, may not be. --SPUI (T - C) 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not the most exciting or original article, but it does serve a purpose nonetheless. This list provides an useful and unified annotated complitation of Muni routes, including notable rail lines and San Francisco's famous cable car lines, with links to related WP articles. I doubt Muni's website will provide links to WP articles. Including bus lines in the list has the added bonus of discouraging the creation of separate articles on bus routes with no inherent notability.-- danntm ^T _C 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does add value to Wikipedia, and is plausibly useful. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information, so fails WP:NOT. A description of the areas serviced, and a link to the operator's website (where there is detailed route information) should be given in Muni Metro. --Mako 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not indiscriminate, at least some of these are notable, relatively static, and expandable, with photographs, history, and additional information. If nothing else the links to the districts served add value. Deco 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not indiscriminate collection of information and useful. JYolkowski // talk 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only grounds for inclusion of a route in this list seems to be that it exists, with no other criteria (apparently) being used. Isn't that what "indiscriminate" means? Mako 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- Necrothesp 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Adrian Lamo. --physicq210 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote To declare the editors of the article "brainless" would be to implicate me and a previous editor (Octoferret) as "brainless" editors. --physicq210 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable information. This is what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia of a sort that paper encyclopedias cannot be. Fg2 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep train lines and the like are useful information. I know the train lines in and around London have articles and I like them with my user hat on. I'd be more incined to recommend delete were it buses but trains and metros are notable and fairly fixed so should be retained. MLA 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all keep reasons above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an extremely useful and well-organized guide to railway operations in San Francisco. There is absolutely nothing in WP:NOT that states that " wiki is not a directory of information on buses, trams, municipal railways." This appears to be the nominator's original research, contrary to WP:OR. Alansohn 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy James Mee[edit]

I am surprised this didn't happen sooner.

This is guy is notable why?? --Tom 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's an article on this guy, someone must have also created one on the female deputy. Might want to target that one, too. Fan-1967 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean sugar tits?? IAM KIDDING I AM KIDDING!! Wouldn't surprise me--Tom 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)...[reply]

You, know, I actually typed that, but thought better of it. (My wife told me what would happen if I ever called her that.) Fan-1967 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think there is no point in having a page about the arresting officer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.47.204 (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep per WP:BIO "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." He scores 111,000 Google hits. It appears he meets criteria, it appears to be a newsworthy event. However, it also may seem logical to merge this to the events article. --Porqin 12:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidline says "in newsworthy events". It does not say "in a newsworthy event". Fan-1967 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it is fair to assume that it reads as only more than one event. --Porqin 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the guy gets 1100 Google News hits. I'm not sure Socrates would ... WilyD 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as his only notability is in the context of the Mel Gibson DUI incident, and thus should be included there. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kinu - his notability is by association, the article will never be more than a stub and while he may pass the google test he fails other of the alternative tests of WP:BIO such as Expandability and the 100 year test. Yomangani 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect he could go on a game show, or pose in a gay pinup mag, but there's no crystal ball at hand. Bustter 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate the "google hits" lithmith(sp) test. This is THE perfect example of it NOT working. This guy just HAPPENED to be the guy that busted Gibson, it could have been ANY one of the ??? number(how many LAPD officers are there?) out there. --Tom 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy didn't only pass the "google hits" test. He also passed the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" notability guideline. Also, whether or not some other deputy could have arrested Mel Gibson is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. (Note: The title Deputy is not used by police departments, therefore LAPD wasn't involved in this situation.) --Porqin 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out, this was ONE event, NOT event(s). Also, deputy, LAPD, Malibu dog catcher, this guy is STILL not notable. Besides being the arresting officer of a famous drunk guy who spewed hate, anything else we should know about this person? Thanks --Tom 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - He paththed the tethtth, but if there is nothing more to be added to hith biography (and there might not be) then there ith no reason it could not be merged into elthwhere. And nobody lithpth ath bad ath I uthed to. Badbilltucker 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not enough independent notability to be placed separate from Mel Gibson article. Cdcon 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mel Gibson DUI incident -- he may be involved in newsworthy events, but I doubt we'll find anyone coming to Wikipedia for insights on his life & times. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. --Merovingian - Talk 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable police officer who happened to arrest a famous person while doing his job. So what? -- Necrothesp 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing whether he merits notability, rather than whether he has notability. He's been the subject of extensive press coverage, regardless of whether he earned it. WilyD 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make him notable. A police officer may be in the media a lot because he's a spokesman on a major murder case. That doesn't make him notable, just the case he's commenting on. Same here. No reason there shouldn't be a redirect, but he certainly doesn't deserve his own article. -- Necrothesp 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers involved in incidents like this are common, and soon forgotten. Remember Paul Kramer? I didn't think so. His name isn't even mentioned in the celebrity's article. Fan-1967 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the first cultural event I remember is the fall of the Berlin Wall ... but it's beside the point. The assertions that he's not notable are making value judgements about whether all the press coverage gives him merit or merely fame. I'm unwilling to make such a distinction, under WP:NPOV WilyD 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the victims of the World Trade Center bombings or the London Underground bombings have been listed numerous times in the media too (each of the London victims has a whole-page obituary on the BBC News website). The names of all the British and American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are listed in the media. Does that mean they should all have articles? All of them? No, of course it doesn't. I fail to see what the difference is here. -- Necrothesp 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. deputy of police who's just dooin a job. but will be on Mel Gibson's record forever. There are always those who think that a few column inches is worthy of a page in Wiki, but I beg to disagree. Here today, gone tomorrow. not notable [hic]. or merge. or have another whisky ;-) Ohconfucius 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:V what elese you want RaveenS
Delete can't expand much past Mel incident. The Kids Aren't Alright 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - I'd say merge, but there's nothing here, so just chuck it. Keppa 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. —Psychonaut 01:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; merge with the article about Mel Gibson's DUI incident.
Keep per Porqin. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mel Gibson DUI incident article. --FlyingPenguins 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not individually notable. Zaxem 08:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be recreated when he writes a bestseller "Mel and Mee". JFW | T@lk 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable by association doesn't cut it when this is all there is to make an article. -AED 13:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nandesuka 16:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Tyrrell[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:VAIN. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Griffin. --Karnesky 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Tyrrell is a notable psychologist. He has published a at least 18 books (including co-writing Nick Leeson's book, Back from the Brink: Coping with Stress [25] [26]). BBC News cites him as an "expert"[27], he has been interviewed by The Washington Times [28], New Scientist has reviewed at least one of his books [29], the Auckland library has 3 copies of one of his books[30], 10 books he wrote or co-wrote are in the British Library [31]. He has also written for the British Holistic Medical Association [32]. There's more out there if anyone wants to look. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Joe Griffin was deleted. That libraries contain books is really irrelevant. His interview and reviews might lend more to his notability, but Jod Griffin has similar credentials. Given that this article is autobiographical, I think there should be a larger threshold for WP:N. I don't see him meeting that threshold. --Karnesky 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Joe Griffin was deleted. I'm going to take it to deletion review because I think it was a mistake. The articles need to be edited, expanded and referenced, not deleted. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then merge key facts into Human givens. What bothers me about this article, and about Himan givens, is that there is no independent sourcing, reviewing or endorsement from the mainstream. BlueValour 02:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, "Delete and Merge" is not a valid option. If you want to merge, you need to keep the source of the merged material as a redirect in order to preserve the GDFL chain. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't see that subject is sufficiently notable. Pathlessdesert 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not a problem. Please expand this article, so it is not just a CV and therefore, advertising. Cdcon 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A lot of the references in the article seem to be non-peer reviewed. But Google Scholar does turn up copies of one book in libraries States#tabs. Merge into Human givens sounds plausible but I think that's likely to be less known than Tyrrell and maybe should be on AfD itself. Dlyons493 Talk 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Google Scholoar results discovered by Dlyons493. RFerreira 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Pomeroy[edit]

Julia Pomeroy's page in Wikipedia is solid. She might not be Marilyn Monroe or Sylvia Plath, but since when did Wikipedia become an index of only the most famous (or most tragic) people. Pomeroy is a SAG actor, as well as a published author. Her film "Over The Edge" is considered by many to be a cult classic. There are a lot of people who might be interested in reading something about Pomeroy in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is the perfect vehicle for publishing information on niche individuals and esoteric topics. Julia Pomeroy's page should stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inner City Teacher (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 August 2006 Note: This comment was made by the articles author.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This author appears to meet WP:BIO per her book The Dark End of Town. --Porqin 11:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough, and I've wikified the article. -- Whpq 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — works for me American Patriot 1776 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Region Free Xbox Games[edit]

No references and wikipedia is not original research. AStaralfur 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not cited and is orginal research. --Porqin 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually do not believe this qualifies as original research under WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources; the games themselves are the primary source, so I don't think simply popping the game into Xboxes from various regions qualifies as OR. -- Kicking222 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Work on Citation ~~Prod~~. I think that it would be very easy to cite this properly and make it a useful list-based resource. - Thorne N. Melcher 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worthless unless you can reference a credible source verifying the list. If you can do it, fine, but it would seem difficult given the legal climate regarding this issue as well as the size of the list. Cdcon 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unless sources are given. Also, what's a Region Free X-box game? American Patriot 1776 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifying this is as simple as inserting the appropriate game into the appropriate console. These materials are not freely available, but then neither are many publications. Not all reliable sources are words on paper. Is this OR? Maybe, I'm not sure. Deco 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nope, that way of verification is original research by definition. -- Koffieyahoo 00:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is unfortunately original research because their region-free property is almost always obscured. It's not a developer credit, fictional character or plot summary, these things can be sourced from the original medium. Finding reliable sources for all individual titles to prove they are region-free may be difficult. For instance, this GameSpot article[33] discusses that the Japanese version of Street Fighter Anniversary Collection was intentionally region-free. This sort of thing could be used. I do have a question though - can an established retailer, such as Lik Sang or Play-Asia, be used as a source, since they seem to have done the research and mark their region-specific games as region-free when applicable? --SevereTireDamage 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment is would guess that would count as a primary source, so in that sense yes. However, it is not a very reputable primary, as it is a retailer. -- Koffieyahoo 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR It's not particularly encyclopedic even if you could source it. Ace of Sevens 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that region free games are the exception rather than the rule in home console games. As for the claim of original research, the works in question are the source. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding nom. Combination 18:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per. Dread Lord CyberSkull. Havok (T/C/c) 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above --Peephole 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it certainly looks to be OR, and no attempt has been made to provide references from a reliable source. -- Mako 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and previous decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding. --Satori Son 04:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic War (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Pure plot summary describing the background of the Warhammer 40K miniatures game. This plot summary doesn't actually go with any work; it's a synthesis of various comments about such-and-such war in different works. This fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7 and WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pak21 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly merge to main article if the information is relevant and sourced. --Porqin 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see what makes this article any different from other articles we have regarding fictious backstory. --Falcorian ^(talk) 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment perhaps those other articles should be deleted as well :-) Could you give some pointers as to some similar articles you're referring to? Cheers --Pak21 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000), Horus Heresy, Age of Strife, and Great Crusade. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and I'm pretty suspicious it violates WP:OR - if citations are added, I'll reconsider WilyD 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article I actually agree with deletion; given that I've rewritten it as a section in another article. I accept I was coming at this one from the wrong angle - but I'd like people to note that it is not original research. The only reason I haven't (correctly) referenced the Battlefleet Gothic book is that at the time I hadn't figured out the referencing syntax.Sojourner001 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well if you can patch it up to get it past WP:V, it'll probly be able to get past WP:OR - the latter is more like how it tastes than anything concrete. WilyD 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be patched for WP:V. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Square-Enix console[edit]

Mostly speculation. Although it's certainly a reasonable guess, there is no confirmation that the "thing" that Square Enix and Taito are collaborating on is a console, especially a seventh generation one. That the product will be a console, though a reasonable conclusion, is original research. Please note that the logo in the article is "unofficial," which in this context is pretty much another word for "fake." Maxamegalon2000 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Porqin 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Porqin.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you've read any of the articles about this project, there's no evidence whatsoever that it will be a console, making this purely speculative. - Thorne N. Melcher 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-balling. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. It'd be a facinanting article, but it's way too early for it. Not enough press relese yet, to qualify for the loopholes in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanatosimii 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing substantial enough to avoid crystal-balling. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but preserve content somewhere (like Talk:Square Enix). It may become useful if the theory pans out. Kill the image - it's groundless speculation, giving a title for a system whose very existence is unconfirmed. Deco 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is all based on rumors and hearsay.guitarhero777777 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure speculation. Ace of Sevens 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author also spelled the name wrong(it's Square Enix, not Square-Enix). TJ Spyke 06:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above --Peephole 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Sean Curtin 21:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl and the Machine[edit]

Completely fails WP:MUSIC. A total of 62 unique results on Google, no discogs.com entry, and as far as I can tell, hasn't even released an EP, let alone the two full releases usually required. Also, none of the media outlets are very notable. Oz Lawyer 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Apparently an EP. Oz Lawyer 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Porqin 12:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be an autobiography as well as failing WP:MUSIC -- Whpq 16:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to have international yet very localized touring. Just doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality and power[edit]

Basically an essay. Delete -Doc 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be roughly based on a book (linked in the article and available on Amazon) but it doesn't appear that the book itself is that notable. InvictaHOG 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent WP:OR violation. WilyD 13:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not apparently about the book, whose notability isn't at issue; but rather, a vague essay apparently summarizing the book. Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR -- Whpq 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RHaworth 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thewikiartist[edit]

This gets 0 google hits, 6 if you space at the words. Seems to be made up or WP:NOR. No verifiability. --Porqin 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A blend of WP:NEO, WP:VAIN, WP:N and WP:OR, hold the WP:V. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all of the above.Bjones 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional OR garbage for a non-notable project. I'd love for this to be speedied somehow, as this is just using Wikipedia to try to further a career. -- Kicking222 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete points for trying to find a new use for wiki...but his use has zip to do with encyclopedia. Bustter 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons sited by Matticus.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it violates everything its supposed to violate, and doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines it's supposed to meet. - Thorne N. Melcher 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — a cocktail of violations, listed kindly by Matticus American Patriot 1776 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't even understand all of it, but it clearly looks like vanity. JIP | Talk 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails lots of things. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Matticus. --S-man 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the author I apologise. It certainly wasn't as cynical as has been perceived. I hoped it may help me start a non profit collective of collaborators as part of an education based art project. I was recommended the idea of listing this project on wikipedia itself by a friend who I trusted in technical matters and as such I did not take due care in reading the policies of wikipedia. Again I humbly apologise. I have deleted the content of the article in advance so nobody else sees it. I will endevor to repay wikipedia for my loss of judgement by helping maintain the rules and ideals of wikipedia from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaDavidson (talk • contribs)
- Comment For some reason my vote got duplicated when you left your comment. I removed the duplicate. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Atlantic[edit]

This band fails WP:MUSIC. --Porqin 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per CSD A7. -- Merope 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a failure of WP:BAND - speedy tag applied.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does not qualify for speedy delete, as article asserts notability of subject with citation of radio play. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regular delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No label, local touring only. --Joelmills 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StandardPay[edit]

Advertising. Impossible to gauge notability.Bjones 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per CSD A8--text is lifted from http://www.standardpay.com/. -- Merope 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and not meeting WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though it leverages years of credit card transaction technology and has aggressive fraud containment. Dlyons493 Talk 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheFileBucket[edit]

Defunct web hosting site. No evidence it has ever been notable (Liberatore, 2006). 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennet Taylor[edit]

No ividence of individual notability, and WP:NOT a geneology Delete -Doc 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May want to follow incoming links - there are a few NNs and otherwise nonwiki'd articles around it. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No claim to notability. No verifiable sources cited. Scorpiondollprincess 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and above.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. No verifiable information with reliable sources. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clear delete per WP:V Ohconfucius 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The page seems to be a genealogy. -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrealised Projects[edit]

Seems to be a NN advert. Prod failed. 0 incoming glinks. The author(s) of the article are the only contributors and own the company. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/clarification - article notes founding by Sam Ely and Lynn Harris, article created, and prod removed, by Samelyandlynnharris (talk · contribs · count). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails to claim any nobility and no sources are provided - the edit summary when prod removed was a claim of being well known in the art community - this claim needs to be verified. also fails WP:ORG.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOT soapbox. Cute recursiveness: Unrealised Projects is itself an unrealised project. The authors claim it is a "project which is widely known in the art world", yet 13,000Ghits with only 1 apparent unique hit, is not notable per WP:NN. "Sam ely" scores 471 Ghits. "Sam ely"+unrealised scores 19 Ghits; "Lynn Harris"+unrealised scores 19 Ghits. It appears that he may be a lecturer at University College London. Other than unrealisedprojects.org, only art directory re-title.com and ucl have listings for them. Ohconfucius 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Zaxem 08:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Node.london[edit]

Part of this article is a copyright violation of [34]. On the talk page [[User:]] claims that its released for fair use, but provides no evidence of this and says "i am a member of node.london. please simply look at what N.O.D.E stands for. copyright does not exsist for the text." The user has removed speedy tags, prods, and copyright violation tags. The sources are: a subscription only magazine website, a reader published by the group that the article is about, and an Italian site that doesn't work. There is no established notability, it does not meet WP:ORG, there are no verifable independent, reliable sources, and there is the copyright violations as well. Metros232 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've replaced the copyvio tag, since it's still a copyvio. There's an assertion of permission, though, so CSD A8 wouldn't apply. The site seems to be about a meeting/event that took place in March of this year, so I highly doubt this is covered in reliable, independent sources. Mango juice^talk 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a nuclear weapon Unless the author can provide proof of his claims, this is a clear copyright violation. Anything else I would say Mango already has. Good work! --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the user a vacation as well for his behaviour here.--Crossmr 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources for establishing notability, and no concrete evidence to support copyright assertions despiet repeated requests. -- Whpq 16:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio for a non-notable event. Temp-block the article creator for vandalism. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boghos torosian[edit]

0 Google hits for his name. Makes an odd claim to notability, but no verifiability Porqin 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete in current form if it doesn't change from the unsourced, original research, NPOV "inspiration" type language, I can't endorse it remaining on wikipedia. If it got reworded I'd be saying just delete for original research, and unverifiable. i kan reed 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable sources can be cited. The POV can be reworded, but I'm mostly concerned about unverfiable claims and a lack of Ghits. That makes me suspicious of a hoax. Scorpiondollprincess 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Scopiondoll.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot verify any of the information in the article, without sources this appears to be a non notable person per WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete guess his people are just going to have to inspire themselves. Dlyons493 Talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Fails Geogre's Law. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NN, WP:BIO -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish law state[edit]

I do not believe that the concept of a "Spanish law state" is real. The topic is found nowhere else on the Internet (except in mirrors of this article and in Wikipedia indexing services).[35]. As further evidence, the text was dumped into the article in one go by User:Say100 who has no other edits. I suspect that the creation of this article is a subtle form of vandalism. Omphaloscope » talk 14:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any valuable information belongs at the article civil law (legal system) which we already have. Not familiar with the term "Spanish law state," in a US context. Cultural references to civil law systems talk about the Napoleonic Code more than they do Spanish law. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required the USA to give effect to land claims founded on Mexican law, but did not require adoption of a civil law system generally. AFAIK no state other than Louisiana has a civil law based legal system. If Oregon has one, it's news to me. Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of WP:HOAX. And Smerdis of Tlön is correct, Louisiana is the only US state to base its legal system on the civil law system, which was based on Franch law, not Spain.-- danntm ^T _C 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — hoax, google has nothing American Patriot 1776 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Initiative[edit]

Advertisement for company that runs game conferences. No independent assertion of notability. All of creating user, Rocktacity's edits concern the company or the various conferences, or people that will be at the conferences. Googling Rocktacity brings up a hell of a lot of different gaming forums where a user called Rocktacity has joined just to make one or two posts about the conference. Also nominating:

Game Writers Conference
Casual Games Conference
Mobile Game Conference
Game Audio Conference
Austin Game Conference
LivePitch

As either being pure advertisement, or not asserting notability (or not independently), the last case being utterly non-notable as a contest that is run at one of the conferences. One not added as it was been deemed copyvio by another user. Another has already been deleted as copyvio.--Drat (Talk) 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure about most of these, and any articles that were kept would have to be completely rewritten, but both IGN and GameSpot did articles on the Casual Games Conference, so it's possible that (at least) this conference is notable. -- Kicking222 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, plain and simple. Cdcon 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. Zaxem 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - leaning keep, but not enough participation to call this a consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual workplaces[edit]

I still don't know, but nearly 1½ months after its creation, it comes close to being original research, despite having references. I warned the author, Sarahwhyte ciaronburke (talk · contribs · count), on the possibility of this being deleted. As of typing, she has not responded to my concern—hence this overdue AFD. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could use some editing but it's well-referenced, gets quite a few Ghits and doesn't seem to be promoting a particular POV or product. Dlyons493 Talk 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit, removing the how-to, the case example, and cutting the filler. As a term, 'Virtual Workplace' gets some use and should have a place in an encyclopedia, taking care not to unnecessarily reproduce the Telecommute page. Article needs to be wikified too. I'll sharpen my knives. BFD1 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've taken a first crack at editing it. There was a tonne of repetition and aimless prose and some forward-looking POV chest-thumping. I've worked through the first half of the article and will finish up later. BFD1 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harq Obispal[edit]

He does not meet the categories required for a notable character not to mention the novels he featured in are no longer Warhammer 40k canon Lowris 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not a major character in a series of Warhammer 40,000 novels and therefore does not meet the consensus guidelines for notability, and nowhere sensible to merge to. --Pak21 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if other articles like this come up, merge this and them into a new article, List of minor characters in Warhammer 40,000. --Gray Porpoise 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acting in[edit]

I did some research and I can't find anything about this term anywhere. It seems to be a takeoff of the phrase "acting out" which isn't limited to psychology, but the article doesn't give any references to support this. From the article, it appears to be original research per WP:OR. Crystallina 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not provide any sources of use failing WP:V. There is not enough context to help someone expand it; Google search is nearly impossible given the everyday use of the phrase when speaking about actors. It is basically a dictionary definition. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Gray Porpoise 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless editors can provide proper sourcing for the term, which is missing from current article. Fairsing 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom, and memorizing bible verses is a sexual addiction??? :( American Patriot 1776 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly doesn't belong here, it looks like a dicdef. Maybe it would be better housed at Wiktionary? Mallanox 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holy Roman Emperors/Additional[edit]

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Rmhermen 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also aren't article subpages obsolete? Computerjoe 's talk 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subpages are very obsolete. This was moved as a temporary measure from a category description. Rmhermen 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also if this gets kept, it needs to be broken down somehow into multiple articles - the size of this is huge.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If the article does get kept, it needs to be seriously wikified. --Gray Porpoise 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, it could be OR. Lurker ^talk 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this text is from Category:Holy Roman Emperors and got tossed out of that category, it pretty much speaks for itself. Plus, since the last line includes "Date of Import", I smell copyvio somewhere. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holy carp, find your enter key! -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/_c 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this barely readable load of irrelevant nonsense. Keresaspa 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. Who actually spent the time to write 300kb of genealogy text? Paragon12321 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User: Mapgaret, apparently. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I didn't go through all of the article but it is possible that there might be important data on notable people not yet mentioned in wikipedia included, if that data is verifiable. But it is an unholy mess, though. Badbilltucker 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might want to see if User:Icairns wants to keep it on a personal sandbox page or something. Has someone tried to email him? JungleCat talk/contrib 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left him a message about this. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — dear god... American Patriot 1776 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article was NOT my creation - I simply moved it from a Category introduction where it was even more inappropriate. I don't want it. It isn't mine. I was loathe to delete 305Kb without a chance of someone else deciding on its merits or otherwise. I am completely happy with this vote as a democratic comment on the piece's worth. Ian Cairns 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author was User:Mapgaret.Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user namespace. The author didn't intend this unreadable mess as an article. He's just storing it for future use. -- Slowmover 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't want it. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author was User:Mapgaret. I was the editor who removed it from a Category introduction... I don't want it. Mapgaret may - if it isn't a copyvio anyhow. Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary mess that the author doesn't want. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a dump from Mapgaret's genealogy database (so nobody wrote 300k of text). Either the info can be reconstructed from reliable sources if necessary, in which case this is redundant, or it can't, in which case this fails WP:V and WP:NOR (as most genealogy stuff does). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Keith[edit]

Ok, so there is this page Shannon Keith about the ~~man~~ woman, and this page Uncaged Films about ~~his~~ her company and this page Behind the Mask (ALF) about their movie. The three pages are somehow very interconnected - I don't think there is basis for an article about the ~~man~~ woman alone. Medico80 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... and now he boldly removed this AfD. Medico80 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is extremely premature. The stub was created at 14:13 and it was nominated for deletion at 14:24. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try reading things before you nominate them. It's about a woman, not a man. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, but it doesn't change my point. It took me two seconds to realize this is vanity/spam whatever gender the person is. And the fact that the AfD tag was removed should be enough to delete the page. Medico80 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with it? I removed that inadvertently during an edit conflict. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete Uncaged Films (I'm unsure about the others) Googling "Uncaged Films" gets 74 total and 21 unique Google hits, and said company, apparently, did not even produce/release the film mentioned above. Thus, I can't imagine how it retains any notability whatsoever. -- Kicking222 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity/nn bio Wildthing61476 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as vanity, nn, self-referential. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notice that I have only nominated Shannon Keith. But Behind the Mask (ALF) surely doesn't look good either: external refs are: The company itself, a YouTube clip, two ALF sites, and a MySpace site. Medico80 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO as Not Notable, unless some verifable sources can be cited demonstrating she has "been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of" her. The external links currently cited make this look like a vanity page. If the author(s) can better establish notability, I might change my position. Also, as a Comment: we should all try to take greater care in our AfD nominations and work harder to get basic facts right before presenting a nomination. We all want Wikipedia to be the best, objective, factual encyclopedia it can be. We should all strive to thoroughly read each article before making AfD nominations. Thanks! Scorpiondollprincess 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps even wait more than nine minutes before nominating a stub. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, please cite independent sources to establish notability, especially the claim about the 2000 settlement. Cdcon 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominating an article for deletion 9 minutes after it is created just doesn't sit well with me. Give the original author and the rest of the community a chance to expand this and revisit the issue later -- I already see that several sources have been added to the page. RFerreira 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much of independent sources so far - mostly subject's own sites or communites that we can't determine magnitude and importance of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.25.152 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non notable activist. Catchpole 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SlimVirgin --Mitaphane _talk 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deletion nomination has no explicit reason why this article meets criteria for deletion; we don't delete article just because we think there's no basis behind the article. --Mitaphane _talk 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't nominate it out of a gut feeling - it fails WP:BIO. For a political activist Google search is a reasonable tool to measure notability. The links that were added after nomination are rather self-reflecting - don't prove fame outside the subject's own community. Medico80 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, I understood; I was being a stickler for rules. I was making a point that a AfD nom should explicitly say why it violates criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia. --Mitaphane _talk 15:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Medico80 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mitaphane and SlimVirgin, not entirely convinced that this fails WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 100% agree with Yamaguchi先生 as stated above. FK0071a 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soulstrut[edit]

Nonnotable website, didn't notice any awards or recognition on the webpage. Alexa rating of 73,741 (I know Alexa's not exactly the most reliable way to consider this). See WP:WEB. Acyso 15:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish delete unless someone can show evidence of it passing WP:WEB. --David Mestel^(Talk) 15:44, 5 August 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, Computerjoe 's talk 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not look notable, I think. Medico80 14:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unsure how this site would meet any of the three criteria in WP:WEB - therefore non-notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not referenced + not verifiable + fails WP:WEB = delete. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RSonline[edit]

NN webforum. (I'm of the opinion that it's nearly impossible for any webforum to be notable, but that's another subject.) Prod and prod2 removed by author. -- Merope 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all forums (well most of them). Wildthing61476 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy either nn-club or nn-web. Niz 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. (What's so famous about those "famous members," anyways?) --Gray Porpoise 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as non-notable; as the article states, it was something made up in school one day. While I wouldn't go so far to say that all webforums are non-notable, a small forum from a free site certainly is. Crystallina 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be nice if there was a speedy-able category for this, but presently, there is not. I was the original prod-tagger. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable website. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the RuneScape fansite of note, RuneHQ (by Alexa rank, flawed though that may be) doesn't have it's own article. Ace of Risk 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exact same reason as above but I will elaborate, RuneHQ got deleted by afd so this hasn't got a slightest possibility of surviving afd. J.J.Sagnella 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Hyenaste ^(tell) 15:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vaginals[edit]

Non-notable band, no hits on AllMusic Guide, no hits on Amazon.com, or Amazon.co.uk. Speedy and prod removed by author Wildthing61476 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "prominent representative" of the melbourne ska scene is hardly likely to show up on Amazon

Comment. I think that speedies can be restored if the author removes them. Prod tags, however, cannot. I still think this should be Speedily deleted, per CSD A7. I also want to make the rule that if a band's only website is on MySpace, their article should be deleted immediately. -- Merope 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, having a page on Myspace isn't listed anywhere on WP:BAND. Judge articles on their own merits (or lack thereof), not some arbitrary and irrelevant litmus test about the subject matter. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their only webpage isnt their myspace. They have another one. I'll list it now. P.S. how are they an "unremarkable band"? they had quite a lot of fans, should only HUGE bands be on wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmoo101 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP's policies concerning notability of musicians. -- Merope 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

I believe there would be a large amount of people who would claim that The Vaginals were the best Melbourne ska band ever. And i'm not just saying that because they are a band I like. They had a huge (almost cult) following, and revived the melbourne ska scene.

If you can verify this claim (which the text you quoted insists upon), I'll reconsider it. Also, please sign your name when leaving comments by using four tildes (~). -- Merope 15:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will attempt to verify it. How would you suggest I go about this? (ie. what would be adequate verification?)Schmoo101 15:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading this. -- Merope 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well the text comes from their official MySpace site, which is operated by the band, so surely that doesn't need further verification? But how do I verify that they fulfil that point that I quoted?Schmoo101 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MySpace, blogs, and messageboards are not acceptable sources by Wikipedia standards. Srose (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if I can verify that the text was written by a representative of the band?Schmoo101 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text written by the band saying that they are representative of the Melbourne ska scene would not qualify as an acceptable source. Please read the links we've provided. -- Merope 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the band doesn't have any hits on AllMusicGuide, a lot of genuine underground bands won't. Melbourne is often considered the world capital of live music, and DIY bands such as The Vaginals are a large part of creating this reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.241.17 (talk • contribs)

Delete Vanity fails WP:MUSIC, fails Wikipedia, she be many things, but a free webhost, she ain't and so many more policies it's just crazy. WilyD 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, and WP:VAIN. This underground band fails several inclusion criterion, most importantly that they have never released an album and never attained a rank on any music chart. Additionally, the information in the article is unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the place for underground bands that have no press recognition and have never released an album or single. Delete. Srose (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have released a CD. They released a split EP with another melbourne ska band The Knockabouts, shortly before they broke up.Schmoo101 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly - no references, unverifiable. We have standards, and this article doesn't meet them. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the online store that their CD is being sold in: [36], does that help at all?Schmoo101 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the following requirements for a band (emphasis is mine; taken from WP:BAND which I don't think you've looked at yet):

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country
Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.
Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

I don't think your band meets any of those requirements. Srose (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:BAND this one time... in band camp... :) American Patriot 1776 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. The content is a bit over the top, but the numerous references to WP:BAND are assuming that this guideline is policy. Sometimes a group can be notable without participating in the record business, and these guys at least have performed widely enough to be well-known in Melbourne. If they had performed in other cities to such an extent, I would be saying keep. Deco 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The toured NSW at one stage.203.214.100.175 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring WP:MUSIC, they fail WP:V. Is that more to your liking? WilyD 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Joelmills 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There have only been a couple of mentions of this group. The Melbourne Age reported "The Gingers - Nellie Jackson, Chelsea Wheatley (no relation to Glenn) and Etta Curry - hope to release an EP by year's end and were slated to play an allages gig at Pony yesterday alongside Yidcore, Bagster and a group called the Vaginals." They were also listed in a Melbourne gig guide. They don't meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC and we can't verify much beyond that they were a Melbourne band. Capitalistroadster 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rafy 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmogamez[edit]

Nonnotable web site, 38 unique Google hits, fails WP:WEB. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The pages with Google hits themselves are non-notable, being mostly just forums and pages containing links to Mmogamez. --Gray Porpoise 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasoning as nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. - Thorne N. Melcher 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam --N R S^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, likely WP:VSCA since it includes the obligatory "1337 p0st3rz" list. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulavelil[edit]

Vanity reference, notabiltity is suspect, unverified matter Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is totally unverified and not notable at all. Either there is original research which too is suspect or just plain nonsense. Apparently, the article has been created and developed by a single user, Mulavelil cheriyanadu (talk · contribs). This user also uses the following IP addresses 59.144.106.246, 59.144.98.172, 59.144.101.241, 59.144.100.147, 59.144.105.46, 59.144.97.100, 219.65.81.126, 59.144.96.66.

The article is a personal family history which has been vainly and falsely glorified in order to achieve notability. But I consulted my Indian friends from Kerala about this matter as well as looking up in the net and the library to find about this but couldn't come up with any material. The violations are Vanity page and/or Original research|Original research. There may be other violations as well.

--Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 15:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page which redirects to this article. See Mulavelil (Unnithan Panickers).

--Patrolling the ocean called Wikipedia|Tell me about vandals, violations and more... 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:OR, WP:V, and Wikipedia is not a Genealogical Directory. All families have ancient histories; not all families are notable. Scorpiondollprincess 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:VAIN and Wikipedia is not a Genealogical Directory. I am hardly convinced that it is Original Research.--N R S^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Wafulz 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is WP:OR, fails WP:V, WP:NOT a genealogical database, and the use of the word "we" in the third sentence makes me think this is WP:VANITY. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a place to store non-notable family history. Delete as per WP:VANITY, WP:NOT, WP:NN. -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...well if u all feel all tht has been written above, ur free to delete the article....u have my consent as well Manu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. theProject 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando nieuwoudt[edit]

How is he notable? Green caterpillar 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Delete Green caterpillar 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have not heard of him does not mean this cannot reside on this site. Dont be such a kiljoy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.19.88.12 (talk • contribs)

Delete - shouldn't this have been pushed through as a speedy? There's not assertion of notability. In fact, the article is almost content free. -- Whpq 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BIO. Please see Burden of Evidence -- it is the responsibility of the author(s) of this page to cite verifiable sources establishing notability. "Just because we have not heard of him" means you must convince us, with verifiable sources, that he is notable and merits an encyclopedia entry. Scorpiondollprincess 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO WilyD 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7. Nothing here to even debate. Fan-1967 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article needs more than a place and date of birth. But we might give the writer a day or two to add data to establish notability. Badbilltucker 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, tagged as such. A restatement of the name, followed by date and place of birth, is not an appropriate stub. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uselessjunk[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable website Fireplace 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Garrepi 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd desperately love to see this article deleted, as history clearly shows the article is just a playground for the forum members from this site. I'll predict that before this AFD is over, this discussion will at minimum need to be SProtected. Fan-1967 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:WEB and the fact that the article seems to be nothing but a dumping ground for vandalism. I count at least 15 reversions in the first 50 edits alone. Also fails WP:WEB by miles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/perhaps a weak keep Googling "UselessJunk" gets about half a million hits (although only 188 are unique), and its Alexa rank is very high. Perhaps this site has enough notability to warrant a WP article, but the article itself should be semi-protected for a little while until a true article can be written and the vandalism dies down? -- Kicking222 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Hooveruj who claims to be the site owner has been indefinately blocked for vandalism along with a sock User:H00ver. Fireplace 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- QuestionDid the sock user H00ver have the same IP address as Hooveruj? There is a possibility of an imposter. Live Dog 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I noticed the alexa rating too! It is very high. However, google has indexed only 73 unique sites that link to uselessjunk.com. That is very low. If you ignore both of these facts and look at the site and how it pertains to WP:WEB, it fails. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Big top 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I began the article as a serious venture. My mistake was making it immediately known to other users who may not have taken it as seriously. I apologize for stepping on any toes, but Uselessjunk.com receieves 750,000 page loads per day. Uselessjunk.net (the forums) have well over 30,000 members. Perhaps this will go into your consideration. Live Dog 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm not disagreeing with your assesment, I'm just asking for your opinion. Why are there so many active members, but so few people link to uselessjunk? If there were 30,000 members, wouldn't some of those members link to uselessjunk from their webpage/blog/sites? I mean, google only found 73 (now 74) unique pages. Wouldn't some people be publishing reports and articles about the site? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:The "unique hits" in google are only filtered from the first 1000, so they're not accurate when the total is way over that. Fan-1967 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: The members usually rarely link to their own websites for two reasons: to maintain some level of internet anonymity and because external links to personal websites are generally considered spam by the UJ community. I'm not sure about all the online rankings, Hoover would be a better person to ask about that. Alexa lists 508 sites that link Uselessjunk.com. As far as the unique hit calculations, I'm not sure of that either. But I said 600k-700k in "page loads". Not neccessarily unique users, but hoover could clarify that better.Live Dog 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionHow does uselessjunk.com compare with phun.org, a similiar site in content, purpose and membership? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phun Live Dog 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — perhaps that page should be deleted too, but for now, this page fails WP:WEB and thats a fact American Patriot 1776 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable website and vandal magnet. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reason above.--Koji Dude 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The nature of this site may make it a target for vandals, but that doesn't warrant the article not being incuded. George Bush's wiki article is vandalized fairly often, does that make him not noteworthy? -mafew

Comment - The George Bush wiki article is vandalized fairly often. However, George Bush is notable. Uselessjunk is not. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By who's accessment? Yours? 3/4 of a million page loads a day makes me think it is notable. -mafew45
- Comment - No. By WP:WEB. Nobody has even tried to provide proof that Uselessjunk meets criteria #1, #2, or #3. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By WP:WEB #1, Fake-a-wish.com, which is a prank site on the uselessjunk network has received national media attention several times. http://www.southernvoice.com/2004/5-7/news/localnews/falcons.cfm http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=558 http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=556 http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_925010.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2004173431,00.html
- Livedog, You should add those directly to the article. First read Wikipedia:Citing sources to see what, when, and where to cite and Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to cite. When you're done, come back here to state that you've asserted notability so we can all judge the new citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am sure hoover could provide more links and documentation, but it seems he has been erroneously blocked for sockpuppetry. He is user:hooveruj. The user h00ver was some anonymous imposter. hooveruj edited the entry to improve the entry as he said in the edit "(site owner cleaning up inaccurate information published)". If anyone would like verification that hooveruj is the actual site owner, please feel free to contact him at his whois info with Netsol: [email protected]. Please unblock this erroneously blocked user.- Livedog
- See Wikipedia:Appealing a block. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAnother similiar content site, ebaumsworld, had similiar vandalism problems when a wikipedia entry was first created. The article was up for deletion similiar to this case. The resolution wikipedia gave ebaums was to restrict access to the entry to prevent vandals. Hoover would like to request similiar treatment to get the history and facts of the article correct without vandal participation.- Livedog
- That is usually done on a temporary basis (WP:PROT) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What can we do to get this done? (WP:PROT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Live dog (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    - On WP:PROT there is a link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. The independant sources--well, one source, The Sun just says "a website"--refer to fake-a-wish.com not uselessjunk.com. On top of that, the articles are more about the rumors fake-a-wish.com has spread rather than the website itself. Mitaphane _talk 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with you on some stuff. The sun article doesn't even say what website posted the news and probably shouldn't belong on the article (right?). About the southernvoice article it does make mention to the fakeawish.com site and it seems to be semi-non-trivial coverage. However, this AFD is about uselessjunk not fakeawish. Even if this article was about fakeawish, though, one article isn't enough (multiple non-trivial published works). I disagree on one point. I think the southernvoice article was about fakeawish.com, not just the rumors that fakeawish spread. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: When I say an article is "about" a topic, I mean its the main topic being discussed. Given the headline, "Atlanta Falcons quarterback dispels gay rumors", I would say thats the case. If "about" means directly pertinent then I would say the article is about fakeawish,the rumor, and the Falcons. Regardless of our semantic differences, you are right; we need multiple non-trivial sources to gauge notability for this site. As the article stands, it does not have that. --Mitaphane _talk 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's directly qoute Hoover, the admin of this site-network, and whom you've banned (ironically). This network of sites is important enough to have caused A star QB in the NFL to dispell rumors about his sexuality. How is that only trivial coverage? I'm sure if you ask Mr. Vick, he thinks it's important ~ mafew45

Just curious: do you feel being cited as the source of malicious rumors is something to be proud of? Fan-1967 20:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to point out that the way many users found uselessjunk was after it was cited as being a reference of celebrity news by radio personalities such as Howard Stern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_stern (I believe it was mentioned multiple times by the character "Stuttering John") and/or Mancow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancow's_Morning_Madhouse The forum also frequently posts news articles for discussion, covering items such as foreign relations to marijuana law to gas prices to current celebrity news. Frequently I have found that the information on Uselessjunk is more current than that of local news stations. It seems that given the fact that it is used as a source of current information by radio personalities and individuals around the world (the forum browsers/users), it hardly would seem to be non-notable. I would urge you to allow the user Hooveruj (since he is the site owner/administrator) to address your concerns about Uselessjunk's "notability" H00ver 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - H00ver, you need to find reliable sources that back up your claims. Once you find the reliable sources, then read Wikipedia:Citing sources to see what, when, and where to cite and Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to cite. When you're done, come back here to state that you've found references of notability so we can all judge the new citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hooveruj has been unblocked for several days now and is welcome to contribute. Fireplace 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD G7 (Liberatore, 2006). 16:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Onimira Farley[edit]

This guy is a poet-- here's why he should be deleted:

53 Google hits, many of them Wiki mirrors
Probably vanity page, created by User:Gofarley.
Poorly written
Attempts to describe his writing style (OR)
Meager assertion of notability in saying that he has been writing for 40 years and published a book, so I think a speedy would be heavy-handed AdamBiswanger1 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He is a published author (his book is listed at amazon), but I fail to see any evidence he has "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for" his work, as required under WP:BIO. If kept, this article needs a cleanup as well as verifable sources establishing notability -- has he won awards for his work? Has he been the primary subject of multiple, independent non-trivial reviews or news articles? Just having a book published isn't quite sufficient. Scorpiondollprincess 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the Amazon listing, his book is published by BookSurge, a vanity press. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were notable, he'd at the least have individual poems in significant journals not just a vanity press book publication. Sam 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Annoyingly written vanity page. Pathlessdesert 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BookSurge is Publishing & Print on Demand. Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity press author, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete userfy please - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetModem[edit]

Non-notable advert. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure why this went AfD, it had an unchallenged prod (previously db-advert). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Just to make sure it gets deleted. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prods are automatically deleted after 5 days if uncontested. Overriding an prod tag and putting it on AfD would probably make it 1) take longer and 2) create overhead. ColourBurst 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I put a speedy on it, then someone Prodded it, now it's on AfD. Just get rid of this obvious advertisement, someone! Sparsefarce 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. i kan reed 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Foy[edit]

99.9% sure this is a hoax. IMDb link doesn't go to the person named; The picture is of someone who appears to be a bit too ugly for the series Hollyoaks; the article just sounds so unlikely. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link does go to the person named? I also think the generalization that he is too ugly for Hollyoaks doesnt really stand up!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delnaja (talk • contribs) .

I do remember the charcater Billinge Boy, he was more of an extra and didn't really have much of a speaking part. I think its a bit unfair to use the word "ugly" but he was more of a comedy charcater so not a male model type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.67.102.10 (talk • contribs) . User's first contribution to Wikipedia

Comment the IMDb link goes to someone named Barry Foy, but has very little information to back up this article. I'm concerned about verifiable sources. If the author(s) could cite more sources (with better details) I'd feel a lot more comfortable making a judgment on this article's merit. If it is kept, it definitely requires a cleanup. But first things first, can anyone verifiably confirm some of what's claimed in this article? The current external links aren't much help. Scorpiondollprincess 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. IMDB says nothing about this person being in Hollyoaks, nor does Google. Hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per Starblind American Patriot 1776 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB link is for work done in 1981, when the article's subject would have been five years old! Furthermore, this picture of the author of the book referred to in the article, "Barry Foy hosts an Irish Session for advanced musicians", doesn't appear to be the same person as shown in the article's one illustration. Kahuzi 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Field Guide was published in 1999; a 1976 birthdate would have made the author about 20 when he wrote it. I've read the book, and I rather doubt it was written by a 20 year old. There most certainly is a real Barry Foy (perhaps several), but this article doesn't add up for me. I'm not sure the author is notable enough for a page to himself even though I'm sure he exists. WRT Kahuzi's comment, however, note that there are five slides in that show and it's not clear which person pictured, if any of them, is supposed to be Barry Foy/the session host. --Craig Stuntz 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Foy grew up of Irish origin and was constantly surrounded by Irish music and culture. I think it rather condesending that anyone thinks a 20 year old could not be capable of producing a book of this nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.67.102.10 (talk • contribs) . User's first contribution to Wikipedia

Note that I said nothing of the sort. I said that I didn't think this book in particular, which I have read from cover to cover, was written by a 20 year old, not that a 20 year old "couldn't produce a book of this nature." --Craig Stuntz 02:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that an actor called Barry Foy played a character called 'Billinge Boy' also credited as "Bombhead's mate" in the Tv series Hollyoaks. It is up for debate however if this is the same authour of a field guide to Irish music. I suggest the article stays but we remove any reference to the aforementioned book until this issue is clarified. Rickwitter 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) User's third contribution to Wikipedia[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article, as it stands, is perfectly reasonable; most of the previous reasons for deletion (eg excessive detail) are invalidated. The only other argument here is screeching about "notability", despite the fact that the article clearly fits within our guidelines on fiction. As such, keep.--SB | T 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons 21 May 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons 28 July 2006

A DRV consensus overturned a previous deletion of this article through AfD. The matter is relisted here for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I had no personal opinion in this as the deleting admin, my careful examination of the arguments presented says this comes down to a bun-fight between Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This material is a very high level of detail regarding a theme which does not appear to be in common parlance, thus falls squarely into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This has been countered with "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a List of characters." This counter argument is an incomplete quote however as the guideline goes on to say "This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself [...]" In this case the work itself is the episode in which the charater appears. As there is nothing meaningful to merge (minor characters have very little information, plot-important charaters already have more information in the parent articles) and the article title would not serve as a meaningful redirect I recomend deletion.
brenneman ^{L} 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there is some conflict between this and the episode articles, and List of characters from The Simpsons, and occasionally the articles on the fictional families, I don't think deletion should be the answer. An AfD crowd won't necessarily have full understanding of the Simpsons project. If it's decided to merge this or that it's unneeded, it can be harmlessly redirected to the character list. As it is, a person could navigate with this list in the sense that he doesn't know the name of the episode in which his/her favourite character appeared, or even the season of the episode, and thus opens this list to find his/her favourite character and the link to the article about the episode- thus making this list serve as an odd form of disambiguation page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects from the charter name to the article would serve that purpose more efficiently. - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Simpson's are notable characters that appear on the show once then nevermore are not. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split to episode articles. I have thought about this for a while now. I still believe that it is an example of WP:FICT #2, but I do think that the list is really long and would be too long if it were complete. It is not my favorite page on Wikipedia, but it does serve a purpose. As long as we have this list we don't have too hunt down Simpson stubs about minor characters. I think the best compromise would be to split the list, move the information to the episode articles, and create/change the redirect so that it would go to that article. If we decide on this I will personally split the list (although it would be nice with some help from others). --Maitch 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. While they are funny, one time characters still aren't notable. I suggest (if it's not made already): a Simpsons Wiki for this. It doesn't belong on the regular Wikipedia, period. RobJ1981 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting guidelines, defaulting to Keep. WP:NOT also says [Not] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional) with the disclaimer Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted, but counters with Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction. WP:1SP#Check your fiction says If the subject, a character in a TV show, say, is too limited to be given a full article, then integrate information about that character into a larger article. etc., etc. I can't take from this that there is unambiguous grounds for deletion so I vote keep, but clearly this article might be the catalyst for the creation of a Simpsons Wiki. Guidelines or not, there should be limits to the detail we go into on even the most popular topics. ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This is a textbook case of how to handle the subject. Comments above regarding WP:NOt are not applicable. There is nothing indiscriminate about the subject matter here, which is linked to one of the most important shows of the last 20 years. Furthermore, the WP:NOT "indiscriminate collection" clauses are specific, not elastic. This article is not even close to the specific examples in the policy. I also think a merge is a poor idea and would greatly reduce the utility of the article since those seeking minor characters are not going to know the episode. This lists puts these characters all in one place and that's a good thing. --JJay 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious how this is a "textbook case" when the suggestion of "keep" contradicts that guideline? As to finding the characters, the likelihood that someone will not know the name of the episode but will know that they were in only one episode is pretty close to zero. A whole swag of redirects from the name of the character to the parent episode solves that problem easily enough, as well. - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does not contradict anything because the Simpsons is long. That's why we have Category:The Simpsons. The rest of your points regarding redirects are nonsensical given that you are arguing for deletion of the material rather than a merge. The list is a convenient resource as a standalone per the guideline. --JJay 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Err, what? Please actually read my comments, where I explain why merging is not appropiate and creation of a redirect to parent episodes for the character names is also seperate from the article. What does "the Simpsons is long" mean anyway? The guideline clearly and explicitly states that the appropiate place for minor characters in in the parent work. - brenneman ^{L} 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, exactly. Please actually read my comments, where I explain why keeping the list is appropriate. The Simpsons is the parent work for all its daughter articles, and the episodes are just chapters in an ongoing saga. This list gives an overview of the use of minor characters across the entire series that surpasses the reach of an article on an individual episode. It is perfect as a jumping off point to the episode articles if greater detail is required. A very similar example is List of Shakespearean characters, which is full of minor one-off characters. I would point out that I have no personal opinion in this; my thinking is based on careful examination of the best way to organize encyclopedic information on notable topics at wikipedia. --JJay 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh. That list you gave is a useless cruft. And it doesn't matter that it's about Big Bill Shakespeare. (By the way, you should've put five asterisks instead of three to have the right indentation. I've put six for my comment so that it would look right should you decide to correct yours.) --Lazybum 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I disagree. That's not "useless cruft". It's useful information. Every serious reference work should have a list of all Shakespeare and Simpsons characters. After all, they have both been going strong for quite some time. Certainly longer than many of our editors and readers. Your comment looks good btw. --JJay 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Useful information!? If I wanted to know more about the drunken porter's monologue in Macbeth, do you really think I'd go to that list and look for "Porter"? No, I'd go look in Macbeth for the aftermath of Duncan's murder. (Or, I'd go read the play itself.) You can pretend that an indiscriminate character list is a result of scholarship, but really it is raw notes stapled together with no context. (By the way, I've fixed the indentations for you.) --Lazybum 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are missing the point. Where do you go to find a summary listing of all the characters from all plays? Or to find Reynaldo if you can't remember the play? There is nothing "indiscriminate" about these types of lists (please review WP:NOT), and "indiscriminate" can not be a catch-phrase for "I don't like it". They are well defined and useful reference tools. After all, we don't all have time to "go read the play" as you suggest. --JJay 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Indiscriminate" is tantamount to "put together in such an unwieldy manner that it is very difficult to use," which is what this list is. As for your example, it goes back to Brenneman's point a while ago -- The chance of someone knowing Reynaldo without knowing about Hamlet is nearly zero. It is much, much more likely that someone would ask, "What was the name of the servant to Polonius in Hamlet?" For this kind of question, this list would be useless. --Lazybum 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One time characters really don't need any mentions at all outside of the episode articles. This article is quite redundant with the episode articles. Wickethewok 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per brenneman and Wickethewok -- Slowmover 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of these type of lists is to house minor characters in a central location rather than have seperate articles for each one. That sounds like a logical solution to me. RFerreira 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be a broken record, but there is nothing in the guideline about "central location" but instead in "the work itself" as where these whould be kept. That's the episode. - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Didn't I already vote on this earlier? This is a good article to find famous one-time characters on The Simpsons. JIP | Talk 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's still excessively crufty. One-time characters that never appear again are not notable and do not need to be documented here. Take it to a Simpsons wiki. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Delete. The article's own title proclaims the non-notability of its subject. A list of characters who only appeared once in the course of a long-running TV show is such a extreme form of trivia and cruft I can't believe we're even discussing it. There has to be a point at which we say "Just because it is Simpsons-related, it is not automatically notable". I don't think we'd be doing this much hair-splitting over List of one-time characters on Gunsmoke or List of one-time characters on Green Acres. wikipediatrix 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that the claim to notability comes from the fact that most of them are voiced by celebrities. So change of title maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The List of celebrities on The Simpsons already exists. ~~Although it is in need of detailed write-ups, it is much more worthy of existence that the list in discussion.~~ --Lazybum 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean, detailed write-ups? If you're asking for character stubs, wouldn't that require a merge? (In other news, I'm saddened to learn that Wikipedians seem to think Maria Grazia Cucinotta is worth only two lines.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scratch what I wrote above. Upon looking at the list one more time, I find it as cumbersome and crufty as the one in discussion. What we need is a "List of celebrities" ordered by the name of the celebrities, instead of the characters they voiced or the episode numbers of their appearance. That way, very casual fans could easily look up, say, the characters that Phil Hartman voiced. --Lazybum 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brenneman. This list is useless for a layperson who wants to look up a character in The Simpsons. How is a non-fan supposed to know that Lyle Lanley is a one-time character but Lucius Sweet is not? For that matter, is he/she supposed to search the list for "Lyle Lanley" when the character is better known as "The Monorail Guy"? This list is of interest to the fans only. --Lazybum 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is their notability due to the fact that they are one-timers? if not, but due to their celebrity voices as suggested by another editor, why wouldn't there be List of two-time characters from The Simpsons, List of three-time characters from The Simpsons, ad nauseum? Moreover, if we have the precedent of this we'll have List of one-time characters from Star Trek, List of one-time characters from Sesame Street etc., and the analogous List of Biblical characters who appear in only one verse, List of Harry Potter characters who appear in only one book, etc. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge to List of minor characters from The Simpsons, or something like that. The fact that a character appeared one time is far too specific a criterion for a useful list. You might as well have a list of characters who wear green hats. A list of minor characters is quite useful and I believe already exists somewhere. Deco 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few responses to above, but they all say the same thing. The guideline clearly says that these characters belong in the related work, why is that being ignored? - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful information about an important cultural topic that should appear even in a discriminating encyclopedia. A separate article seems like a reasonable organizational choice, but obviously it could be merged wherever regardless of the AFD result. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree wholeheartedly with Brenneman and wikipediatrix. Eusebeus 09:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I would wholeheartedly support the retention of this information, but the delete position has well-formed arguements sourced from policy while the keep side is a weakly formed arguement based on logic that ignores policy. On a personal note, I do hope that the Simpsons wiki gets formed and I'll be right there when it does. BigNate37_(T) 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The information is useful and relevant, and of significance on a cultural level. --Commander Zulu 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on this? One of the keys to a valid argument is falsifiability, and these are vauge enough it's difficuty to do so.
1. Useful - To whom, and by what metric? If this is just an opinon then give us some examples of what you'd consider not useful to make us better understand what your judgment is based upon.
2. Relevant - Again, how are you making this decision? Looking for "one time character" on Google, for instance, I'm not seeing much substance. What is this relevent to is the question.
3. Of significance on a cultural level - Sorry to be repetative, but based on what? A claim that the series itself was of cultural significance would be trivial to substantiate simply by (as an example) counting the number of published academic works. Where are the published works on this subject?
More to the point, what are the sources used to create this list? Looking over the article talk page and even the last deletion discussion it appears that characters are put here based upon original research alone. I thus amplify my original "delete" with the rider "and if kept, remove any character without reliable sources naming it as non-recurring".

brenneman ^{L} 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay and others. Wikipedia is more than just a holding place for facts, we also filter and organize those facts into unique ways (some of which are just not possible on paper), and Lists are one of those ways. Nothing about this list seems "indiscriminate", and I can't understand how anyone could argue that this page should be deleted - what is the harm? Does it make Wikipedia look bad? Does it violate one of our core principles? Does the fact that this about a fictional television show somehow make it less worthy? Turnstep 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is notable since many of these are guest appearances by celeberties. Merging it in with the main article would be a bad idea since it'd simply lead to an overlong main article. --Barberio 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per jjay and others this list is noteworthy and too long to merge Yuckfoo 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appearing in the Booty Duty series entitles one to a certain ammount of ... something, but it isn't encyclopedic significance.--SB | T 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Storm[edit]

Article is little more than a filmography. Originally speedy deleted, removed by author. Wildthing61476 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even an article really. Besides, everybody knows "Booty Duty 11: Operation Bung-Blast" lacked the poignancy and emotion of the first 10 volumes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, my monitor needed to be cleaned with iced tea. Wildthing61476 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Peep Fight[edit]

Not-notable, Possible cruft Bschott 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a youtube video, article doesn't meet WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to vote because I know nothing about peeps, but thank you for a good laugh -- couldn't stop! Probably a generational thing. Mattisse (talk) 00:03, 9 August 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, --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete all internet ephemera. This one per WP:V; its only source is the youtube link, which only documents the video's existence, but none of the claims in the article. Sandstein 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - while there are numerous keep 'votes' from single purpose accounts accompanied by arguments that *cough* have little bearing on Wikipedia policy, the net of the numerous established editors arguing for keep and the potential citations presented is that this is apparently notable software. Now wouldn't it be nice if someone actually put those citations in the article? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RemoteAccess[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

non-notable software. Prod was removed without explanation, afd'd for same reason. i kan reed 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, does not meet WP:SOFTWARE --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  *not a policy (yet) WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.

CommentIsn't that a matter of personal preference? I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide info on anything. If you start bringing personal preference into it saying things are "not notable", then what's the point? It existed, it had it's following. Sure, it's dead now, but I think info should be here. Shouldn't be marked for deletion, either. Dopefish 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: "I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide info on anything.". Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Fan-1967 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: OK, fair enough. But I still think marking this one for deletion while many other similar software articles are not seems like "picking on this particular subject". I wikified the article, there's several other articles about BBS software that should also be marked if this one was. Dopefish 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are probably thousands of articles that should be deleted. That's irrelevant to this one. Fan-1967 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment the real reason notability is used as a criteria, is to stop advertising bloat. It's hard to maintain NPOV when 10000 different articles are created by someone with a personal stake in it, and not very many people are familiar enough with the subject to maintain an NPOV structure to it. In the end, it would undermine wikipedia by going for the throat(credibility) i kan reed 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No. Notability is not subjective. If you want to demonstrate that this subject is notable, please cite sources to show that one or more of the WP:CORP criteria for products and services are satisfied. Uncle G 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- pissed:I think that marking this article for deletion is extremely inconsiderate and ignorant. Remote access bbs software was a strong force in the pre-internet computer hobbist era. if you're going to delete THIS article then delete all the other bbs software entries, and go ahead and take out any internet related communications software articles pre 1995. i like some of these wiki-nerds need to find other hobbies, too. another thing i hate is people hiding behind politics and policies to defend their egos regarding their views on wikipedia articles Mroblivious1bmf 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Continue to make the arguments that you are, using the fallacious "if article A then article B" argument, and you will not make a case for keeping the article. I've already explained how you can make a case for keeping the article. Please cite sources. Citing sources can and does change editors' minds. Contravening the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy will not. Uncle G 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Brian ^{(How am I doing?)}. Tychocat 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Remote Access As a whole was the BBS package to run in the 90's as well if you look at the links on the BBS page it is listed there. It was the main runner in the 90's and I think this page will grow with time. Although I have been the one of the ones changing it I would like it to stay. I still run a bbs so I am biased, but in time this page will be like everything else on Wikipedia. IMHO this is the first Draft and will grow with time when old sysops look up there software. You know they are still out there. And this page is accurate. Vagabond
- We don't accept personal testimony of Wikipedia editors. Readers must be able to check the accuracy of the article for themselves, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability. Currently, they cannot, because you have cited no sources at all. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why delete this entry would even be in question. RemoteAccess was one the most important pieces of software to hit the streets. It, with other BBS software, with their compliment of applications, forged the path to the commercial internet as we know it now. Omitting it from the Wikipedia would be like removing the civil war from US history books. If you aren't familiar with the subject matter, it doesn't necessarily make it insignificant nor not noteworthy. One resource to view is http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ACTION 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Importance is not the issue. Cited sources, demonstrating that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, is. That hyperlink is not a source, for example, because the web page that it links to is a simple directory list of ZIP files for downloading, not an article written about the software. It provides no means for verifying the content of this article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Incorrect sir. The link includes articles to an entire time line to the BBS era (specifically - http://timeline.textfiles.com/ ) RemoteAccess is still in use today as there are BBSs using the software to power their BBS. I still haven't found article in the WP:CORP criteria that would void this entry, beyond someone has a undisclosed, personal reason for omitting it. One of the external links is to the software's own site, where you can still buy it. What else needs to be 'verified', it did and still does exist? ACTION 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not like it how people with more time on their hands than others can participate in ugly acts on wikipedia. Whether it be the structured anarchy of 'deletionists' who feel that anything they do no know about does not exist, and should not belong on wikipedia, or people that do outright vandalism. Remote Access is an award winning software. Hide behind as many policies as you want [even unimplemented ones], it doesn't change a fact that BBS softwares played an important part in the history of computing, and the internet. Mroblivious1bmf 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In addition to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, please also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This whole thing strikes of "Well, we don't know about it, so it needs to be deleted because you can't prove it exists". As was said by others, it was good solid BBS software for a long time. It's hard to find stuff on it, because most of the records aren't likely easily available. I never used the stuff personally, it just strikes me as a totally unncessary deletion, and yea, I agree with the remark about "hiding behind policy". I think it's a perfectly valid article, even before I wikified it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopefish (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11 06:25:36

- In fact that is one of our primary reasons for deleting things, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please cite sources. If "the records aren't [...] available" for something, then it is unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a primary source for documentation on something which has no available documentation outside of Wikipedia. The place to document and to record for posterity BBS softwares that aren't otherwise recorded is a book, a magazine article, or another web site. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. To demonstrate that this is not the case here, and that this software really has been documented by someone independent of its author already, please cite sources. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping it.. I don't think someone should get rid of such an important piece of computing history at all. I would view that as ignorant and foolish, as would alot of other people who understand and know about what BBS's are.. AND how important they were in the coming around of the internet. Some people should do a little research before decided something is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarknessBBS (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11 08:37:32

- Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If there is research to be done, then do it! Look for sources, and cite the ones that you find. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly a lot of people want to keep this entry. Instead of complaining, and ignoring Wikipedia policies, I would think if they devote some effort they could find some sources. Votes that ignore Wikipedia policies are routinely discounted. Fan-1967 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bschott; sources and citations, as explained at length by Uncle G, are the way to change minds. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant bulletin board software in its day. Outriggr 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I am not one of the people who "dropped by" to vote Keep. I was interested to see an article on it, and the first thing I saw was AfD. The article itself is full of external links that imply its notability; I can't cite any peer-reviewed journals, no, but there are 33,000 google-hits for "+remoteaccess +BBS", and this is ten years after anyone cares about the software. Thanks, Outriggr 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you cite sources, provide links or Verify this? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source http://timeline.textfiles.com/1990/ Dispute this... ACTION 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Alright...that is easily done. That is not concidered a Reliable source hence it is not acceptable to use for a source to support your position. Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources.

I will also note that no one has provided Reputable Publications to cite this software's fame. All we have is people saying 'I remember it so it is popular'. Basicly this article (and all the arguments for keep) have failed to satisfy WP's Verifiable standard. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I assume, BSchott, that you'll be spending the night putting about 700,000 Wikipedia articles through AfD because they do not meet your version of verifiability. You are being very coy with policy. For God's sake, we have featured articles on Bulbasaur and Torchic - why don't you start with those to make a WP:POINT? Outriggr 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Outriggr, that was uncalled for. Please, do not use personal attacks and remain civil. These comments do not improve the article's chances of passing the AFD. Instead of insulting me, why not take some time to improve the article and cite a few sources, perferrably Reliable and Reputable to make people change their mind? This isn't to make a point...this is to refute arguements and try to show that per wikipedia's own standards, this article falls short. If someone could cite some reliable and reputable sources, then I would be happy to change my thoughts on this article. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What about this article have we not verified. It merely states the software exists. What more do you want? Open the archive and read the WHATSNEW.TXT for more then that. Were you some WWIV BBS fan or something? Seems this is a personal battle for you. It's just an entry in the Wikipedia, that will probably only be viewed by those that know what a BBS is anyway. ACTION 12:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've got a couple of decades of history guys.

What do you want? All we've heard is 'cite' this, and several links to wikipedia policies. We've cited. we've given websites, and documentaries that you can view for free. Honestly, what more do you want?
I would really like to come to a consensus with this. The people involved with bbsing were notified, and they have spoken. I don't want this to develop into some wikipedia ego war. It's obvious that having this article considered for deletion was a mistake. [talk of remote access bbs on a vintage computing website] [reference to a unix RA clone] Mroblivious1bmf 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and any software that existed pre Web (or pre web explosion) of the internet is going to be hard to find sources for. I think Uncle G is making a WP:POINT on software that existed pre-popular internet. Does anyone have old issues of BoardWatch? Otherwise most references will be to USENET postings or FIDOnet archives. 132.205.45.148 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment popular BBS software for DOS: Telegard (TG), Renegade (BBS) (RG), WWIV, SearchLight BBS, WildCat!, RemoteAccess. 132.205.45.148 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RemoteAccess was a popular BBS software for the DOS platform, and somehow still manages to return a healthy 32,500 Google hits a decade after being obviated by the Internet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there was computer stuff around before the internet guys... this was one of the more important BBS packages. ALKIVAR™ 12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the person who submitted the RemoteAccess artical to Wikipedia, and I admit I am am a noob to submitting articals here. The initial issue I had was Wikipedia said that the artical needed to be "Wiki'fied", so I asked for some assistance in a #BBS IRC channel, and Dopefish was kind enough to jump in and help out. Then we ran into the issue that someone had requested for it to be deleted, and it was discussed by several people on IRC, but it was certainly not my intent to turn this into a war. As I understand it, the real issue is that the software is considered "Notible" unless media (newspaper, magizine) sources are cited. This is difficult since RemoteAccess was popular before the world wide web explosion. Andrew (and most RA sysops) lost intrest in it by 1996. There was only one popular media-publication for BBS software that I know of, which was a magizine called Boardwatch. While Boardwatch did contain frequent articals on RemoteAccess, these articals would be difficult to locate because Boardwatch no longer exists. Incidently Andrew Milner was on the cover page of the January 1995 issue, standing next to his Jaguar. You can see a thumb sized image of it here: http://web.archive.org/web/19991116131747/boardwatch.internet.com/mag/online95.html Unfortunatly Boardwatch did not post the older issues from 1990-1994 on their web site, and even the later issues from 1995-2000 are not well archived by the Internet Archive so most articals are lost. I think the best proof that RA existed, and its popularity can be cited by the large number of third-party utilities that were written for it. I have started adding links to RA specific files, and other links to prove not only that RA existed, but it was indeed very popular in its day. I will continue to search for more proof, but my concern is that someone will delete it before enough sources have been cited. Incidently, I have no commercial intrest in RemoteAccess. I was a RA beta tester since the early years, and I was also a North American RA Support Site. User:pcmicro

Keep citing: http://www.rapro.com/ Rswindell 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RemoteAccess was a very important piece of BBS software. Computer stuff, specifically "online communications"/telecom/whatever predates the internet be several years. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it non-notable. --Myles Long 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have pages for Simpsons characters, but not for BBS software that thousands of people used? At least the stub entry should be left over so that someone else may add on to it. BBSes were the driving force of ALL computer hobbyists in the 1980s. Just because you are too young to remember it doesn't mean that an article should not appear! How incredibly arrogant!

ClintJCL 19:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably one of the most popular BBS software around. // Gargaj 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Uncle G is so hot and bothered on the policy citations and references why doesn't he go ahead and nominate thousands of articles on less significant bits that exist on Wikipedia without references? 132.205.93.83 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys, I understand your thoughts on this subject and how you can view it as popular, but the fact remains that Wiki does have policies and guidelines in place. If you could find old magazines, books or some form of hard copy at least that can back up your claims then this would be accepted by the wiki policies. The simpsons characters have pages because they meet all the standards. The claims are verifiable, not original research and presented in a neutral point of view. User:ClintJCL I will remind you to remain WP:CIVIL and stop making Personal Attacks. You are making general statements about people whom you do not know. User:Myleslong, I remember the BBS days and was using them on a 286 (with 640k of RAM and a 2400baud modem) long before the internet was around. I remember this software, and using it before being introduced to Gopher, Telnet, and finally the Internet. However, unless wiki's policies can be meet, the article can not be kept. This AFD is not about how many people raise their hands and say 'I remember the software, so let's keep the article' as the Admin who will make the call on keep or delete does not take those comments into concideration. Mainly what they look at is the arguments made and if the article passes all of wiki's standards. Also, it's not anyone's job to have to race all over wiki making AFD's. Instead of making personal attacks, contribute. Nominate those articles yourself if it bothers you so. Don't expect that it's someone else's job. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Brian, please put your life story on your own page, isnt this discussion supposed to be about this article?

also, i find it hard to understand how you keep referring to Personal Attacks when people are making generalizations, not attacking one person.

Wouldnt it be a personal attack if i were to say for example, that "brian is a guy who goes trying to get 'CRED' by around deleting articles and hides behind vague wiki jargon" ?? this ofcourse is just an example, i am more interested in retaining this FINE article instead of personal banter. Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentMroblivious1bmf, I'm not taking this personally, nor am I engaging in personal banter. Someone is accusing people who this this article is worth deleting as being too young to know about the subject. I provided information disproving that. Also, note that the Articles for Deletion process is designed to get community input. Your views are not being heedlessly dismissed. Also remember that voting here is done by consensus, meaning that a majority is not enough to delete. If the article has merit as it stands, it will remain. Mr Obvious, how are we supposed to write a useful encyclopedia if we don't have a set of standards that govern what we will allow ourselves to publish? How are we supposed to verify that your, my, or anyone's submissions are accurate, for example, if this software has never been covered in the press? I hope you'll read Wikipedia:Verifiability and understand why we have these debates. I assure you that nobody here has anything against you or this software personally - it's just that many, many people try to use Wikipedia to publish announcements, opinionated statements, or unverifiable information. It's nothing personal - these articles just do not meet Wikipedia's standards. A word of caution: in the true Wikipedia spirit, voters/commenters should try to judge the merits of the article itself in the light of the rules (see WP:RULES)--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the need for references, citations, etc, and why this is a big deal for Wikipedia. But couldn't we simply remove this article from AfD and instead put in a tag saying that citations are needed? I think that by now, even without "proper" citations, there should be little doubt that the software was actually notable. --Cotoco 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment while a nice thought, the problem is the AfD process is almost over at this point. The 'citations' tag really is used to give the authors a chance to cite their sources before the Prod and then AfD is assigned. If it is notable, then there should be newspaper, magazine or books mentioning it. If so, then people should cite them. If people feel so strongly about a keep, then obey the process and wiki standards/guidelines, and do research and cite sources. The burden of proof is on the article writers to provide evidence that the article shouldn't be deleted...not visa versa. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question you're really enjoying this, arent you brian? (this is not a personal attack, just a question)Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- comment Enjoying contributing to Wikiapedia? Yes I am. Anything that can clean up and make wiki more accurate is very much worth doing. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- comment i wouldnt really call it contributing, this all seems like some game you enjoy playing, not a personal attack [before you post a link], just my

[and others] opinion on this. Mroblivious1bmf 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOOKS

■ Bibliographic information Title: Tales from the Motherboard ISBN: 0973788003 Publisher: Jon Watson Author(s): Jon Watson PAGE 19 [AMONG OTHERS] REFERENCES REMOTEACCESS BBS SOFTWARE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

■ Essential Guide to Bulletin Board Systems Patrick R. Dewey Mecklermedia published 1987-01-01

■ Bulletin Board Book: Setting Up and Running a Successful Bulletin Board System/Book and 1 5 1/4 Disk IBM Tom Scott M & T Books published 1992-08-01

■ The Complete Cyberspace Reference and Directory : An Addressing and Utilization Guide to the Internet, Electronic Mail Systems, and Bulletin Board Systems Gilbert Held Wiley 1994-09

■ National Directory of Bulletin Board Systems, 1993 Patrick R. Dewey Mecklermedia Corporation 1991

■ Create a Computer Bulletin Board System L Myers Tab Books Hardcover 1991-12-01

■ Handicap BBS list: A listing of handicap electronic bulletin board systems Bill McGarry press:Research & Development Division 1991

■ Computer bulletin board systems and the First Amendment: The common carrier solution Jennifer R Dowd 1993

■ Electronic bulletin board system final report Duane Smith Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State 1998

cite

■ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/bbs.htm

■ http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Tales+from+the+Motherboard/1223 Show #7 - BBS SoftwareShow #7 - BBS Software BBSes are still alive and well, albeit in smaller numbers than before. There is software available for all platforms and support as well. This is the final show for TFTMB, I am moving on to host The Linux User Show on The Podcast Network. Stay tuned to this blog and my personal blog at http://www.jonwatson.ca for more info on that. Citadel BBS Software MBSE BBS Software Galacticom BBS Software Remote Access BBS Software BBS Documentary BBS Software List Fidonet Website Mikly Way BBS This will be the last TFTMB Podcast because I'm moving to The Podcast Network (TPN) to host The Linux User's Show.

■ http://www.cigital.com/silverbullet/

■ http://www.net-security.org/vulnerability.php?id=14731

■ V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/vera/vera_19.html (references RA bbs)

■ http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/hack.html :::thc-rahk.zip remote access bbs hacking tools

■ http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/bbsfaq03.txt introduction to remote access

■ http://computerdictionary.tsf.org.za/dictionary/terms/r.html references RA bbs

■ http://cd.textfiles.com/cream06/readme.1st remote access on cream of the crop Compact disc

■ http://www.rentacoder.com/URLSEO/RentACoder/advertisement/LocalCodersByCity!asp/x!Wisconsin/strCity!Holmen/lngStateId!52/Holmen.htm

Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nicely done on the books though the websites are not acceptable by Wikiapedia's standards on Reputable and Reliable sources. The only missing information that would satisfy WP:V is specific page numbers in those books where RA is mentioned. I am just pointing out the standards in place so please stop the veiled attacks and stay WP:CIVIL. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment That is YOUR biased opinion regarding those websites. Not all of those websites are privately run and owned. Furthermore, those "standards on Reputable and Reliable sources" are just a guideline, not a policy. At this point, there is NO question that Remoteaccess is notable :D Mroblivious1bmf 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Out of the hundreds of bbs packages in the "List of BBS software" article, RemoteAccess is one of the few notable packages that deserves its own article. Better citation may be in order, but deletion should be out of the question. --Sodium N4 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that Jason Scott, creator/author of http://www.textfiles.com and of the BBS Documentary is probably the most prominent BBS historian in existence. Therefore, his website should not be discarded as an unreliable reference just because it's a website. --Cotoco 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish to cite the following additional electronic Newpaper/Magazinepublications:

FidoNews is an electronic NewsPaper for FidoNet, published by Tom Jennings, the original founder of FidoNet.

FidoNews Volume 7, Number 13 ( 26 March 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0713.txt
Page 2: Dale Barns states that the new version of Menu Master will support Remote Access BBS.

FidoNews Volume 7, Number 24 (11 June 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0724.txt
Page 5: An announcment that the "RA_UTIL" echo was added to FidoNet, for discussions on third party utilities for RemoteAccess.

Volume 7, Number 26 (25 June 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0726.txt
Page:25 Dave Thompson mentions he writes programs for QuickBBS and RemoteAccess.

Volume 7, Number 33 (13 August 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0733.txt
Page 11: Dennis McClain-Furmanski mentions RemoteAccess and FrontDoor in an artical about BBS Networking The Soviet Union.

FidoNews Volume 8, Number 6 (11 February 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0806.txt
Page 12:John Bierrie breifly mentions RemoteAccess and 5 other BBS programs in his BBS_UTILS echo artical.

FidoNews Volume 8, Number 8 (25 February 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0808.txt
Page 7: Todd Looney mentions that his SNETDOOR is compatible with RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Volume 8, Number 18 ( 6 May 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0818.txt>
Page 7: FidoCon '91 will include a seminare on configuring Remote Access. Page 24: Dave Appel mentions that the Fidonet FileBone currently carries 24 FDN's including one for Remote Access.

FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 24 (17 June 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0824.txt
Page 24: WORLDCON 1991 Announcment mentions that Andrew Milner, author of RemoteAccess will attend.

FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 25 (24 June 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0825.txt
Artical by Tom Jennings on FidoCon '91. FidoCon was a yearly convention of Fidonet sysops, and the speaker list included notable people such as Steve Wozniack of Apple Computer. Page 18 lists the "Remote Access Representitives will attend, for a discussion on how to install RA.

FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 32 (12 August 1991
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0832.txt
Page 3: In the announcment for the The 1991 International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference, it mentions that Andrew Milner (RA Author) will be present to describe the future of RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 29 (20 July 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0929.txt
Page 4: Fredric Rice explains how to configure a user-defined origin line under Remote Access.

FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 31 (3 August 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0931.txt
Page 6: Announcment for the Second Annual International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference, IBECC'92 mentions that Online Communications will be attending to represent both FrontDoor and RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 34 (24 August 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0934.txt
Page 24: RemoteAccess is one of the 24 FDN (Fido Distribution Networks) carried by the FidoNet Filebone at this date.

FidoNews Vol.10 No.30 (26-Jul-1993)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1030.txt
Page 5: Larry Eggers complains about RemoteAccess representitive Bruce Bodger enforcing shareware registrations in FidoNet.

FidoNews Vol.10 No.45 (07-Nov-1993)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1045.txt
Andrzej Bacinski briefly mentions RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol.11 No.17 (25-Apr-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1117.txt
Page 4: Ralph Merritt mentions that the NewtNet File Distribution network main hub runs RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol.11 No.27 (34-Jun-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0952.txt
Page 14: Fredrick Rice describes confusion with configuring Remote Access use the RA to UUCP utility. Page 17: Fredric Rice describes how to allow Remote Access users to access the internet from the BBS.

FidoNews Vol.11 No.37 (12-Sep-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1137.txt
Page 8: Andrew Leniart describes "FALSE SECURITY PROMOTION" in the way that RemoteAccess stores the users passwords as CRC-32. According to this artical, the same artical originally appeared in the the Australian PC Review computer magazine.

There were several additional FidoNews articals which also mention RemoteAccess. Another note, all these issues of FidoNews mention the current version of RemoteAccess near the last page. In case anyone does not consider textfiles.com a valid source, there is another link to the same articals (archived as .LZH files) found in the FidoNet Artical.

WoeZine Electronic Magazine from the Underground BBS Scene. By definition, an ezine is an Electronic Magazine or periodic publication.

Woe was a much respected BBS modding group in the 1990's, and their ezines are also archives at scene.org, which catered to the underground scenes: demo scene, art scene, music scene, and bbs scene.

Here is an artical on RemoteAccess found in Woezine issue 10, 1998
http://www.thuglife.org/woezine/
http://www.thuglife.org/cgi/load/load.cgi?/woezine/releases/wz010.zip
http://www.scene.org/file.php?file=%2Fmags%2Fwoezine%2Fwz010.zip&fileinfo

:: The RemoteAccess(ra) Scene

Where did the RemoteAccess scene go? this famous and in many eye's
infamous BBS-software. In early 1994 when the first Betas of RA was
realeased many sysops looked there eye's up and saw this BBS-software,
this software who was too easy to configurare that people never used
more than a few weeks to mod it and it was ready. A lot of PCB sysops
look'd at this pathetic software and wondered, was is this shit? and
took a look at it. They saw the most easiest to use menu system ever
being made to setup a board that even my kidbrother who is 7 years old
could start a BBS and make it popular.

Alot of newbie sysop's started to build there BBS:s in RemoteAccess and
soon almost 50% of the europian Bulletin Board Systems where RemoteAccess
certified And with alot of board running RA the modding people started to
build there groups to release "doors" to RA and to there own boards.

Around 1996 there where about hundrets of Modding-Groups active like:
RA-force, MAD, TRAP, RUDE, CROW, IDS, COT, COFFEE, NAILBOMB, NOVA STORM,
S!P, DX, XPress and alot more or less unknown groups. German was a big
holdout for alot of these groups.

You didn't have to do anything as a sysop, everything could be found at
most of these modding groups. As a lame newbie sysop you could find about
100 of LastCaller Doors, about 50 Note 2 Next User door, a total of 200
Doors with unknown features (like lamer-killers, random quotes and
userdupers) About 20 different rumour doors, somelike 300 page-the-sysop
doors, userlisters, bbslisters, userconfig doors, and even clocks you can
tell the user what the local time is (whaow!, i'm impressed!). And the
best - they all where free. Doors with shareware shit never got used
becouse RA-sysop's could always find a look-a-like door that was freeware.
With all these plugins/doors it wasen't hard for a newbie sysop to choose
system. Not to say all the utils that was available, status-doors, top
download/upload and so on...

As usual in the scene, all PCB-sysops got pissed off all these newbie
sysop's didn't know how to run a REAL board, so all the modding groups
As usual in the scene, all PCB-sysops got pissed off all these newbie
sysop's didn't know how to run a REAL board, so all the modding groups
started to say "now with pcb lightbars" / "now got pcb-ansi" / "pcb style"
so all RA-sysop's thought that was kewl, they will soon run a 100% pcb
clone. Alot of ideas to doors to RemoteAccess (RA) where directly taken
from the PCB modding groups, even the ansi where ripped, that's the main
reason the PCB-sysops got angry.

Well, as every good start it have to end, alot of modding groups died most
becouse of the "ideas" was empty, and the BBS-scene in general was fading
out, and worst of all - The Developers behind RA have stopped developing
it. Ofcouse was RA 2.50 not buggy but alot of sysop's wanted to see Even
more features but there it stopped.

RemoteAccess source code was later sold (expensive) to a man with name
"bruce morse" who still (today) is working on a new version but he seems
to work very very very slow so alot of RA-fans started to build there own
RA-clone's, as the structure of RA was free.

In 1998 the RA-scene is 100% dead, there is only 1 real active group left
producing RA doors - Coffee from UK - Respect!
One of the more famous RA-clones is "eleBBS" which is still in beta-status
and the GUI/windows version that is named "tcRemoteAccess/32" they are both
being developed and they are both in Beta-Stage, but they are not giving up
so respect to them too! They are both YK2.

The Offical BBS FAQ describes RemoteAccess in detail. This electronic periodical was first written in Augest 1994, and is still maintained by the sysopworld staff.

http://sysopworld.com/bbsfaq/ch03.3.5.htm#3.5.20

As a final Citation, I would like to point out that Wikipedia currently has a definition for the JAM Message Base Format which was developed by the author of RemoteAccess and the author of FrontDoor. I hope that this entry further valiates that RemoteAccess is indeed notable. I now rest my case. :)

Pcmicro 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RemoteAccess was one of the most important softwarepackages used for BBS's. Need proof? Simply google RemoteAccess BBS Software and most of the 220.000 hits are about this particular softwarepackage... Tdevries 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (once a RemoteAccess BBS Sysop, 2:280/704)[reply]

arf arf i'm going to beat chester to the punch here and say that i believe wikipedia doesn't accept google hits as citations. That being said,

i'm sure the entry is saved, _BUT_ I hope to see some more support and constructive comments. This camaraderie is really showing the youtube generation of the internet what made bbses special. Mroblivious1bmf 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP' are you nuts? RA was one of the most popular Shareware BBS Systems for the PC. I called at least a dozen local BBS's that ran on RemoteAccess --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable software with high historical value. bbx 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Allen Drinking Game[edit]

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

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

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

Unverifiable and no original research. This article has no encyclopedic value, and the origin of the game can be traced to one blogger who admits to creating the game three days ago. [37] --dtony 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You don't have to be in school for it to be made up in school .... Daniel Case 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic rubbish. - Richardcavell 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely non-notable, unverifiable, and very stupid. --S-man 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Value? Are you kidding me?! Search drinking games as a general subject on Wikipedia and tell me how many hundreds of entries there are! I assume that those, however, ARE of "encyclopedic value." This was very clever and I vote that it stays. I had it forwarded to me, and I have since forwarded it on to several family members and friends. With the Tigers gaining so much television and media exposure, and all with Rod Allen and Mario Impemba as the faces of these great Tigers, I would say that it falls into the category of current event relevance. As far as it being "verifiable," I verified it at Buffalo Wild Wings on Saturday night with a group of friends - what a great and fun game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.57.149 (talk • contribs)

Delete per Nomiator. Couldn't say it better myself. Also, I believe this is something to remember: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. --Bschott 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitter is a life-long Tigers fan and has nothing but respect for both Rod Allen and Mario Impemba (worthy successors to George and Al!). As easy as it is to get swept up in the current Tiger fever, drinking game articles are more suitable to blogs or personal websites than an encyclopedia, especially games that are specific to a small group of friends. --dtony 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is user's sole edit. Daniel Case 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you raised the issue, I went and checked Category:Drinking games. Yes, it's well-populated ... but looking at a random selection of articles there, I was astounded at how many are utterly unsourced. And the one Google I did, on Thunderdome (drinking game) turned up one hit independent of Wikipedia or its mirrors, at barmeister.com, which I do not have the time to check for reliability.
I think it's time to go through and winnow this category down some ... it's far too vulnerable to WP:NFT-type stuff. Daniel Case 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree that the category needs to be whittled down a bit. Wikipedia shouldn't become a drinking game repository. For reference, barmeister.com is of the "Submit a drinking game" variety, so its reliability is questionable; it's best as a backup source. --Wafulz 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Buffalo Wild Wings not being a reliable source. --Wafulz 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a game that is fun for the whole family and just as notable as any of the other drinking games. --X96lee15 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fun for the whole family"? A drinking game? Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - well, that part was sarcasm, but the other part about being as relevent as any other of the drinking games on wikipedia stands. If you delete this article, you have to delete every other article. --X96lee15 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, just the ones that fail to show any existence independent of the Wikipedia article or its mirrors. I went through the drinking games category and found about four that are now on AFD. Thanks for the heads-up ... we appreciate it! Daniel Case 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - you obviously didn't look hard enough, because I was able to find independent existence of this game. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. Rod Allen has just recently become the Tigers' announcer and only this year has hit excitement level rising enough to warrant his own game. If the consensus is to delete this article, then I will save the wiki-source for this page and will re-submit the article at a later time when I'm sure it's deemed "worthy" --X96lee15 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The so-called "independent existence" is the blog post linked to up top. As you'll note, it is three days old.
        As a rule you'll notice there are no TV-based drinking games in the drinking games category, because not only are they quintessential fancruft, they never really catch on and I doubt anyone actually plays them (Besides, they're not really games, just observations about the show's clichés made in the form of a drinking game. And "X drinks when Y happens" gets old fast). Daniel Case 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you post what you found please? Also, if the page is deleted, resubmitting it will just get it deleted and protected. --Wafulz 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - [38] shows 10 non-Wikipedia references. Granted, it's not a lot, but the activity in question is only a few days old. And concerning a re-submit, I will wait until it is more notable. Like I said previously, things being new do not preclude them from wikipedia. I'd call myself an anti-deletist. --X96lee15 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Unfortunately, pretty much every link mentioning it is a blog, which do not count as reliable sources. And unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. It is still not notable, not verifiable, an inside joke, and is basically something made up at school one day. The fact that it's barely half a week old is only one of the many, many reasons it should be deleted. I could just as easily create a Mike Lange drinking game with drinks based on every time he says something outrageous, and it would just as easily be worth deleting. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it become a catalyst for insignificant fads. --Wafulz 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        who the heck is Mike Lange and why would you want a drinking game for him?!?!? That's preposterous. Like it ot not, Rod Allen is an excellent sportscaster and this article is without-a-doubt-relevant. And maybe one of the 10 links returned from google was a blog, the others were not; they were message boards. There is a very big difference between the two. --X96lee15 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This pretty clearly illustrates my point. Mike Lange is significant to the Pittsburgh Penguins and to NHL fans and has his own drinking games. There's no difference between his significance and that of Rod Allen. About message boards: If you'd like I could make a post on hfboards (hockey fan boards) to spread the Mike Lange drinking game to prove message boards are also unreliable sources. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        While I don't care about Mike Lange, you have the right to create a Wikipedia article on him and/or his drinking game, if it's significant enough. If there is significant message board chatter, then I'm all for it. --X96lee15 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, quite the opposite is true. I do not have the right to create an article on a Mike Lange Drinking Game if there is significant message board chatter; message boards are not reliable sources. It would be very easy to create a message board fad- this is why articles like Happycat are constantly being deleted. Wikipedia is not for fads or something made up at school one day (WP:NFT). --Wafulz 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. My only beef with this whole deletion is that there are other less-relevant (IMO) "Drinking Games" already on Wikipedia. That's why I'm opposed to this deletion. X96lee15 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What are you people, Sox fans??!? --Beal99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs)

— Possible single purpose account: 24.148.33.95 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

- Volunteer online open-content encyclopedia editors who uphold standards that were established long before most of us began editing. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is hilarious --Tony Eveready— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but not in the way that you think. Daniel Case 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This keeps younger (21 years+) kids watching Tiger's games— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.235.195 (talk • contribs)
Note Hilarity and appeal to younger viewers are not arguments for notability or encyclopedic value, and both of those "keep" votes were entered by the same IP address. --dtony 08:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, 69.241.235.195, but I struck your last keep because you have already had your say. Also, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. (what was per the WP:AFD page) --Bschott 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--referenced today in Detroit Free Press--71.13.216.11 21:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Mike C. Tiger's Fan[reply]
Keep Mentioned in the Detroit Free Press. Is it notable yet? [39] --ThatsHowIRoll 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More accurately, the fact that it was in Wikipedia got mentioned. This strikes me as hilariously irresponsible journalism considering the piece was written today but the article was marked for deletion before then. The Rod Allen Game, featuring the Tigers' television analyst on FSN, has made it into on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia.com. --Wafulz 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using the newspaper as a source for the game; just saying the fact that a journalist and his editors thought the game was notable enough to mention it in a major Detroit newspaper adds some validity to it. There is only one line about Wikipedia in the article; the rest of it is about the game, First, it was Big League Chew. Now, another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state. Like Wafulz said above unless the Rod Allen Drinking Game becomes an enormous sweeping phenomenon, or outrageously popular, it won't merit an article. The Detroit Free Press said it was sweeping the state, does that mean you change your stance on the issue? --ThatsHowIRoll 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game was three days old when it was posted, and the article mentions Wikipedia as its only source. Everything outside of the first paragraph is quoted from Wikipedia. It celebrates the fact that a drinking game based around Rod Allen made it onto Wikipedia. Basically, the only reason the game got a trivial mention in the online ticker was because it had a Wikipedia article, which is exactly why we don't want articles like this on the site. My stance remains. --Wafulz 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:OR and all the others above. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first saw the term Rod Allen Drinking game on a Myspace comment that dates back to 7/6/2006. So the game wasn't invented 3 days ago, just posted on a blog a few days ago. I understand that Wikipedia does not feel like Myspace and blogs are good sources. But no matter how the game got notable, the fact is now the game is notable. People play the game. It was mentioned in the Free Press. If you search Rod Allen on Yahoo, the first "Also try" is "Rod Allen drinking game" [40] If you don't watch the games or know who Rod Allen is, I don't feel like you should decide if the game is notable or not. I dont expect people in California to find it notable, but in Detroit it is. Just because a thing is new, does not preclude it from a Wikipedia entry. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that it was a completely trivial mention based off of notability implied in that it had a Wikipedia article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article- you argue the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. Do you see the same problem I see? Also, the Yahoo! thing is irrelevant. See Google bomb. --Wafulz 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have different opinions on the news piece. You seem to think it is about how the game got an article on Wikipedia. I feel like the article is about telling more people about the game, hence the another Tigers-based fad is sweeping the state line. Followed by the rules and an example of the game quoted from the Wikipedia article. Its not a nation thing, it a Michigan thing. I'm sure most people don't know the importance of Big League Chew to the Tigers, but in Detroit, everyone knows. The problem is that the Wikipedia article has become the sole source of the game. That doesn't mean the game doesn't exist. --ThatsHowIRoll 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "sweeping the state" line gains a lot of support based on the fact that it has a Wikipedia article. Big League Chew has also been around for about 25 years and is significant to more than just Tigers fans- the fact that it's important to them has a brief mention in the "Trivia" section. You're making it sound like the Big League Chew article exists solely because of its significance to the Tigers. --Wafulz 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Detroit Free Press mention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jeff, The DFP mention was only in relation to the Wiki Article. The newspiece asserted notability through Wikipedia having an article but you saying Keep as if the Wikipedia article asserts notability through the newspiece. The newspiece came out 3 day after the AFD was put into place. The only mention of this 'game' was on a users blog, they admit to making up. Before making a snap decision, I recommend looking over the history of this debate. --Bschott 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. I also know that the game was widespread enough for someone to have thought about a news article about it, check wikipedia about it, and then note that Wikipedia has an entry on it. The game is obviously notable if you need notability to make a decision, and the game is now verifiable. My position stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also want to remind people, one newspaper article does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or drinking game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Since the newspaper article was written after the Wiki page, and refers specifically to the wiki page, the article is in violation of this rule. Sources cite on an article must be Reliable - Specifically - Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. The newspaper article references the wiki article as a source, hence the wiki article would be self-referencing by using the newspaper article as a source to verify this game. The fact of the matter is, this article fails two of the Wiki policies on Article Standards. No Original Research, and Verifiability, and the majority of anons in this discussion are not basing their statements on the Wiki Standards but on their personal feelings for a sports team. As it is jeff, I personally feel your stand holds no merit when applied to the Wiki Article Standards. --Bschott 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you trying to say that the article would be okay if the Detroit Free Press had written the article and I created it today? The point is simple: this article does not run afoul of any sourcing as the subject has been reported about in a third party publication. We are not citing the article as a source, the Detroit Free Press is the source. Whether they relied on Wikipedia for part of the article isn't relevant. My stand is entirely within policy and guideline here. Just because the article was created two days earlier than you may have preferred doesn't mean it's a bad article now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jeff, the article most likely would not have been written if the wiki article was not here. But beyond that, one mention in one newspaper does not make this notable. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is only one local newspaper mentioning this 'game' in only one small article. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability...especially as the article was written after the wiki article, and the 'game' has been shown to have few ghits. --Bschott 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speculation as to whether the article would exist without the wiki article coming into play is idle speculation at best. Notability, as a statement of fact, has no official policy. The article, as it stands, is verifiable by a reliable source, so it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you will throw out the few ghits and the WP:OR citations as not worth paying attention to in this discussion. Because one Local newspaper gave a small article to this game, it should have an article? Well, I have been mentioned in the Fargo/Moorhead Forum numerous times, so I should have a large article as well, right? It's Verifiable by a Reliable source right? No, we have to look at the trinity of the Standards and the wiki article must meet all three..Neutral POV, Verifiable, AND No Original Research. Since the only source for this game (before the newspaper article) was a blog where the author admitted to making up the game, and there are no media mentions before the wiki article (or this DFP article) was made, this falls into OR. The DFP article only refers to Wiki as a source, which makes citing the DFP article in the wiki article self-referencing. There is no mention of the blog on this DFP article. We may also want to look at the fact that the DFP newspaper may fall into a 'trivial' newsource. It is not a national paper (it's local only) and is not nationally known. No other newspapers or media have picked up on this 'game'. The game itself is only a locally known thing, and only because of the wiki article and this newspaper article. Nationally or world wide, it is just unknown. If you dismiss all that, the wiki article does fail OR, and if an article fails any of the three main Standards so harshly, then I believe there really isn't any reason for the article to exist.--Bschott 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, we're just running around in circles at this point. The article is verifiable by the Detroit Free Press (highly non-trivial and nationally known), it's NPOV, and no longer/doesn't fail original research. I'm failing to see the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The article is trivial in both length and content, it sources Wikipedia, and the Detroit Free Press is "nationally known" on the basis that it has "Detroit" in its name. It is still a local newspaper- it just happens to be in a large city. The original research still stands- where did the material come from? Blogs and message boards. What did the news article add to the wikipedia entry? Nothing. It apparently can't be stressed enough that this article is self-referencing. --Wafulz 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So it's a stub in reality. No problems there. As for the Detroit Free Press, it's the 12th largest paper by circulation in the US, that stands for something. Whether the material came from blogs is irrelevant, truly - the information was important enough to be used in a newspaper article. The news article itself may not add anything new to the article proper, but it does infer notability and verifability that may not have existed before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, we are running around in circles, but I am not willing to concede to your point, jeff, that it somehow magically passes OR. Looking at the history ~~through untinted glasses~~ [Edit: I don't know if you are a Tiger's fan or not]] shows that this was OR when the AFD was created. The DFP article (trivial or not) still has the article falling short of multiple third-party sources. Since the article references Wiki as the source of this game, I can't, in good faith, accept the DFP article as a mention of notability or Verfibiliy. If the article had mentioned the blog AND there were other newspapers that had picked up on the story before the AFD, I would concede this had merit. As it stands, there isn't an article that references the blog (only verifiable source of this game outside of wiki), and so...it fails OR. --Bschott 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, this Red sox fan disagrees. It doesn't "magically pass" OR. It passes WP:OR easily, note the key phrase that applies here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Detroit Free Press, even if it notes the Wikipedia entry for this article, meets this. The part you're attempting to cite here is at WP:RS: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." Wikipedia is not citing itself in the article in question. The DFP article uses Wikipedia as a source, but that does not run afoul of policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Then you run into issues with verifiability. Who do we have to verify this by? A few blogs and message boards, which are not reliable sources. What does the local newspiece say? That Wikipedia mentioned the game, so therefore the game must be notable because it is on Wikipedia. This is very circular logic. Please also take into account the length, relevance, and content of the article and not just the fact that it mentions the game. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a dog winning a local dog show, would you consider it notable? --Wafulz 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The newspiece cites Wikipedia as an example of how widespread the game's popularity has gotten. That doesn't mean they're treating Wikipedia as a source, nor would that disqualify it. If the circumstances were the same, but the subject in question were a local, unknown dog, maybe it'd be different. This isn't about a dog or a little-known event, though. People who don't watch dog shows typically don't know the names of the dogs. The Detroit Tigers aren't a dog show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The newspiece is citing Wiki as an example of how 'widespread' the game's popularity is...but a google search does not back up that claim nor is Wiki an example of popularity as anyone can make an article here. Just look at all these AFDs around this one. Are they automatically 'popular' because they are on wiki? And the DT's are not a dogshow...Yes, you are correct in that, HOWEVER we are not talking about the DT's nor are we talking about the merits of the game's link to the DTs. We are talking about if this Game had any notability beyond the blog that stated they created the game and it merits a page based on such criteria as only having one questionable source....a personal Blog. That stinks of OR. --Bschott 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, now we're getting somewhere. A Google search is a poor factor of notability, it's why we don't use Google as a verification tool when it comes to verifying notability. So we have to figure out what would be a proper notability situation. As it is a drinking game, it doesn't fit into the basic notability guidelines we have available, so let's look at another aspect: is it verifiable? The answer is yes. Is it original research? If it was before, it isn't now that it has the DFP mention. To quote the nonbinding notability essay (since you're insisting on notability here): "while all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." The article is verifiable, it doesn't run afoul of any major policies, so what's the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Either you wish not to comprehend or you are arguing to argue. Either way, the points have been laid out...we will let an Admin decide. --Bschott 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well then. It's actually your unlisted third: I want to comprehend, but I'm not understanding your protests given the policies you're citing. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I emailed the author of the Article yesterday and (he sounds like a really nice guy) here is his reply to my email. I commented that the Game's wiki article was up for deletion and if it was deleted, his article may need a footnote mentioning this.

“

From: Jahnke, James <[email protected]>

To: Brian Schott <****@gmail.com> Date: Aug 9, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: RE: THE TICKER: Tigers fans wet whistle listening to Rod

Brian,

Thanks for the info. I know the game is pretty short-lived on Wikipedia, but The Ticker is designed to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope people realize that it's mostly a joke.

Thanks for reading, JRJ

”

Just incase anyone wanted to know. --Bschott 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope people didn't take drinking games seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Must not have been to too many frat parties. ;) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a link that mentions the Rod Allen Drinking Game back in 2004: [41] I think this adds a new twist to the situation. The article is now definitely not original research and it has been around longer than 3 days ago. These were the two points mentioned as to why the article was up for deletion. I do not see how anyone with a clear conscience can delete this article with this new information X96lee15 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still an Internet forum which is not a reliable source, not verifiable, and personal, which qualifies as original research. I could just as easily go and write about a drinking game "Drink when x does y." Please, just stop grasping at straws here- you're bringing up nonsense for the sake of trying to justify what is basically a joke. --Wafulz 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not appreciate my comments on the subject being called "nonsense"; that is not very professional. And the subject of the article in question is not a joke. It has been around for over 2 years and it mentioned in many different places, including the Detroit Free Press. For the reasons given for deletion, this article should NOT be deleted. X96lee15 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sigh" While you are doing a good job researching this, you are mis-reading the Original Research standard here at wiki, or you haven't read it all together. Wiki needs independent, reliable, third-party mentions to make something verifiable and notable. All we have is a few Blogs (which are not acceptable by wiki standards as Reliable

Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Where are the primary sources?

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

I can't see that this is easily verifiable by and reasonable adult with specialist knowledge.

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

And...

..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...

I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication before the wiki article was created. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published.

See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.

Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.

Even the article made the the DFP was quoted by the author to be just a tongue-in-cheek joke.

HERE IS THE KICKER

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:07, 10 August 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, --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT, and Wikipedia is Not an Instruction Manual on how to play a game. The cardinal sin here, though, is that this article is inherently Unverifiable. Assuming this is even notable (which I do not concede), how does one verify any of what's claimed here? Scorpiondollprincess 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's still unverifiable. -- Whpq 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To address the two above, the basics of this article do not violate WP:OR or WP:V. Its existence is absolutely verifiable by a reliable, third party source. The article needs to be cleaned up, for sure, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid I still don't see it as verifiable. If, for example, someone questions the legitimacy of one of the "3 Drinks" rules, what is the verifiable, reliable, third party source to authoritatively consult? There's nothing but a passing mention in one newspaper article cited. That only verifies that the game exists (and has a wikipedia article). What's to prevent someone from adding, modifying, or making up new rules and listing them here? The rules themselves are not verifiable and smell strongly of WP:OR and WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic. Gazpacho 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I imagine that there are plenty of subjects that have slipped by the new page patrol that are speedyable; the fact that a newspaper noticed one doesn't automatically make it notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my vote above still applies. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the 4 or 5 delete votes above. Recury 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. A short summary of this game belongs in the Rod Allen article. The game does not conatin enough independent notability to carry an article on its own. The news article is the only thing saving it from an outright delete, as it appears to be a fair, independent confirmation of the subject. Cdcon 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This game was only mentioned in a news source because it has an article on the Wikipedia. This game originated on a blog, and the game remains very regional. This game at best should be mentioned in Rod Allens article (which it already does). --Porqin 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR. Is this a joke? The only source referenced in the article cites this very Wikipedia article as a source! Even if this game actually exists (i.e. is played by more than two people worldwide), it's still so silly as not to warrant mention in an encyclopedia unless it has some sort of actual notability. Sandstein 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IRONY ALERT - to all the blowhards that want it gone - do you realize that pages of heated debate are they very thing that make it relevant? If this was complete garbage that went unnoticed, it would disappear without a trace. What this has turned in to is NOT a debate of the worthiness of the article [the debate validates the worthiness], but rather a matter of pompous, holier-than-thou informationistas [Daniel Case] who are offended that a fun, creative individual with a sense of the moment has DARED to tread on their sacred bastion of intelligencia, and they are trying to eliminate it. This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.145.11 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the compliment. It'll make a great epigraph to the deletion section on my user page. Daniel Case 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This would kill the essence of what Wiki was supposed to be. — This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, and the essence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be is a verifiable encyclopaedia containing no original research and written from the neutral point of view. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per my comments above -- if you read the Freep article, it only mentions that the game has been mentioned on wikipedia. It does not say that it originated on wikipedia. Therefore, any arguments saying that the newpaper article was only written because of the wikipedia entiry are invalid, IMO. X96lee15 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address the charge that the article is unverifiable. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpiondollprincess has hit the nail on the head. The only way that has been put forward by ThatsHowIRoll, Badlydrawnjeff, and others, to verify any of the content of this article is to use a news article that used this very Wikipedia article as its source for the information in the first place. Clearly, that isn't a source. (It's also a gross misunderstanding of our long-standing Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policy, which exists precisely because people attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to make the sort of shortcuts around the process of publication, fact checking, peer review, and absorbtion into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia, that Badlydrawnjeff is asserting are acceptable.) The only other source, independent of Wikipedia, put forward that describes this game in any detail is a post on a web log, made a scant few days ago, and that provides no evidence that (despite what the post claims) this game and its rules are not the creation of a single person and that they have actually become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. I cannot find any further sources at all. This article is original research and unverifiable. The way for this game to get into Wikipedia is for it to be properly documented by multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia first. Shortcuts are not allowed. Delete. Uncle G 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there. X96lee15 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The newspaper article text looks lifted straight from Wikipedia, and it cites no other source. No way it can be considered an independent source. Fan-1967 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to mention the editor himself said it was tongue-in-cheek and a joke, as noted above. Also I hope my delete is still being counted from the original AfD.--Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  - "The newspaper article does NOT use wikipedia as its information! It merely mentions that it has been published there"
    That one goes in the hairsplitting Hall of Fame. Kinda reminds of the early Soviet government getting rid of the death penalty yet continuing to shoot people; they were just no longer being sentenced to be executed, merely shot. Daniel Case 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not anywhere near hairsplitting at all and is actually a completely valid point that hits at the crux of the argument that the article from the Detroit Free Press is commenting on how relevant and popular the game has become, that there is now a wikipedia article about it. I'd also ask that you refrain from comparing innocent civilians dying due to oppressive governments to whether a newspaper article was using a wikipedia article as a source or not. For that wildly inappropriate and childish comment, I'll ask that all of your comments be stripped from the argument as they are an amalgamation of how you've been nothing but condescending, presumptuous, and pompous through out the whole debate rendering your side and those on it ineffective and exposing your arguments under the supercilious and pedantic light that you and those on your side inexplicably shine proudly from. 134.215.210.125 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article on a drinking game? Are you people serious? JIP | Talk 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We have dozens of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he meant an entirely minor, new, unverifiable drinking game. --Wafulz 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If he was, it wasn't clear, as this certainly isn't all that new or unverifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your repeated claim that this is verifiable has yet to answer the question posed to you by Scorpiondollprincess above as to how readers and editors are to verify the content of this article. 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UncleG and Scorpiondollprincess. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. There are local variants of this for every broadcaster who has a catch phrase: You can put it on the board... YES!. -- Fan-1967 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the only reason you can think of to keep it is because there are other drinking games on here that need to be deleted, you need to read up on the Wikipedia policies some more. --PresN 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Uncle G; misses WP:V by a long way and WP:NFT applies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a number of other drinking games listed on Wikipedia, and although while this is a new game it has been played by many in Michigan following the 2006 Tigers MidnightSwinga 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, we run into the problem of it being local, original research, a how-to and essentially unverifiable. The fact that other drinking games exist on Wikipedia has no bearing on the merit of this article. --Wafulz 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this article that it is unverifiable. Your only argument against that is to cite sources that can be used to verify its contents. Any other argument, such as personal testimony that the game has been played, is irrelevant. Please cite sources. Uncle G 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For reasons I listed under Daniel Case's unfortunate, disrespectful, immature, and ill-conceived comment about oppressive governments killing innocent civilians, as the drinking game is so relevant that the Detroit Free Press wrote an article about how popular it has become that there is now a wikipedia article for it.134.215.210.125 22:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't know how many times people have to say this, but the DFP article was meant as a joke. I emailed the author, and posted his response to me above. The DFP article cited only wikiapedia as it's source. In any case, there is nothing reputable that can be cited here as a SOURCE. Just one news article (ironically three days after the AFD was in discussion) does not make something wikiapedia worthy. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the fact remains that the Rod Allen Drinking Game is a real thing that has gotten quite a bit of attention (based on the newspaper article, message board posts from 2004 and the lengthy discussion here). The article was pointing out that the ALREADY EXISTING Rod Allen game phenomenon has gotten so big that it even has a wikipedia entry. It's sad that so many people want to have this article deleted. Also, it does not matter that the author of the article said it was a joke; from WP:V:

“

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

”

Because of this, I do not think we can include the Free Press article author's email in this discussion. X96lee15 04:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Since Blogs, Personal Websites, and message board posts are not concidered Reliable or Reputable sources, can you cite sources that do pass the verifiable, Reliable, and Reputable sources test. The news paper does not count as a primary source as it 1) is published after the wikipedia article was made and 2) does not cite the source of this game. If this game is so big and widely known, where are the other articles or news stories on it? Where is the primary source of information for this? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncaged Films[edit]

Non Notable web group(aparently 21 uniques on google) i kan reed 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN (as I had stated in an above AfD). -- Kicking222 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Thorne N. Melcher 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the title, redirect it to Behind the Mask (ALF), the only film the company has made, and merge the contents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... was I the only one who was hoping that this was a movie about the guy who played ALF? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It doesn't seem notable. As for SlimVirgin's merge proposal, I'm not sure that Behind the Mask passes notability standards either. I think any useful info on this film can be merged into the ALF page (and I think it already has been). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunk Bloghost[edit]

Delete. Article does not assert compliance with WP:SOFTWARE. Deprodding IP says "I do not see why it should be deleted, it is a fairly popular piece of software with a high rating on hotscripts". - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (although it's gone multi-blogger!) Yomangani ^talk 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --N R S^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no basis for notability given. Also, "bloghost" looks like "blo ghost" to me. · rodii · 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Chatto[edit]

As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the cluster of Nobility all nominated together, a single discussion might have sufficed. WilyD 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great nephew of the Queen, so notable. -- Necrothesp 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sarah Armstrong Jones. Not so notable outside of the family context. Ohconfucius 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 17th in line to the British throne is notable, even if he never achieves anything -- Roleplayer 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I doubt my vote will matter much at this point, I agree with Fenton. If not Delete, then merge Mad Jack 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Chatto[edit]

As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the cluster of Nobility all nominated together, a single discussion might have sufficed. WilyD 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great nephew of the Queen, so notable. -- Necrothesp 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sarah Armstrong Jones. Not so notable outside of the family context, and will realistically never see the sceptre. Ohconfucius 13:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 16th in line to the British throne is notable, even if he never achieves anything -- Roleplayer 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Astrotrain 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Taylor[edit]

As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the cluster of Nobility all nominated together, a single discussion might have sufficed. WilyD 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so notable outside of the family context. Did someone say 26th? Merge with Lady Helen TaylorOhconfucius 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 26th in line is like, nowhere. No sources, no press mentions, no nothing. Gnews hits zero. Do not merge with Lady Helen Taylor as mummy is none too notable and the resulting redirect is unwanted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the other article nominated by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for context and completeness in the list of those in line, while 26th place is not terribly notable, he does occupy that spot and this is worth something.Shaylot 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Astrotrain 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure someone said to me that votes do not count onless reasond. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I've made by position perfectly clear in the discussion pages of the other royal articles you have nominated. Astrotrain 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nod Mad Jack 08:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not particularly noteworthy, he is still in line to the throne. Cristien 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- and? Doesnt make him notable.. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - if only for completeness - he is after all a member of the royal family (or close to) and the "line of succession" list can only be enhanced by having information on as many incumbants as possible. Keep ZIGBRYWG 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having an article for every royal is counter-productive, it entices people to create nn bios. Especially if you where 1 millionth in line and can verify this at time of creation, what happens wene your 1 millionth and 1 and cant cite it then? Its counter productuve as it means more work of deleting nn, wasting space etc.. we need a policy of what is not notable. Not a policy to make everyone in the line notable straight away. You wouldnt give a local newspapaer reporter an articlem but he or she has probably done more notable things then 70% + of these royals. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair point, however we are not talking about 1 millionth in line to the throne, we are talking about 26th! ZIGBRYWG 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes but its extremley unlikely he will ever come to the throne, if and when he has a claim to notability then he could have an article yet. having one "just in case" is unfair to those others who would like one "just in case" if and when he is notable i wouldnt object to an article but at the moment i do. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This really boils down to what an individual deems as "noteworthy" - I consider that someone born into the royal family of the UK and fairly high in the line of succession noteworthy, obviously you do not. We obviously won't agree, so lets see what happens! And you never know, we live in an age of constant threat of terror, it is not that unplausable that there will be a King Columbus!!!! ZIGBRYWG 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we'd [England] rather get rid of royalty then have a king colombus :| MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        At last we agree!!! ;-) ZIGBRYWG 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I've voted to redirect those who are 100+ place markers away, I think being this close in line to royalty is sufficiently notable. RFerreira 21:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although this seems more due to participation than royalty's actual intrinsic notability or lack of it, as I just closed an AfD on the one before him which had more participation and consequently a 'keep' consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Taylor[edit]

As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the cluster of Nobility all nominated together, a single discussion might have sufficed. WilyD 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so notable outside of the family context. 27th? Merge with Lady Helen Taylor you'll sleep sounder Ohconfucius 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits. Being umptieth in the line for the throne is not, not, not, notable. Unsourced, unreferenced, unwanted. WP:NOT Hello. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the other article nominated by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mad Jack 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eloise Taylor[edit]

As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xth in line to the Canadian (among other) throne is pretty notable, to deny notability on how it was achieved fails to conform to WP:NPOV, which is a policy, unlike the proposed guidelines on nobility. WilyD 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so notable outside of the family context. 28th and counting??? Harry and William etc, will have a few children, and before you knw it, they won't even be in the top 40 Merge with Lady Helen Taylor Ohconfucius 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previous Taylorspawn noms; big fat zero gnews or gbooks hits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the other articles nominated by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please same reason as Estella Taylor and other nobility Yuckfoo 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matthew Fenton Mad Jack 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: in this AfD there is a larger majority for deletion than in other AfDs for sub-stub biographies just above this entry on the line of royal succession, but I believe this is more due to the randomness of participation rather than because we're getting close to some magical limit on the line of succession where you're no longer automatically notable. We may need a consensus on what point of the line of succession is automatically notable, but it hasn't been found here. No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estella Taylor[edit]

Speedy delete (CSD A7) As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unclear where we draw the line in relation to descendants of royalty. This person is not royal, she does not have the title "Her Royal Highness", or any other title, not even "Lady" or "The Honourable". My own view is that I would be prepared to treat all children and grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, which is a fairly low threshhold of notability, but this person is only a great-great-great-grandchild. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. PatGallacher 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears there was a previous decision to merge so it wouldn't have hurt to have done that, but even merging to 25th in line to the throne is pushing it. An article on those in line to the throne wouldn't be too bad, but they aren't individually notable enough to warrant their own articles Yomangani ^talk 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above. Darn royals. Why didn't they consider how it would affect Wikipedia before deciding on this monarchy system? ;-) Wickethewok 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one isn't even titled, and is too far from the main line to deserve an article simply based on her lineage. Fan-1967 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other editors. Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the guidelines for nobility are not policy, they're just proposed policy. To claim that nobility are unnotable because they haven't done anything is very POV - the argument can easily be made that being Xth in line for the throne of a country (or 16 countries) easily makes one notable. WilyD 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well i must be about 5 millionth in line for the throne right? Thanks for clarifying that i am notable and worthy of an article. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically speaking, if you can name the exact number in line you are to the throne, I'd be willing to keep the article, as long as it's independantly verifiable. Of course, the real case will be that once you're no longer notable, nobody will know where you are in the sucession. WilyD 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sarcastic example of how flawed your argument was, heh. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll conceed the sarcasm, but the rest of your argument falls to the indefeatable problem that my argument has no flaw. It also have the wonderful virtue of being a logically fallacy, which doesn't help make it convincing. WilyD 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, you say if i can cite a verifiable source, yet said articles are blatent OR. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the adjective blatent is blatently false. But since you've asked nicely, I'll add some citation. WilyD 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this 2 year old notable other than her great-great-grandfather was king of England? And if more people remember Albert Einstein than George V of the United Kingdom, then do Al's great-great-granddaughters get articles too? If 20-odd royals bite the dust, perhaps she'll be notable enough with papparazzi all over her, but she's much less notable than Suri Cruise (a redirect to her mother) who doesn't merit an article. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand isn't at all who her parents are - republican sentiment aside - it's the importance of the position she holds. Every Joe Blow and Johnny Nobody who walks around left field for an inning without touching the ball is elidgible for an article under WP:BIO - that's a better comparison. Saying Well, she's less notable that Winston Churchill, or Jesus, so let's delete her is plain foolish. With certain positions or titles, you're encyclopaedic even if you accomplish nothing. For example, anyone who's ever Prime Minister of Canada will get an article, even if they're more forgetable than John Turner. WilyD 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in a similar AFD a few weeks back where I voted the other way, my usual criterion on this one is nth in line to the throne where n < 10. Just seems to me 26th is too far out to count. Even if Windsor Castle collapses during the Queen's birthday party, I have to think there'd be somebody left ahead of this kid. Fan-1967 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it ought to depend on the title - in this case, she's 26th in line for 16th seperate Queendoms - so split the difference and she's overall 3rd in line ;) WilyD 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She doesnt even have a title! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it quite works that way ;-) -- Fan-1967 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too young and distant from the throne to be notable outside of the family context. 29th and counting??? Harry, William etc, will have a few children, Edward a few too, and before you knw it, Eloise won't even be in the top 40, and Estelle will be one behind. Trees will grow and branches will fall off. Merge with Lady Helen Taylor Ohconfucius 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. My brother in law is a direct descendant of Confucius (male side). Remind me to give him a Wiki entry if this one is kept ;-)[reply]

If your brother in law is verifiably in line to become Confucius, then why not? Nobody suggests we merge Dave Stieb with Toronto Blue Jays even though he's unknown outside of that context. WilyD 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So just counting british people your saying we should have 5 million nn bios and upwards (of course thats not close to to uk population) and then billions of other countries persons? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already elucidated, if it's verifiable then it's fine. The key criterion of verifiability will cut off the list on it's own. Nobody has the slightest clue where I rank in the line of ascention because I am not notable. Lots of people know where Estella Taylor ranks in the line of ascention because she is notable. WilyD 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As i have stated she is not, she doesnt even hold a title. Being n-th in line isnt criteria and an extremley silly notion. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a highly point of view statement. You may believe this, as do many others, many others do not. But it is a pure value judgement to say her ~~title~~ position is worthless - it's notable, tracked for purposes of ascention, et cetera. WilyD 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again "!?WHAT TITLE!?" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

title, not Title. Your shouting makes it a hard question to answer. Incidentally, title was a terrible word choice on my part. Better to say positionWilyD 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about "shouting" if you want me to shout should i record my message, your failure to even present a title in your reply pretty much clarifys my position. She is just a un-notable child who has done nothing notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What position? She has no position, shes not a princess, queen or lady she is just a child who is in line for the british throne. Which i may remind you so is everybody else. Thus your argument is flawed! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

29th in line to the Canadian Throne, for instance (she does have an impressive collection of positions). She is notably in line for the British Throne, as opposed to people who are unnotably in line (as no one takes note of it. She is a highly notable child that has done nothing notable. She holds a notable position. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing. WilyD 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest so is also POV pushing, so quit it :)! Also that makes every other person highly notable then because there in line for the throne? Look its obvious to me you areant going to provide anyhing useful or concrete to this AfD except repeat she is notable because she n-th in line to the throne so im going to try to refrain from conversing with you anymore. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Notability of a position isn't dependant upon everyone believing the position notable. Since you've ignored most of my argument, it may be hard to grasp. I could easily enough say I don't think actors or actresses are notable but if I went around offering up Jennifer Aniston for deletion saying Just a non-notable actress doing her job, which she happens to be good at, I would be pushing a POV (that actresses shouldn't be more notable that doctors, teachers, whatever). One may wish royalty were unnotable, but they're not. WilyD 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying royalty as a whole isnt notable however this child is not notable, JA has done notable things and had notable things. Can you present me anything notable this child Estella has done? I think not. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that she has done something notable, nor would I. Nor is doing something notable a necessary condition to being someone notable - that's the mindset I'm saying we can't embrace, because it is a point of view, that can be easily enough refuted, and is just a value judgement. WilyD 16:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgeting she isnt notable however, also is Suri Cruise notable because he or she was born to famous parents? I think not. If we use your argument everybody born is notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not important that she came into her position through parentage. If the order of ascention was decided by lottery, the 29th person in line would be notable. That she gets the position from her parents is incedental. That she has the position is notable. WilyD 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

◄──────────── Getting kind of tight at the margin ────────────┘

This is getting extremley tiresome, every holds that position!! She is no differnt! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe that - but it's POV, and one that's not nearly universal (for example, the Queen makes note of where she is in line)- that's the problem with the rational for nomination. WilyD 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV? It's fact! Either present a convincing argument.. or dont bother. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already presented such an argument, an explained what distinguishs her from someone who might (in principle) be in line, but where the case is unknown. If the Queen is tracking your position in line, it indicates that the experts in the field judge your position to be notable. WilyD 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt about what the experts in the field of n-th in the line care for, its about whats notable for wikipedia. and im begining to serious believe that you must be one of these "royal expert trackers" as you seem to believe she is notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but in the case where we're establishing notability, your opinion of who's notable just doesn't measure up to the expert in the field. For what it's worth, I would guess there's only a single person who tracks the line of ascention, and you could probly verify I'm not that guy (for example, my IP comes from Canada, but I'd guess the guy who tracks this is English). WilyD 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So.. your telling me now all 1000 or so this person tracks are notable just because there in the elite thousand? Comon thats extremley rude. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how many he tracks - the reference I found had 39, so I'll accept (at the moment) the notability of the top 39. Whether's its "rude" or not I have no idea, nor am I able to fathom why you might find it rude. You'll have to elaborate why, but I'm pretty sure Calling this personal notable is just rude fails as a criterion for deletion under Wikipedia is not censored WilyD 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is rude in the fact that you think it is more notable then any normal person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More notable does not mean better or worse. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to advance your agenda. WilyD 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To discount the notability of royalty. Charles Manson is more notable than I am, it's not rude for anyone to observe of as much. WilyD 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

◄──────────── Getting kind of tight again ────────────┘

Of course he is more notable then you, unless of course your a killer to? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, be he's not better than me. Notability doesn't address goodness, or vice versa. WilyD 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he was better (it is always possible he is) then you, but he is of course more notable then you. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had complained that it was rude I found Estella Taylor more notable than you - it seemed to me that you must have somewhat equated notability with goodness, which is why I tried to address the issue. WilyD 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never brought goodness into the matter (we must of set a wikiord here "most indented convo") Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but why else would it be rude to find her notable and you not (or maybe you are, I really haven't looked into it)? Anyways, I intented out for legibility. WilyD 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that every Britain is in line, so its rude that you find her notable because shes closer then anyone else. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cut an extreme line at WP:V - which is pretty reasonable - and even said that I might support the five millionth in line notable if it were verifiable. But in all cases of progression, some chop is applied. 2nd tallest guy is likely to have an article, and so on. I'm not sure where one ought to draw the line, but the Queen's website choose 39th, so as far as WP:V goes, that's as far as I can extend it. WilyD 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Dave Stieb is also notable within the context of Southern Illinois University and the Chicago White Sox. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have reached the wrong AfD, please check and try again. (You sure this is the right AfD) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I will endevour to choose better examples. Mea Culpa. But I'm sure I could find such an example as I was looking for. Such as Coco Laboy with respect to the Montreal Expos. WilyD 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and failing WP:BIO, zero gnews or gbooks hits. Frankly db-bio CSD A7 material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- she is notable as being in the line of succession to the British throne. Astrotrain 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comments on other nominations by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please notable for being in line of succession to the throne Yuckfoo 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—As it stands now, the article is completely unsourced. I presume it is verifiable, but once thoroughly verified there should be no problem keeping it. Ardric47 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I have said previously, there has to be some sort of cut off point beyond which distant relatives of royalty are not inherently notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. I previously suggested a cut off point of regarding the grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, but not beyond that. Some people are arguing for inclusion on the grounds that this person is in the line of succession to the British throne. This suggests an alternative cut off point. Fair enough, but I would point out that the verifiable line of succession to the British throne, on the British monarchy website, stops at 39 people, most of the wikipedia article on this subject is original research. PatGallacher 10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of rebutable sources on the British Royal Family and their descendants- it is not original research. Astrotrain 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own comments in the related nomination for Columbus Taylor. RFerreira 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nandesuka 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Arts of the American West[edit]

Notability/importance in question. This is just one of many field study programs that occur every year at universities across the country. ghits: [42] — NM Chico24 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article, does not indicate notability (which is different from uniqueness). Gazpacho 22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the official website's press links, and they're to scholarly publications. Based on that, I don't think it has acheived importance. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the primary author of the article (at this point) and I disagree with the statement that there are many such field programs like this. Please provide examples. As far as I know there are not any other programs in the visual arts that combine such a range of sites through direct contact with the landscape as this program. I am eager to learn of any other models that exist as they would help the general effort of our work. In response to the question of importance, I am a bit confushed why references in scholarly publications preclude importance. Guess I always thought it should be a matter of 'both and'. Here is a list of additoinal citations and references about the program that are not included on the program website from a range of source types:

Quantum Article KUT public radio spot UT Austin main page web feature CLUI Newsletter reference Princeton Architectural Press publication--with essay on program Glasstire Review Contemporary Arts in the Public Realm exhibit inclusion Exhibition review CLUI Newsletter reference NPR Interview with Taylor Lannan Foundation UNM Endowment Grant CCA Exhibition Santa Fe Reporter review of 2006 CCA Exhibition

It is my belief that the string of press we have consistently received (this is an edited list of web accessible materials) has substaintiated the notability of the program---in addition to it's uniqueness. As a co-director of the program it seemed to me to go on about how notable the program is would be to succumb to the creation of a vanity entry. I figured that portion of the entry is for others (than I) to expand upon. C dog taylor 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Most of the press you've received is limited to the local area or to academia. I admit that your program is unique, but Wikipedia is not a collection of the unique. It is an encyclopedia to chronicle notable people, events, inventions, scientific discoveries and phenomena, societies, etc. The key word there is notable. Unfortunately, unless your programme has received wide national exposure, or been involved in notable discoveries or experiments, then simply being a unique field study is not sufficient to imply notability. — NM Chico24 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern for notability and do feel that you are not evaluating the material submitted from within its context. I welcome a review based on merits and content and thus far do not feel one has occured. It seems that a decision has been made early on and attempts to clarify or provide additional substaintiating material have not affected the view held. Being new to the world of Wikipedia, its formats, and protocals, perhaps the problem has more to do with syntax. If that is the case I welcome feedback that will allow progress to be made. If you would like to deem this entry a stub from our website and encourage other users to flesh out the entry that would be fine by me. My interest is in contributing to the network of ideas that are already underway (and referenced) within Wikipedia. Productive feedback on those fronts would be welcomed.

The endowment grant from the Lannan Foundation is profoundly notable in the spheres of visual arts, literature, and academia. Their support of other projects included and referenced in Wikipedia is not a coincidence. The program is currently the subject of a book that will be published by the University of Texas Press. I would gladly make available a copy of that contract if you would like. I will also gladly furnish a full list of publications and press the program has received if that will help in the evaluation. It is a considerable list that ranges from the very local, correct, to national and international. This listing above are only references available online and they include a range that exceeds the local --- NPR, Princeton Architectural Press, CLUI Los Angeles. A selection of other publications in print include:

Fox, William L. “Land Arts of the American West.” Sculpture, Vol. 24 No. 78 (October 2005) p. 80.

Ulbricht, J. “Toward Transdisciplinary Programming in Higher Education.” In Interdisciplinary Art Education: building bridges to connect disciplines and cultures, Mary Stokrocki Editor (Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association, 2005) pp. 17-30.

Taylor, Chris. “Artifact Reason: research beyond image boundaries.” Working Papers in Art and Design (Hatfield, England: University of Hertfordshire, 2004), 9 manuscript pages http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol3/ctfull.html (illustrated and refereed).

Taylor, Chris. “disposable oppositions.” Architrave (Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, School of Architecture, Spring 2004) pp. 8-9 (illustrated).

C dog taylor 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.45.177 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 204.65.45.177 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. Notability is not a problem. Please rewrite in a coherent, non-advertising fashion. Mention press coverage and cite independent sources. Cdcon 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the various independent sources writing about the project indicate it has sufficient notability. Although User:Cdcon is certainly correct in observing that the article is desperately in need of an overhaul.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference purposes a Bibliography of Press, Publications, and Exhibitions has been added to Talk:Land_Arts_of_the_American_West C dog taylor 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voon[edit]

This is almost patent nonsense. There are no reliable sources, I don't know why it was previously kept despite never providing reliable sources and a large amount of sockpuppetry. No claims of importance, notability, or even existence. Judging by the sources listed and such, this is a joke at best (also see Encyclopedia damatica entry). Wickethewok 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per WP:V, and Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the website cited as a source: "Voon was first mixed, or at least first appreciated, at the end of a 3 day party somewhere in Melbourne on Sunday the 11th of June 2006." Safe to say it can't be very notable yet, then. Sandstein 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical, unencyclopedaic. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — it is a bit humorous, perhaps Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense worthy American Patriot 1776 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Porqin, and let's hope the socks from the first AFD don't return. Fan-1967 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn nonsense. G.H e 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. This is exactly why I nom'ed it the first time, and no improvements have been made to the article since, nor do I see how there could be any given the sockpuppetry.Derek Balsam 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's nothing else to say. Yomangani ^talk 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had this argument last week. The cultural significance of voon cannot, like a man stuck in a tomato, be denied. Take, for example Marcy Rylan. I would suggest that such an insignificant personage trifles in comparison to the glories of voon, prophesized by Bob the Slack. Insert horse. --Sidless 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sidless (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep Should today's glories be any lesser than glories of days past? Are the stumps in my house slowly being eaten by termites, such that one day my home will fall on me? Is the man with the one eye and the lime-juice shot glass looking at me strangely because I'm sitting in a hand bag? You know what the appropriate course of action is. Keep. -Doctor Boris Smith 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Doctor Boris Smith (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Could we get an early close on this? Its clearly a good chunk of nonsense despite the previous AFD "keep". The sooner this sockpuppetry nonsense ends the better as well. Wickethewok 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. I would however, diagree with it being close to patent nonsense thought since that would mean that the entery is either random characters with no connection or that the content is so confused that an intelligent could not make sense of the entery. If anything it is more likely a hoax. To clearify I do what the article deleted. --Edgelord 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voon[edit]

This is almost patent nonsense. There are no reliable sources, I don't know why it was previously kept despite never providing reliable sources and a large amount of sockpuppetry. No claims of importance, notability, or even existence. Judging by the sources listed and such, this is a joke at best (also see Encyclopedia damatica entry). Wickethewok 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per WP:V, and Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the website cited as a source: "Voon was first mixed, or at least first appreciated, at the end of a 3 day party somewhere in Melbourne on Sunday the 11th of June 2006." Safe to say it can't be very notable yet, then. Sandstein 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical, unencyclopedaic. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — it is a bit humorous, perhaps Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense worthy American Patriot 1776 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Porqin, and let's hope the socks from the first AFD don't return. Fan-1967 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn nonsense. G.H e 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. This is exactly why I nom'ed it the first time, and no improvements have been made to the article since, nor do I see how there could be any given the sockpuppetry.Derek Balsam 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's nothing else to say. Yomangani ^talk 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had this argument last week. The cultural significance of voon cannot, like a man stuck in a tomato, be denied. Take, for example Marcy Rylan. I would suggest that such an insignificant personage trifles in comparison to the glories of voon, prophesized by Bob the Slack. Insert horse. --Sidless 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sidless (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep Should today's glories be any lesser than glories of days past? Are the stumps in my house slowly being eaten by termites, such that one day my home will fall on me? Is the man with the one eye and the lime-juice shot glass looking at me strangely because I'm sitting in a hand bag? You know what the appropriate course of action is. Keep. -Doctor Boris Smith 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Doctor Boris Smith (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Could we get an early close on this? Its clearly a good chunk of nonsense despite the previous AFD "keep". The sooner this sockpuppetry nonsense ends the better as well. Wickethewok 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. I would however, diagree with it being close to patent nonsense thought since that would mean that the entery is either random characters with no connection or that the content is so confused that an intelligent could not make sense of the entery. If anything it is more likely a hoax. To clearify I do what the article deleted. --Edgelord 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Sugar Land[edit]

This seems to qualify for deletion WP:NOT insofar as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd also like to list this article as a test balloon to get input on other similar pages in Category:Lists of companies. Do we really need lists of companies in every city and country? Do we only allow it for larger cities? If so what defines a larger city, and won't large cities just see endless additions of small companies? Or do we only allow companies that are big enough to warrant their own article - leading to a massive expansion of possibly indiscriminate information when we list the numerous branches of large companies. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT the yellow pages Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:NOTs already mentioned (with that few companies do we really need a list anyway?) Yomangani ^talk 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had been watching this page for potential deletion, and I can't remember why I hadn't already acted on it. Erechtheus 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7/A8. Xoloz 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Guffey[edit]

Non-notable worship leader. Also article is {{copyvio}} from http://www.finishwell.org/index.cfm?pid=19397 and believed to be the same Paul Guffey as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Guffey. -- RHaworth 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang (penis)[edit]

Rridicolous content for an encyclopedia Jestix 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There exists an article already for this condition Peyronie's_disease. There isn't need for a duplicated article, as well as a blurry photo of male genitalia. --Porqin 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inasmuch as the topic, certainly an encyclopedic one and not at all ridiculous (at least where properly presented) is appropriately addressed at Peyronie's disease and Penis#Normal variations. Whilst a redirect to Peyronie's might be appropriate, a Googling returns few results relative to the use of the locution, such that a mention at boomerang (disambiguation), linking to Peyronie's per WP:DAB and consistent with the formulation employed with boner, should suffice; I added such mention (the dab page previously contained a link to this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiegel (talk • contribs)

Just a site note, do we have to google test *everything*? Is google really an aproperiate mean to ask for encyclopedic relevance? (I know the WP: site talking about that...) --19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with our verbose friend Jahiegel. -- Slowmover 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least redirect. No need for a duplicate article for each piece of slang. Piccadilly 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Furthermore, the photo  uploaded by JADPadgett (contribs), who appears to be the author of the article  is captioned as "Source: Paul Waterman, Sheffield University". But the user's description of the upload reads, "I took this picture myself." This obscure slang for Peyronie's doesn't add anything, except maybe titillation. — VoxLuna ^(talk) 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since there is no evidence to suggest that this is common usage, no need to redirect. --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 4092[edit]

Non-notable air route; prod tag was removed without comment OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Porqin 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT the Delta Connection schedule. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in mid-air, per nom. It's not fair to elevate Flight 4092 above the other six daily flights on the same route. Where are all the public transit deletionists when you need them? -- Slowmover 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish any notability whatsoever. How is this different from any other flight in the world? JIP | Talk 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT. G.H e 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an airline schedule. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated[edit]

Where do I start? In any case fails WP:V and most likely a hoax. No trace on the IMDb of that film or any of the actors. Prod removed by creator without reason. Pascal.Tesson 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't WP:NN, it is a random film that can't be verified. --Porqin 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Either a hoax or an unknown student film. Fan-1967 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. -- Slowmover 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. G.H e 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic slurs[edit]

Ethnicity seems to be a troublesome word for the editor of the article. Although they Wiki-link to Ethnic groups they seem to make a prejorative that includes anybody who is not them same as you as being "ethnic". That would go to include a supporter of a football team, political party, style of dress, who happened to live in the same household as oneself. Kinship, Ethnic groups and Sub-culture all become this big set of ethnic pigeon holes of taboo identity. As such, the list goes beyond anything it implies it is going to list. It redifines the scope of the criterea so that neologism and made at school could easily go unnoticed there. i like lists, lists are useful, if i can further research entries, but they are few and far between. Some groups are described as Black or white when there is cross cultural identification between members of different races. I list the Afd purely because the amount of editors involved would take months to resolve.I will not give any opions on its right to be a constituent part of Wikipedia. However, if it were to remain, discussion should be made on "What is ethnicity", because I think the editors have it very wrong. Based on that discussion, the article needs to be throughly edited to remove neologism, POV and slurs which are kinship/locality rather than generically ethnic. ~~NEUTRAL~~ Mike33 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forget about earlier meanings of "Ethnic" to describe outsiders. yes that would be an all inclusive word, but with that definition where would you stop? WP:Notability editors would be searching all day. "Ethnic" and "Catholic" are exclusively theological terms and should not be used outside of the 17th century. Mike33 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UT

"Based on that discussion, the article needs to be throughly edited to remove neologism, POV and slurs which are kinship/locality rather than generically ethnic." In that case why did not nominate it for deletion? AfD is not where you ask for cleanup. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles for deletion is not cleanup, nor is this article is hard to write a good criterion for deletion. WilyD 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "this article is hard to write" mean? is it an in joke or a wikipedia policy? Mike33 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a response to the nomination, which discusses the difficulty in writing the article. I was responding to the argument for nomination. The phrasing choice may be a little obtuse - I'm sorry if that's the case, but I usually aspire to be succinct. WilyD 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worthwhile topic. AFD is not a clean-up request service. My only concern about this article is that the slurs listed need to be genuine, and not just something a user has made up. The fact it's a vandalism magnet is concerning, but some articles just can't avoid it. 23skidoo 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilyD. hateless 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilyD. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this and the political epithets article have occasionally needed cleanup but the topic is significant. Gazpacho 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who keeps here should commit themselves to cleaning the List or at least help to formulate a standard meaning of Ethnic. Saying keep and worthwhile is passe. why do anything at all? I do accept that Afd was not the best way of dealing with a subject. But please remember people cite wikipedia and mirror the pages. We all have a duty. Keep nonsense is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, proper editing is. Mike33 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep nonsense is not in the spirit of Wikipedia betrays bias itself. This is not nonsensical. Keep per WilyDRaveenS 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias? compare the opening paragraph:

The following is a list of ethnic slurs that are, or have been, used to refer to members of a given ethnicity in a derogatory or pejorative manner in the English speaking world. A slur is a remark another person finds insulting. Ethnicity can be determined by either race, nationality, region, orientation, religion or socioeconomic class, because an ethnicity is a community of people possessing common physical or mental traits as a product of their common heredity or cultural tradition. Each term is listed followed by its country or region of usage, a definition, and (where applicable) a reference to that term.

With a problematic definition of Ethnicity from the UK census department.

How do you define ethnicity?

Definitions of what constitutes an 'ethnic group' or an 'ethnic minority' are subject to much discussion. In fact, there is no consensus on what constitutes an 'ethnic group' and the terminology used to describe these groups has changed significantly over time.

This is because membership of any ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned, and can be based upon a combination of categories such as:

country of birth
nationality
language spoken at home
parents' country of birth in conjunction with country of birth
skin colour
national/geographical origin
racial group
religion

[|How to define Ethnicity| UK Government office of Statistics/Census]

As far sighted as you may well be, the opening paragraph redefines Ethnicity in a way that does not match literary convention. Notice the way that Because is used. Given that the first amendment doesn't apply in the UK, ethinicity should not include socioeconomic class or orientation. The correct heading would thus be List of hate slurs. Mike33 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so bothered by the lead in as you seem to be, fix it don't delete the whole article. Get used to imperfectly written articles in Wikipedia and fixing them. There is always something useful in most articles and this has more than something useful.RaveenS

Keep. As long as all info is cited, it should be ok. If someone wanted to look up what one of those words mean, this would be helpful. Green caterpillar 01:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you had cared to look at the List? The opening paragraph explains that some words are uncited (personal research, neologism, made at school). So definitions are very unhelpful as the list stands at the moment. A helpful list is a cited and research list. Mike33 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion based on content implies censoriousness; deletion based on incompleteness or difficulty of editing suggests laziness. Horace Worblehat 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (Sock puppet? only contribution to Wikipedia was this? Mike33 03:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This is not about content. I have never mentioned content. I have only spoke about ethnicity. how it should be used and how the word is defined in the list leads it open to abuse. Editors who contribute to Afd and who can not be bothered to help edit a 215kb list, should be considered editorially lazy Mike33 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Slang and slurs are not just a thing of the past. They are a thing of today still. This article can be very useful for educational purposes, and help provide a better understanding of what words are not acceptable to certain races and groups. Often times, what a word means to my race or group, could be a derogatory slur against your race or group. It's the trouble with langauges that have common words with different meanings. Even if some of the slang being posted is not a historically used word, and is a relatively new word, it is still appropriate. It can let others better understand where racial/religious slurs originate from and later identify these words if you are subjected to them. Also, I agree with Mike33, this would be a form of censorship if you removed this article. The way to deal with hatred and racism, is not to just ignore it and delete it. You have to face it, and knowledge is power. This list of ethnic slurs is not an article of racism or hatred, as it is not directed to someone nor encouraging negativity. It is clearly posted as an informational article and I believe that it should remain that way.
- Klubwerks 05:15, 12 August 2006 (US Central Time)

Keep. This is simply a case where an editor is unaware of (or unconcerned with) the proper forum for voicing his/her concerns. Also, as a point of information, this is FAR more than the second time that this article has been nominated for deletion. P.S. Mike33, if the definition of "Ethnicity" in the article intro bothers you, change it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's here, it's offensive, get used to it. FireSpike 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a gritty subject and is a useful encyclopedic reference - I actually had a friend cite this as a source in university. --TheM62Manchester 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP removing this would be wrong, hiding from the past does not change it, and only makes the future more likley to resemble it

Keep A necessary evil, and a very detailed historical record. Mugaliens 18:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is NOT censored. Kenimaru 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but probably move/split and cleanup The article may be able to be split into A-G, H-M, N-S, T-Z etc. However, all of these issues should be brought up on the article's talkpage, or even an Rfc if worst comes to worst. I have seen no effort to communicate on the article's talkpage in order to change it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because things may be offensive does not mean that they must be censored. Wiki is a repository of information, and sometimes is not politically correct. Skhatri2005 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whenever I watch Sarah Silverman, I have to figure out what all the slurs she uses means. --Riley 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee has a final say ~ I never suggested that the article should be deleted because it included controversial terms. My Afd was based on ethnicity including socio-economical class, political affiliation and village/town/county to mean region. The vote is undoubtly against my nomination. Serious editors of wikipedia should help me redifine a new opening paragraph and remove all of the uncited entries and phrases which could be moved. I have never suggested deletion. Afd seemed a way to engage editors. Afd should not be abused, but discussion in the lists' talk page would take weeks or months and perhaps never be resolved. As an editor has mentioned above, this list has been used as source. All editors have a duty that sources on wikipedia can be tried and tested. Editors who keep should also edit this article/list. Mike33 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water Works Industry Solutions[edit]

Not notable, advertising. Author removed prod and essentially protested that there was lots of advertising on the Wikipedia, why not his product too? Brianyoumans 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN. --Porqin 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A good majority of the article is taken from here. —Whomp t/c 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and article creator's comments. Wickethewok 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wickethewok. -- Slowmover 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. G.H e 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:N and WP:SPAM. Mattisse (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Survey Research Services, Inc.[edit]

Delete – this article on a non-notable company fails the WP:CORP criteria and appears to be WP:VANITY. JonHarder 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Self-authored promotional copy. -- Slowmover 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per promotional advertisement. G.H e 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio from [43] Dlyons493 Talk 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Survey Research should also go Dlyons493 Talk 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and California Survey Research Services Dlyons493 Talk 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and CSRS this is getting boring. Dlyons493 Talk 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article is deleted, these can all be speedied via {{db-empty}}. JonHarder 23:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Mattisse (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Real Estate[edit]

Companies like Century 21 are listed on this site. What changes can we make to keep this article? --[[User:Mikeymsu80|Dl<FONT 11:30, 11 August 2006

Was prodded as "non-notable, fails WP:CORP, advertisement, misleading title". Prod (and entire article) blanked with edit summary "removed advertisement" (looks like deletion attempt by newbie). Seems unsalvageable, extremely few Google hits for HomesByEmilie.com. Delete --Huon 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP and has a very misleading title. --Porqin 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB, title cements the position that this is WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Standard Book Number[edit]

Though I'm a big fan of Numly, I'm afraid this Alexa rank doesn't cut WP:WEB Computerjoe 's talk 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This isn't an article about the website per se, but rather the Electronic Standard Book Number. I think it maintains a fair sense of notability. --Porqin 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alexa ranking doesn't matter if the subject matter itself is notable. I'm thinking Numly should probably be deleted and redirected to this, though. Snurks^TC 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have redirected Numly to the ESBN article. ColourBurst 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Omegatron 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Angr 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Dogs[edit]

Absolutely no description of what this is and no claim to notability File Éireann 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1. --Porqin 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1 for lack of context. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1. G.H e 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Harvey's Submarines[edit]

Non-notable establishment, prod removed. Note: I know of this place, live near there and love their food. I hear this ad constantly on the radio station I listen to. That being said, it's still not-notable. Wildthing61476 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. --Porqin 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This establishment is a notable Dundalk landmark which is deeply steeped the in tradition and lore of the region. I see no reason why this entry could be anyhing but "notable" especially to those of us who have been life-long residents of Dundalk. I have cholesterol in my arteries, Dundalk Broo in my veins, and Dundalk in my heart. 3/38. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wuddatraque (talk • contribs) . ~~Note: this comment is made by the articles author.~~ Note: This user has 2 contributions to the Wikipedia.

Comment Actually, I am the article's author, and I did not write the above comment. A simple check of the IP addresses could tell you that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nealjsb (talk • contribs) .

Delete self-admittedly locally famous. Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --nathanbeach 20:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no consensus here.

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

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

The result was Keep. Jreferee t/c 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuroBonus[edit]

It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment: There are plenty of sources in the Google News archives which establishes notability of the subject and therefore an article is relevant. Also, it prevents repetition of the information in the individual airline articles by having it in its own article. → AA ^(talk) — 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hits (Google news or otherwise) do not establish notability, as the substance of those hits are near on impossible to determine (can't use press releases or trivial/incidental coverage to establish notability). Individual sources need to be referenced in the article, because as it stands now, it is clearly against WP:NOT --Russavia 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned Google hits - I'm referring to the links which, unfortunately, point to subscription-based content. One of them says: "Scandinavian Airlines' Eurobonus scheme was voted best international airline programme and Alaska Airways' Mileage Plan was The US winner. ... " in a link titled "FEATURES: Starwood takes loyalty honours" from the Financial Times. It does not appear this would be trivial coverage. → AA ^(talk) — 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Cites two sources in total, of which one is the airline (not independent) and the other is Wikipedia (not reliable); accordingly fails WP:V in its current state. Sandstein 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Keep after some sourcing has been done, and notability is not in question, see below. Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:V. More importantly, it uses WP article as reference, which apparently stands against the policy.--NAHID 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First off, this is the frequent flyer program of a major airline, Scandinavian Airlines System. Second, the EuroBonus program has won prestigious awards, the Freddie Award has been described as the Oscar of the travel industry, and the fact that SAS did not win it in 2005 caught the attention of a major Norwegian business newspaper.[44]. Third, EuroBonus is something which is not only been of interest in the travel industry, it has attracted the attention of Norwegian political authorities as well, and the ban imposed on EuroBonus for Norwegian domestic flights has been a pretty big issue for Norwegian business.[45] [46] [47] The EuroBonus program has been the subject of multiple non-trivial and independent coverage over the course of several years and easily passes notability requirements. I must also say that I am baffled at the claims that this fails WP:V, is anyone trying to suggest that this program doesn't exist? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and it appears the Swedish competion authorities have also targeted EuroBonus in 2003. They released a 206 page report on the effect of EuroBonus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article failed WP:V not because anyone argues that the EuroBonus program does not exist, but because the article's entire content - which has been challenged with the present nomination - did not feature references to reliable, independent sources. Since you have now provided sources for at least some sections, I withdraw my "delete" opinion, but have removed all unsourced content. That content may be re-added once sources are provided. Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for reasons given by sjakkalle. I have not views the material apparently recently removed, but the presetn content looks as if it is adequately sourced. Accordingly the unreferenced tag should also be removed. However I know little of the subject. Peterkingiron 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Verifiability is non-negotiable but a Factiva search for "rainbow sash" and "catholic" gives me hundreds of hits. If it is in fact impossible to write a verifiable article here, that needs to be shown through further scrutiny than this particular AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Sash[edit]

non notable group. redirects from Rainbow Sash Movement, Rainbow Sash Coalition, Rainbow Sash Alliance, and Rainbow Sash Alliance USA- demonstrates it doesn't even have a definite name ! Linesman 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep numerically small movements may be notable when taking a vocal minority position on an issue in the public eye. The Rainbow Sash movement has been the subject of a number of stories in the Catholic media, including this one, showing that they've had enough impact on the church to send an Archbishop off to consult with the Vatican. Dybryd 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dybryd. Drett 18:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, article fails WP:V. If anyone can provide citations to "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," please do so. --Satori Son 16:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caligo (Goddess)[edit]

Unsourced, confused, and useless article. Caligo is a Latin word; it is apparently being substituted, pointlessly, for one of Hesiod's personifications.

Delete as nom. Septentrionalis 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. G.H e 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above plus no sources, so reads like fiction. Akradecki 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Bowser[edit]

Cannot be expanded further and does nothing to expand on the game Paper Mario, from which it came. Joizashmo 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It takes a lot for me to delete a Mario-related article, but here we are. Basically a one-time joke from Paper Mario. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it could probably have been speedied with {{db-nocontext}}i kan reed
Delete per nom, minor joke. BryanG^(talk) 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every reference within a video game needs its own article. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't The Itchy & Scratchy Show. A one-off joke in a semi-popular game doesn't equal notability. Ace of Sevens 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above --Peephole 16:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape barrows[edit]

Rogue RuneScape subpage. Unfortunately here, being a game guide is not a criterion for speedy deletion so I am placing it on AFD. Hyenaste ^(tell) 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's a rogue subpage. I really think prod would be better for this though, but afd does the job. J.J.Sagnella 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it gets recreated we can speedy it after this. Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. J.J.Sagnella 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Support I don't like this page, either. Deserves to be only on the Wiki page.----Ed^{talk c E} 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a game guide. Akradecki 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as rampant game guide material. This subject will be covered in the RuneScape minigames article shortly, and not in a game-guide format. QuagmireDog 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe a few snippets to merge, but actual stats are probably too "guidey". Ace of Risk 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move/merge into RuneScape mini-games then delete Lardor 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THis is just a list of items and stats. It's of no use to a non-player tryign to learn abotu the game. It's a very limited guide, essentially. Ace of Sevens 22:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move to wiki This article is not that good for an encyclopedia, but I think it would be good for the wiki.Hem hem 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above --Peephole 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Thompson[edit]

This article is an unsourced autobiography and does not bode well with WP:VAIN. Most of the google hits that I find for "John H. Thompson" are unrelated to this particular person. The main claim to fame as creator of the Lingo programming language results in 17 hits. [48] If you disagree with this nomination, please notify me on my talk page but based on what I could find this does not appear to be notable. RFerreira 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. quickly. --nathanbeach 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced per WP:V. The one reference provided in the article is the subject's own web site. --Satori Son 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unsources as per WP:VAIN -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonne Nuit[edit]

Delete - not notable in any way I can determine Charlesknight 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like advertising. Homestarmy 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I proded it but it was then whittled down to a single line (and unflagged). I was gonna Afd when I got home. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One line and a link is not very helpful. At first it looked liked a promo ad. (I originally asked for speedy delete, but used the wrong tag.) --Brat32 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 verifiable part of the article (the part that is or could be actually sourced with reliable sources) is a dictionary-like definition which isn't what Wikipedia is for. The rest of the article does not go beyond original research and, without any decent secondary sources, never will. --Joanne B 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easties (people)[edit]

Propose deletion of this 'article'. As a sydneysider, this looks mostly like some sort of joke; much of it certainly isnt enyclopedic. Such concerns have been raised by many on the article's talk page. The majority of the material cannnot be verified and is POV. Failing deletion, all this subject warrants is a short stub length comment. Rafy 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This sort of article - where the central definition is loose and unverified - always attracts casual editors who go in and describe, in exaggerated manner and at length, their favourite sketch comedy trashy woman stereotyped character. The external references listed in the article do not corroborate much, or any, of the article content. If it stays, the article can not contain a long list of characteristics; any characterteristic defined in the article must be backed-up by an external source Asa01 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a protologism with no sources given. I think that you would struggle to find reliable sources for this. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Comment It does have sources and it is verified. Two of the references mention the term.--WikiCats 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you be calling for the deletion of Westies (people) too? --WikiCats 04:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Capitalistroadster. The Westies article needs cleaning up, but not deletion - "westie" is listed in the Macquarie Dictionary. JPD (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, and seemingly unverifiable. Mako 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been verified. Obviously some people dislike the existance of such terms and are fighting to delete it for their own purposes, but I believe the sources quoted are solid and just the Macquarie Dictionary is behind the times doesn't mean it deserves deletion. If you object to the characterisations as being unencyclopedic, you are welcome to alter it. I also agree with the Westies term not being deleted for the same reasons.mattabat 16:23, 12 August 2006 (AEST)
Strong Keep There is over 20,000 mentions of the term on the Internet and it has references. It is a real term and deserves an article. (Could do with a clean up)--WikiCats 09:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you did a google search. None of the results returned refer to the meaning or context of the term 'eastie' as meant by the wikipedia article in question. In fact the only relevant site in the results that displays this meaning of eastie, is the wiki article. So i'm not quite sure how your point is valid? Furthermore, if we narrow the search down to Australian sites only We get a mere ~1500. Most results refer to 'eastie' in a different meaning, and those results that are relevant appear on message boards and forums. The first point in WP:V is 'Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.' There are almost no reputable sources around that verify the claims made in the article. Also suggest a reading of Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms Rafy 13:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to have misgivings about relying on Google for definitions, especially when they can be misconstrued like this. Consider the references given. mattabat 12:31, 14 August 2006 (AEST)

Is your proposal to delete Easties but leave Westies. --WikiCats 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some think insults towards western suburbanites are acceptable for documentation, but ones towards eastern suburbanites are not. Not my viewpoint at all.mattabat 12:25, 14 August 2006 (AEST)

I tend to agree, This exposes a possible double standard.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) --WikiCats 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is good evidence that is this term in regular usage for some time. This reference Radar uses the term within this context three times. Radar is a weekly magazine published by The Sydney Morning Herald. A supporting reference also makes reference to the term.

This referenced term qualifies it for an article (in need of a clean up). --WikiCats 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms '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.'

Again, i ask you to read Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. You'll find that in the end it is irrelevant how prevalant the word's usage is. The article relies on original research. (Bookie's blog, the term in radar etc, are not adequate references)

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material

As for Westies, it appears it has its own AfD, so the merits of that article should be discussed there. Rafy 02:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that you are putting an argument for the deletion of Westies.

I have no double standard. I would support the deletion of both articles or else the keeping of both articles. --WikiCats 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is that neither of these articles have any complimentary comments in them. Both Westies and Easties only contain derogatory remarks. This is a NPOV issue.

I does not surprise me so many want to delete it. The problem is that in the future with more common usage the Easties article will be resurrected even if it is deleted now. There are other terms such as Northies that are coming into more common use.

We need to delete both of these articles now to put an end to this. As long as Westies exists it gives reason for other articles such as Easties and Northies. --WikiCats 06:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point we have no consensus and no compromises being offered. --WikiCats 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

The article has a notable reference from The Sydney Morning Herald magazine Radar.
It not a neologism or recently coined as the age of the reference shows.
The article needs to be rewritten in neutral prose.
There has been no consensus which I think is a great pity.

--WikiCats 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely enough objective content to fill three paragraphs of a stub Kransky 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A majority vote can not defeat the Guidelines. The the use of this term is referenced and it is entitled to an article written in neutral prose. --WikiCats 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The arguments that have been put in Westies Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) for keeping that page are just as relevant in this case.
The case of neologisms does not apply as Easties and Westies were created within a month of each other and have existed for some considerable time. The references show usage of both terms for quite some time.
The terms can be seen as equivalent and possibility opposite phrases so keeping one whilst deleting the other is not tenable.
The article is in need of a cleanup and neutral prose.
There has been strong arguments for both keeping and deleting the article. No consensus has been reached.

--WikiCats 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 is consensus here that this article, as it stands, is unencyclopedic. The gentleman may be notable, but a fresh article, not violative of WP:VAIN, is needed to show such. Xoloz 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nikolaus Eberl[edit]

possible advertiser stuff, definetly not written with NPOV in mind. i kan reed 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hit it hard with WP:VAIN, WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO. WP:NOT He seems to be using Wiki as a soapbox to hype his new book(s): witness he does not list any of his older ones. He has definitely written some books Amazon 1 hit (co-authored german book Unser tägliches Griechisch. Lexikon des altgriechischen Spracherwerbs), B&N 1 hit (Cardanos Encomium Neronis). His new book appears genuinely to have been reviewed by Naledi Pandor, the SA Minister for Education, but this is Spam. STRONG delete per nom. Ohconfucius 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then rewrite. Notable person. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. MaNeMeBasat 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is kept (and I have no position on the matter), it should be moved to Nikolaus Eberl, per naming conventions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WoWWiki[edit]

Article covering a wiki about the game World of Warcraft. The first afds resulted in a keep. Imo, it is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia and fails WP:V and WP:WEB. The notability template has been slapped on the article but the editors have not provided any evidence of significant coverage by any reliable sources since the last afd and have removed the notability template. Forums and blogs appear to be the only linking pages to this site.

To compare: FFXIclopedia, a wiki about the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI has been up for AfD 3 times. Also, FFXIclopedia continues to rise in Alexa rankings, surpassing the official Final Fantasy XI website. WoWWiki remains an underdog to the official World of Warcraft site. The editors of the WoWWiki article still haven't provided any evidence of outside coverage by reliable sources (WP:RS). --Ganiman 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Blatant WP:POINT nomination from User:Ganiman in an effort to keep the FFXIclopedia article. And a badly executed afd as well. --Peephole 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, the AfD is a copy and paste of your AfD for FFXIclopedia. Bravo! Also, there is a difference between guidelines and policies. I suggest people start learning that. --Ganiman 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said, blatant WP:POINT. --Peephole 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the mess above, I think the article should be deleted as well. I have slapped a notability tag on it last week but no reliable sources covering the wiki have been added. Currently the article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. The result of the last afd was keep but no actual evidence of notability was given there either, other than the site having a high alexa ranking. The wiki has received about 22 million page views but wikis with similar amounts of page views have had their article deleted or are being put up for afd at the moment. Peephole 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Akradecki 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT, and WP:V. (Two of those are policies, one is an interpretation of policy or what we call a guideline.) Just because a site uses the mediawiki software doesnot make it a notable. Just because a page has a high Alexa rank or a lot of content also does not make it notable. It's hit counter should also not be considered in its notability. --Kunzite 01:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World of Warcraft per WP:WEB and precedents established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki. Merge a single sentence into the external links section. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we have conflicting precedents here, now that FFXIclopedia was outright deleted. I have summarised the situation for the three MMORPG-related wikis in the table directly below.

Wiki WP article AfD consensus Alexa rank {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} # users # hits

WoWWiki WoWWiki keep 5,318 [49] 14,315 38,151 22,593,490

GuildWiki GuildWiki merge to Guild Wars 6,055 [50] 9,030 11,668 114,958,863

FFXIclopedia FFXIclopedia delete
no consensue
delete 33,697 [51] 15,075 104,263 17,825,895

All three wikis are linked to from their respective game websites. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is more or less the same flimsy argument that was given last time and this nomination being so similar to the FFXI wiki nomination reeks of bad faith. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CyberSkull. Havok (T/C/c) 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for notability, Blizzard's official WoW site has links to WoWWiki. [52] Havok (T/C/c) 11:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? A link does not convey notability. Recognition outside of the community of users does. i.e a major newspaper or a major award for something would do it. If it's just a link, why not make WoWWiki a link on the game's article? --Kunzite 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just leave it as an article? It's been AfDed before, and survived, why not just leave it alone? Havok (T/C/c) 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because other concerns have come up. Concencuses change. A quick search shows that it has good company. There seem to be articles 10,000 articles with second nomination for deletion. Also, how does the link convey notability? What recognition has this site gotten apart from those in the community of users of that game? Is there anything besides a lot of content, a good alexa rank, and the use of wikimedia software that would make the article notable in anyway? It's often argued that these sites are top in alexa for their gaming category .. That's not a good rationale for a seperate article, that's rationale for including the article in the external links list. --Kunzite 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable website if the game itself lays reference to it and links directly to it. What is the Alexa rank? and what are the daily hits etc. Without this information you cannot really say its not notable, yet its inclusion on the wow site says it has some major backing. Without more information against it being kept I think a keep is in order, especially if the mess above is true and its a bad faith nomination. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But has it received outside coverage by reliable sources? Alexa rank is about 5000 I believe.--Peephole 12:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who is a more reliable source about what are important and factual Warcraft websites then the creators of World of Warcraft lore itself? Didnt you put the Warcraft characters AfD up? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No. Newspapers, gaming magazines are all more reliable sources.--Peephole 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Yes I am sure a newspaper will let us know what Warcraft is about better then the creators of warcraft, the ones making warcraft what it is ... I hope you were kidding. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Read WP:RS. And discover that I'm not kidding. --Peephole 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Read about first party sources, they are valid when talking about themselves. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This is true, but an article should not consist solely of said first-party sources. I brough this question up at the talk page for WP:V (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:V_.26_self-references), and I believe Jossi's explanation of taking all policies & guidelines into account applies here - claims of notability and other material linked to in WoWWiki's website is original research if not properly backed up by reliable sources. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amazingly enough, despite this website's popularity, I only get 7 unique ghits (out of over 200K total): [53]. There are no reliable sources here. And for a site so thoroughly on-line, I just can't believe there would be sources that aren't online sources. Mango juice^talk 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. I'm not really seeing the notability here, so that seems like a reasonable compromise. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I highly disapprove of the WP:POINT but this is in the same category as the FFXI wiki. Blizzard thinks highly enough of the wiki to post a link to it, not incorporate it into the WoW client. Likewise, the WoW article should have a link to the wiki. But why does WoWWiki need an article? The link itself can tell a wikipedia reader what it is. Having so many users, so many pages and a title that is a portmanteau(is putting WoW & Wiki together a portmanteau?) does not merit an article. Mitaphane _talk 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:WEB and WP:RS. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the WP:POINT factor of this nomination, it does blatantly fail WP:V. Having been the subject of an AfD over 4 months ago, there's been ample time to fix this. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a WoWWiki contributor, and would just like to set a few points straight: WoWWiki does have more and more well-notarized information about game lore and facts than any other WoW-related site, including http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ itself. It is also the prime source of information on developing for the game (http://www.wowwiki.com/Interface_Customization); there is no other site with the same information - Blizzard's sites included. So, as such, the wowwiki really is a unique information source about World of Warcraft. I also wonder how the "who links to the site" (mostly blogs and forums you say?) applies to begin with. Now, having said that, I'm not necessarily in favor of Wikipedia keeping the article, hence this being a comment rather than a vote for keeping; WoWWiki explains itself well enough. But, yes, I do think a link from the World of Warcraft page is in order at the very least. --Mikeclueby4 05:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See comment above. Wikipedia itself is mostly notable only because it's free and people don't want to pay for an on-line encyclopedia. It can arguably be said that Wikipedia itself fails WP:NOT (which is sad in its truth). I'm biased in that I'm an admin at WoWWiki, but I can pretty much guarantee that WoWWiki gets more hits than Wikipedia on WoWWiki :-P Fandyllic 5:33 AM PDT 12 Aug 2006

This argument the wikipedia fails for content inclusion is not valid. Wikipedia passes WP:WEB and is otherwise notable because it has appeared many times in various news media, it's won major awards, and it's even been the subject of a comparison by a highly regarded scientific journal. Has WoWWiki gotten any strong international press of this sort? Has it won any major web design awards? Ok. WoW users like free things, the site has a lot of information on the subject, and get lots of hits. So? How does that make it notable? This more of an argument to include it in the external links section of the WoW article than as its own article. --Kunzite 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel I should also mention that for some of the Wikipedia articles on World of Warcraft, the main source was wowwiki. -- Kirkburn 14:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing as both WoWWiki and Wikipedia give out their text under GPL, this whole comment is void. WoWWiki has also taken things from Wikipedia and used it in their articles. So again, the comment is void. Havok (T/C/c) 19:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's contrary to the WP:RS guidelines. "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." --Kunzite 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is actually stricter even than that: wikis cannot be primary sources either. In several Warcraft-related articles WoWWiki is used as a primary source. There are articles (eg. Hakkar the Soulflayer) that even document conjecture and discussions on WoWWiki. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no reliable sources right now, so it clearly fails WP:V. Ziggurat 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from WP:V: Wikis, like other non-reliable sources, can be legitimate citations for non-controversial statements about themselves. This says nothing about notability. I express no opinion, except to wonder: why isn't this a paragraph in World of Warcraft? Septentrionalis 05:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The people who work on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Warcraft try as much as possible not to put any more information in World of Warcraft seeing as the article allready is as big as it should be, could use even more cutting down. Havok (T/C/c) 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The wiki is already linked there, yes? I see no problem. --Peephole 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I see no problem leaving this article right where it is. Havok (T/C/c) 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~This is a very high traffic site, and is an important source of WoW related information. It also appears on the top 10 pages on Google for a search of "World of Warcraft", which returns 64,900,000 results. The fact that Wikipedia also references this Wiki numerous times backs up its notability. Also, I do not think it should be merged with the main WoW article as this would cause it to become to large, and many search engines including MSN will time-out while trying to index the whole page. --Ariadoss 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1. A game wiki with five times the traffic has also been deleted.

2. Wikipedia shouldn't reference this, as wikis aren't reliable sources (see WP:RS).

3. The article wouldn't become bigger as the wiki is already included in the external links. --Peephole 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed my mind, I guess the issue here is I'm not very happy with Wikipedia policy on these types of articles, or rather how policy is interpreted in regard to websites and other Iternet related material. I better save all the programming articles, before those get deleted too. --Ariad o ss 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation of a copyrighted ABC News article. The article did make sense, contrary to what is stated below. ABC News publishes comprehensible articles. Uncle G 00:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Bradley Smith[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and is general nonsense, cannot find any Google hits whatsoever. I'm a little afraid of personal vandalism on this one because I found it via my hometown page that I moderate (S. Bradley Smith was listed yesterday as a "famous person" from Richardson, Texas). --nathanbeach 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like total bollocks to me - --Charlesknight 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huh? totally confusing. Makes no sense at all. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was (a non-admin's) keep. Be bold and make the title change - I don't see what it should be changed to. --james^(talk) 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Baird Residence[edit]

Vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argh9876 (talk • contribs)

Note that making this AFD page was the first (and so-far only) edit of Argh9876 (talk · contribs), and adding the AFD tag on the article was the second edit (of a total of three) of 204.118.111.226 (talk · contribs). up+l+and 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that it's a Frank Lloyd Wright house alone makes it notable. Akradecki 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...title needs to be fixed, though. Akradecki 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as building by important architect. (And it is even referenced.) But the article needs a picture. up+l+and 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pls fix title when this is closed. Themindset 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatorball[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- Merope 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; just barely outside of speedy range. Deltabeignet 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopeadic -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

THIS IS GARBAGE!!!!!!! It was not just made up one day. It has lasted more than 20 years and has spread throughout Upstate New York into other towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwowen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bordador[edit]

Yet another non-notable crossbreed, even less notable than others that have been deleted in the past, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boggle_(dog) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boggle_(dog) for previous deletions of this sort of thing. Google search shows 51,000 hits for the term, and none of which refer to the dog - all are spanish language or are in reference to a person's last name. Trysha ^(talk) 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Trysha ^(talk) 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... no references, appears to be original research. Akradecki 22:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a veterinarian, I see a lot of Labradoodles, Goldendoodles, and Puggles, which have come to be well known hybrids. Looking at those articles, you can see that they give information on history and standards and some references. This article is a bout a mixed breed with no notabilty. "Bordador" + "border collie" gives 8 unique google hits [54]. --Joelmills 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query from a non-dog enthuthiast : shouldn't the question be whether the accidental breed exists and whether or not there is a better name for it? And let the person who created the file link to it? I'm pretty new to wikipedia and this is way outside my area of expertise — I have 2 kittens and no dogs — but just because a google search doesn't find squat doesn't eliminate things from existing and from having importance. I fell here through my interest in all things from Newfoundland and Labrador and I noted with interest the link from the Labrador Retriever to the Bordador and its speedy deletion. Just my opinions. Iainsona 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mix is recognized by an organization known as the American Canine Hybrid Club, which seems dedicated apparently to coming up with catchy names for cross-bred dogs: The "Cock-A-Chon" anyone? (I'm serious.) This is just what it sounds like: a cross breed. That's not good or bad, but its name and "genealogy" - as well as the particulars of this article and its assumptions - are fantasy. CMacMillan 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However -- You must admit that he is totally cute though. Since I got him from the SPCA I have come across very many dogs of the same mix here in California. The rural areas of the state have many working border collies and Labradors and the mixes are adopted out at the urban SPCAs throughout the state in fairly large numbers. I'm sure many other states (and countries) have a similar experience. People around here are regularly calling them Bordadors. No one intentionally breeds them and I hope no one ever does -- there are far too many wonderful homeless dogs being killed at shelters every day. If you use the advanced search function on Dogster.com (a tiny fraction of the world's dogs are represented on the site) you will currently find 333 dogs under Labrador/Border Collie and an additional 346 listed under Border Collie/Labrador. That is 679 on Dogster alone, suggesting huge numbers in the world in total. Why shouldn't all of the guardians of these dogs (and all other people) have a word to easily describe their dogs? Just because no one is irresponsibly intentionally bringing more puppies into a world with an enormous dog over-population? Sorry, but I just don't get it. Words come into usage because they are useful.

Let's move the discussion outside of the deletion issue elsewhere. I'll post to your page. CMacMillan

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stasset[edit]

Yet another non-notable dog crossbreed/vanity page - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boggle_(dog) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boggle_(dog) for other such debates. - Trysha ^(talk) 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the grounds that this lacks notability and seems to exist for vanity - Trysha ^(talk) 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We reeeally should have a WP:BREED or something... anyway, it's unsourced so until somebody can provide sources, I'll have to say Delete. Additionally, appears to be a non-notable, new, accidental breed. Srose (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the author's comment on the talk page, this information is his/her own opinion, so violates "no original research". Akradecki 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For things like this (animal breeds), I'm willing to have an article if they are acknowledged for ther existance. But, I couldn't find anything really[55]. Yank sox 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a veterinarian, I see a lot of Labradoodles, Goldendoodles, and Puggles, which have come to be well known hybrids. Looking at those articles, you can see that they give information on history and standards and some references. This article is about a mixed breed with no notabilty. --Joelmills 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Used to be, when Rover hopped the fence and knocked up the neighbor's different-breed purebred, they'd threaten to sue. Now they invent a new name for the mutt. Too obscure a mix, so consign it to oblivion with the Great Dauzer (I sure hope that link turns up red). Fan-1967 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator after Gazpacho's edits and subsequent renaming of article. Danny Lilithborne 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon House School System, Pakistan[edit]

Unlike other articles by this author, the Beacon House School System is not a hoax. However, the article as it stands is horribly written, and lacks sources, reading like an advertisement. I'd be surprised if more than half of this information were true, as well, given who it comes from. Right now, even though it's not a hoax, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia and should be deleted, but I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if a real expert can clean up this article to fit WP standards. Danny Lilithborne 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed under this AfD:

List of Beacon House Campuses, Central Region

Keep the system article per WP:BIAS, trim, and merge the campus info. Gazpacho 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep system article and merge the schools list in. Does the article have writing flaws? Yes, possibly due to the OE not speaking English as a first name. Does that make the subject inherently non-notable? No. That's why we have cleanup tags. That said, I don't see anything added by the list; that information can be incorporated into the main article as well. Further keep article as part of the schools Wikiproject and per WP:BIAS as noted by Gazpacho —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in a cleanup tag twice. It was removed by User:Bret John after simply adding more stuff to the article, without any real attempt at cleaning anything up. As I said, if an expert on the topic can clean up the article, and not someone whose only other edits are to hoax articles, I would withdraw my nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, I went in and reorganized the article, removing a lot of "we're the best" fluff. Haven't merged the central campuses yet. Gazpacho 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks pretty good. It should probably be moved to Beaconhouse Group. In lieu of that, I'll withdraw my nomination. Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazpacho and rename to Beaconhouse Group like suggested. Silensor 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, with anons/newbies discounted. Xoloz 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eklund[edit]

Profile for an anonymous NHL-related blogger on hockeybuzz.com. Website is notable with an Alexa traffic rank of 38,539, but the "biography" is completely unverifiable speculation. Fails': Wikipedia:Verifiability -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete...completely non-notable. Akradecki 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN and WP:V Ohconfucius 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted, though referance to the fact that the information is speculation is important. In other articles, such as the 9/11 article, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are posted. This individuals identity is important to the hockey community -mafew45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.160.157 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:BIO -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the controversy this person has generated, both in the Internet and "old media," I think the article is certainly notable. Clearly, verifiability is an issue, but the article should be kept and improved. --Jsorens 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Teemu08 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Eklund is an important figure (love him or hate him) in the hockey subculture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.186.69 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
KeepAt the rate the site expands Hockey Buzz is likely to be one of the bigger hockey sites on the net in the next few seasons. The only unverifiable part is the true identity of Eklund, which isnt a significant part of the site. Ucscottb4u 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Note some of the names of the people contributing to this discussion page: ie: teemu08. This is an obvious hockey fan who has sided with Eklund and is protecting his identity. This article, or at LEAST an article about the controversy should exist, if his real identity can not be proven. ~mafew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.57.140.50 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was Keep but cleanup. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Sampson[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 21:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep, if more can be added. Hillsong has had several albums released. If the author can build up the discography for this entry and demonstrate that the subject has contributed significantly to the released albums, then it qualifies; otherwise, delete. Akradecki 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs improving, or redirect I think the article has potential, but it is prone to POV. Also, it currently does not have much information. I think it might be best to redirect this page to List of Hillsong musicians. If more NPOV material can be mustered up, it could have its own article again. Marky1981 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Sampson has written many songs prominent in the genre. Joel Houston appears to be better formatted as a related example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Marty Sampson is a notable Hillsong composer. (JROBBO 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wells[edit]

School achievements are too far down the food chain to confer notability - see WP:BIO. No college notability as yet. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - come back when a solid and notable collegiate record is built. Akradecki 22:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MVP of the US Army All-American Bowl, 2005 National Player of the Year. - Richardcavell 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:BIO -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Szvest 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Case series[edit]

Whatever this is, doesn't seem notable. This is a multi-nomination. Delete all. Also nominated:

Birthday Case (disambiguation)
Airplane Case
Birthday Case III

BlueValour 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ... almost look like they could meet speedy criteria, such as "no context" Akradecki 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speey Delete all. I think I lost IQ points reading those articles. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I have no idea what these articles are talking about- nouns first, then pronouns, people :o) --Wafulz 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Zone of the Enders terms, since it is indeed mentioned there. - Bobet 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neith (Orbital Frame)[edit]

Not notable game cruft. I tried to prod, but the creator took the prod notice off.Sparsefarce 22:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. Akradecki 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,as its base on a video game character and I have put lots of efford into this article. ShadowKinght 30:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note ShadowKinght is the creator of the page.

Delete; unencyclopedic gibberish. -- Xinit 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Zone of the Enders terms where it can be more appropriately (and one hopes, intelligibly) covered. Not for being awfully written, but for being about a non-notable minor video game character. By the way, if this is deleted, then its counterparts Nephtis, Jehuty and LEV should probably share its fate. Sandstein 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bite TV[edit]

Reads like advertising, does not meet WP:CORP, advertising spilling over into the last edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississauga%2C_Ontario&direction=next&oldid=68614345 Mucus 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because an article describes something doesn't mean it's advertising it. Nevertheless, I have edited the text with an NPOV (it probably took me far less time to edit than it did for you to put up this AfD), so there's no reason to delete it now (Keep speedy if nom withdrawn). PT^(s-s-s-s) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must admit, the argument that the article is advertising is much weaker now that the original article has been edited. But be patient, since I am kind of new at article deletion and the original nomination was well, for the original article. Another comment is that I still fail to see how this meets WP:CORP. A Google search does not reveal much besides reprints of press releases and the one most prominent article is non-critical from a local paper, thestar.com. According to the first point at notability, it should not qualify and it clearly does not qualify for the other two criteria. Mucus 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most TV networks are notable, even cable ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any form of advertising going on in this article, it clearly states what the channel is just like any other television channel that has an article. User:Cdn_boi
Keep per above. Oz Lawyer 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; providing it is a legal entity under CRTC regulations, the location is fine, and it sounds like it might become a form of broadcasting that will set a future standard! Bacl-presby 22:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yank sox 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stulce[edit]

political candidate just lost primary, not otherwise notable KleenupKrew 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Akradecki 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NN -- | Shishir Rane | talk | 05:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's congratulated his opponent Brent Benedict on his victory so yeah it's over. grazon 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable politician. I don't think he merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. --TheM62Manchester 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As pointed out, when we have articles on RPG character classes, they generally discuss their role in the fictional universe. This is a game guide with the class' stats and everything. If it is copied from a manual it may violate copyright. The deletion of this article does not prejudice something, to quote a 'weak keep', "something more descriptive and less howto". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warshaper[edit]

Delete pure WP:CRUFT. Deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete

While I agree this particular article is kind of obscure (and the current reason given is far more suitible than the previous one), it is well recorded from the original source (The Complete Warrior book) and, since there's an entire list of prestige classes, each with a link that is actually REQUESTING INFORMATION be added, it doesn't make sense to, when someone says, "ok, here is the exact information from the source" delete it.

I've removed my post from the discussion section of the warshaper article to bring it here.

{ Previous post from 'discussion' on Warshaper Article }

why, precisely was this page scheduled for deletion?

"nn, ue - scary stuff!" doesn't seem to qualify for deletion. It may simply be my searching skills, however I can't actually make heads or tails of what that means either.

The reason given below (simply saying that someone who came across the article who was unfamiliar with the subject matter would be lost) also seems a poor reason... that's true with many things (take physics for instance), though Wikipedia doesn't delete articles about that either. I attempted to rectify the problem and, since I am not skilled with linking, simply wrote some description and gave directions to search better, and invite anyone to improve upon this work. So... yeah.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Warshaper"

{ End of Previous Post }

One other point to ponder. While the majority of articles in the list actually focus on the prestige class as it relates to the fictional world (most of which are actually quite well maintained) this particular piece seems to be more how it relates to the 'real world' (i.e. actual mechanics), although with RP's, at least in terms of what is and is not "cruft", I would guess that this would seem to be blurred or even reversed. Nonetheless, technically, this is less "crufty" (if that's a word), at least going by what I understand the definition to be, than the other pieces that are NOT nominated for deletion.

Delete since we're not a game guide ("How to become a Warshaper"). If there's anything which can be merged to an article on the game itself, that's the best place for it. Just because there are "cruftier" articles which exist currently doesn't mean that any specific article should do so. BigHaz 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion. The List of prestige classes has over a hundred of these classes. I don't think they can all be combined in the prestige classes article in this depth, nor do I think this is the D&D Wiki. I would say that an article of this depth would be great there, and what would be more appropriate for Wikipedia is a one-paragraph blurb on the class...in the aforementioned list. So I've got weak delete arguments fighting with weak keeps internally. At this time, I make no recommendation in either direction, but I reserve the right to reconsider based on further discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't like the how-to aspect, but wikipedia's not paper. Something more descriptive and less howto would be good. Themindset 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you suggesting we keep this, even though something else would be good? - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is currently purely game guide information, copied straight from some Dungeons&Dragons manual. And I don't believe it could evolve beyond that, since that particular manual is probably the only place that talks about it. - Bobet 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect -- Mind you, that a simple editorial decision on my part; not sure why this was brought to AfD, as merge is clearly appropriate. Xoloz 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Nervosa[edit]

non-notable TVcruft. This fictional cafe isn't even important enough to Frasier to be merged to another article. wikipediatrix 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's one for Central Perk, so why not this? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's notable either. wikipediatrix 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about everything in the Category:Fictional businesses category? Seems like a precedent has been established. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

105 candidates for deletion? Yomangani ^talk 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at each article and assessing its notability one case at a time, I can't say for sure. But I bet most of them could be just as easily merged into the article about the fictional work they came from. wikipediatrix 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to merge them all, or put them all up for deletion? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, though this was a close call. Nominating an article hoping that it gets kept to set a precedent contradicts general expectations that those who nominate articles for deletion want them deleted. This comes close to WP:POINT and may qualify under Wikipedia:Speedy keep as such and may also fit the description of a situation in which "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. These are also to be kept." This seems to be a nomination for the sake of process, and the nominator has stated he wishes for an outcome besides deletion (in this case, a keep). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia[edit]

per WP:WEB, SPAM Jabrwocky7 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not treat this as a personal attack on Wookieepedia. Lostpedia, a wiki for the ABC series Lost, has had its page deleted based on this policy. I hope that Wookiepedia survives this review and a precedent is set for other articles on Wikipedia. A quick look at the stats of both sites shows that Lostpedia, with an Alexa rating of 11,175, has over 19 million page views. Wookieepedia reports 8.9 million page views. The Alexa rating for this site includes all of Wikia, so those stats don't compare. The Wookieepedia article does not list any notable external references to the site, whereas Lostpedia was listed in businessweek.com and was a Scifi.com site of the week. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uh...don't think so. It's been around a while, and I don't consider it spam. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wookieepedia is a very large database of Star Wars articles frequented by a great deal of people. It has a very impressive alexa rating of 3,230. — NMChico24 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The alexa rating of 3,230 is for all of wikia.com. --Jabrwocky7 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not spam, and one of Wikia's biggest wikis. BryanG^(talk) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-running jokes in Green Wing[edit]

TVcruft. Notability not established. This unsourced list of personal observations made by various editors is one big WP:OR violation. Most of them aren't even jokes anyway. wikipediatrix 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the dedication to producing a WP:POV piece of WP:OR is remarkable but, obviously, Delete Yomangani ^talk 23:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frighteningly obsessive fancruft --RMHED 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several other TV shows which have a running gags section. There is even a category of running gags, to which the this article is a part of. For other examples of running gags in TV shows, see Recurring jokes in The Simpsons and Running gags in Seinfeld. ISD 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the examples you named are completely unsourced original research, and should be deleted as well. wikipediatrix 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons and Seinfeld are TV shows seen all over the world, and can at least claim some kind of global cultural impact, by comparison Green Wing is only mildly popular here in the UK, it hardly has massive viewing figures. --RMHED 11:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from Guyball, these are just listed examples of basic character traits that aren't unique to Green Wing (the hair thing might be an inclination of the writers, although I don't think it's even that, and it certainly isn't prominent or coherent enough to be considered a running joke). The Simpsons and Seinfeld pages are actual lists of phrases and visual jokes that occurred frequently enough to become recurring - aside from Guyball and a couple of random details, all of these Green Wing examples are one-offs. --McGeddon 09:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would perhaps suggest merging if I knew anything about this show. Themindset 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Szvest 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic sandwich[edit]

This seems a generic term and not a specific product. I have not been able to source anything with these specific ingredients so it must go down as OR. Delete BlueValour 23:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook anyhow. wikipediatrix 23:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the content could go in Sandwich but it's WP:OR (and has a lovely circular reference for pocket sandwich) Yomangani ^talk 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further nomination - Thanks for that. have now added pocket sandwich for neatness. BlueValour 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not a specific product but is a real cultural feature, as can be observed at any middle eastern deli. Gazpacho 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may well be real but without sourcing it is not verifiable and breaches WP:OR. BlueValour 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partly because I don't think this style is specifically Arabic, but Middle-Eastern and Southern Europe - see Pita. I think perhaps I think this shows there is a need for something to cover this. Possibly pocket sandwich should be made into an article. Also Fallafel which technically is the little balls, is also user to mean the whole sandwich which contains them. Also Wrap (food) refers to sandwhichs made with Pita which I don't think is correct. --Brat32 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yank sox 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Dragons Army[edit]

Fan club, no evidence given of notability ColinFine 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to List of countries exempt from rabies quarantines. – Rob ert 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries where rabies in pet animals is under control[edit]

"Under control" can never be objectively defined. Pointless collection of links to articles about countries, with no sources for the criteria they've been arranged here for in the first place. wikipediatrix 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the unsourced list. The fact that animals coming from certain countries don't require quarantine is certainly objective, and a useful adjunct to the Rabies and Pet Passport articles. Possibly rename to something like Lists of countries exempt from rabies quarantines. --Celithemis 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Celithemis. Agne 09:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to the typo-less List of countries exempt from rabies quarantines. Themindset 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz 18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nokado Battle Royal[edit]

I can't believe there's no speedy criteria for this, but there isn't... A7 doesn't apply as it tries to assert "3 elite clans and 100s of smaller ones". However, there is not a single google hit outside of wikipedia and unrelated material. Not quite patent nonsense either. Anyways, it's not notable in any sense of the word and wholly unverifiable. I can't even prove this exists right now, much less prove anything in the article. ColourBurst 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete I think that's only a minor plot point in whatever this is, not asserting that this book/game/whatever is notable. -Steve Sanbeg
Delete - But it can't be speedy delete. I mistakenly deleted it as prod, but restored it since it was already on AFD. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Properly sourced "unsolved problems" pages in other disciplines provide evidence that maintaining these rigorously is both encyclopedic and beneficial to scholarship. Xoloz 17:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in medicine[edit]

Listcruft. Hopelessly POV/OR exercises in free association. wikipediatrix 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC) I am also bundling these related articles into the nomination:[reply]

...for the same reasons. wikipediatrix 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of these articles could be improved and modified to include citations. The fact that they have been put up for deletion with no honest attempt made to ask for references is troubling. What can be done when vandals take over the library and become the librarians? I have moved these articles to another wiki that respects human knowledge and the search for new knowledge. I will also copy them into Wikiversity as soon as it opens. Request to Wikipedia's deletionists: the next time you get bored and start throwing out articles that are important for the Wikimedia Foundation's mission, please think about donating them to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore your intimation that bringing these to AfD is a form of vandalism... I think it's common sense that what exactly constitutes a "problem" is completely subjective. The article is based on a POV/OR violation from the getgo. It's not just that these articles are atrociously written (which they are) and not just that they're filled with questions which violate WP:OR because some editor is basically the one asking the questions in the article, like "Can we someday perform a brain transplant?". I could riff on these articles all night long and think of hundreds more questions like "Can we someday regenerate severed limbs?" and "Can we someday spontaneously generate a third bionic eye that is capable of sending and receiving text messages?" This parlor game of free-association regarding such "unsolved problems" in question form has no parameters and thus no end. wikipediatrix 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as to include only sourced questions, i.e. one must be able to cite an article that says something like: "This is an important open problem in field X". -- Koffieyahoo 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current articles are xxxxxx and it is far from clear clear (and even impossible to define) what belongs there. If it means "everything what is currently explored" then the list must be thousands of times as long and any selection would be NPOV. What means "unsolved"? We cannot know anything in all its facettes and every detail - does that make everything "unsolved"?. That you can formulate an "unsolved" problem is only possible if you know so many details of it that you can no longer call it "unsolved". I have the strong feeling that these can never become real articles. Cacycle 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep (speaking only for the chemistry section) These lists are essential for proper understanding of these sciences. Please note elaborations & references etc. are maintained on the secondary pages and not in the list itself. I crossed out some improper language, you have to assume editors are in good faith. V8rik 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is a list of vague questions like "What are the chemical origins of life?" considered "essential for proper understanding"?? And you do realize, don't you, that questions like "How can one design and make an effective catalyst for any desired reaction?" is so vague and open-ended, one might as well make the whole article a lot shorter and simply ask "When can mankind solve all unsolved problems?", which would be no more or less edifying. wikipediatrix 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- We now have 13 unsolved problems in chemistry, 7 of which with their own article with (importantly) relevant citations. The intro clearly states that the list should not include how-to problems. I understand that the concept of unsolved problems is poorly defined but I guess that whenever more than one theory tries to explain the same phenomenon you have an unsolved problem. I think the only issue is with Medicine, at first glance limited to howto's but not addressing the fundamental issues. V8rik 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. As per above.-PlasmaDragon 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all without prejudice to later sourced recreation. As it is, with zero sources, WP:RS and WP:NOR alone mandate deletion. How else are we to ascertain that these problems are indeed unsolved and relevant? Sandstein 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It's a good list, and likely to be found - good material for school-grade projects. Mugaliens 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all respectfully in disagreement with the above - these are terrible lists. No effort has been made to establish the foundations of how such problems are identified, nor the criteria by whcih inclusion couldbe judged. Not just listcruft, witless listcruft. Eusebeus 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all Interesting and relevant to the fields. Should be cleaned up to add sources, but there is no need for deletion. -Interested2 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all Unanswered/unanswerable questions are some of the most significant attractions to any field. I concur that the articles should be cleaned up for sources, but deletion is not the answer. --Ezratrumpet 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all - Because wikipediatrix didn't even try to fix the lists, nor request a fix, I do not believe this nomination was made in good faith. --Trinity Skyward 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I try to fix them? I don't think they should exist at all. The fundamental idea of random lists of "problems" violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV from the outset. Therefore, there is no possible fix. wikipediatrix 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I have been troubled by wikipediatrix's zeal to delete and denounce articles, but these are essentially random lists. The economics article is particularly problematic because several of the "problems" are merely political footballs. Gazpacho 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of my "zeal" is irrelevant here and borders on WP:NPA. FYI, most of the articles I nominate for deletion do indeed end up being deleted, so it sounds like you have a problem with the consensus of the Wikipedia community in general, which is who ultimately makes the final decision, not I alone. wikipediatrix 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. His being troubled by your zeal to delete is entirely relevant, seeing as you were the nominator of these articles, and is certainly not a personal attack - it's his opinion. A personal attack would be "you delete perfectly good stuff". He's saying "you delete things a bit more that I would". Furthermore, I find your noting of WP:NPA to be very interesting - although it may or may not be so, it appears to be to be an intimidation tactic. -Interested2 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I am not on trial here. The articles are. wikipediatrix 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion regarding someone's usual practice is not a personal attack, particularly when that person agrees with your position. --Ezratrumpet 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rediculously Obvious Keep - the literature is full of verifiable ...remains an open problem... - the suggestion that it's POV or OR is completely unsupportable. WilyD 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's so obviously "rediculous" [sic] to you. Maybe you can explain why you think "problem" is NOT a subjective (that means "matter of opinion") term? What constitutes a "problem"? Seriously. And since these articles are filled with open-ended free-association loaded questions, (some are almost as bad as the old Groucho Marx loaded question "Do you still beat your wife?") how can you deny that unsourced questions that wonder if mankind will ever achieve certain things are anything but speculation, and therefore POV/OR? wikipediatrix 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because there are verifiable, citable sources at to what is or isn't an unsolved problem in a field. If a specific question is unverified, then it can be excised, but the overall article is fine, and This article needs some editing is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are unsolved problems in every field that when solved, will advance knowledge in that field to a new level. Division by zero comes to mind as an example. Lists of those questions are attractive to the intellectually curious. The articles might do well to add "previously unsolved questions" and note how those solutions advanced human knowledge. --Ezratrumpet 09:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that user wikipediatrix should stop arguing that the chemistry unsolved problems are unreferenced. At least the articles On water reaction, Enzyme#Kinetics, homochirality, Asymmetric induction, Bond_rotation_barrier to which the unsolved problems refer have discussion and ample references. I am not prepared to invest more time in the article as long as this business continues although I have new articles and unsolved problems in preparation (Superatoms and tunneling effects in the Kinetic isotope effect) Also I object to the bundling of different articles , why mathematics is not listed and chemistry is I do not know and the poor quality of the medicine article is not my concern . Also the deletion discussion should end after 5 days and we are now living in day 6. Why not have an improve tag and move on? I am considering making Unsolved problems in chemistry a Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month if that helps V8rik 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a big deal - since no valid arguments for deletion have been presented, these encyclopaedically necessary topics are plenty safe. WilyD 03:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Xoloz 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skunkweed, History of the Beer Bong, and Chunky Butt Funky[edit]

Also Leon Waddy and Jay Brown (redirects to Skunkweed) and Category:Skunkweed albums.

Band of dubious notability + their two albums. Fireplace 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Can't find anything that makes this band more than a local phenomena. --Joelmills 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Admittedly, they don't quite meet the letter of the notability guidelines in the albums project. Not that I agree big label = notable, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Don't forget to delete the two album cover images. --UnhandledException 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom and Joelmills. Zaxem 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. RasputinAXP c 02:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock N' Roll Racing (animated series)[edit]

More brilliance from Asad Aleem. Danny Lilithborne 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Rock N' Roll Racing Episode List

Delete. Notability not established. I can't even tell what this article is supposed to be about... starts off like it's describing a TV show, but ends up seemingly describing a video game. wikipediatrix 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all -- Samir धर्म 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OC Transpo Route 1[edit]

I nominated this article for Deletion for the reason that it is not encyclopedic content, it is totally useless to Wikipedia and it's too short to be an article. --Deenoe 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate by the same occasion :

OC Transpo Route 2
OC Transpo Route 5
OC Transpo Route 6
OC Transpo Route 7
OC Transpo Route 10
OC Transpo Route 22
OC Transpo Route 23
OC Transpo Route 25
OC Transpo Route 28
OC Transpo Route 31
OC Transpo Route 33
OC Transpo Route 37
OC Transpo Route 55
OC Transpo Route 64
OC Transpo Route 70
OC Transpo Route 85
OC Transpo Route 87
OC Transpo Route 99
OC Transpo Route 118
OC Transpo Route 125
OC Transpo Route 145
OC Transpo Route 154
OC Transpo Route 182

I am basically asking to remove all the OC Transpo Routes article EXCEPT for Transitway Routes 95, 96, 97 has they are importants and they do have content. --Deenoe 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if the content posted for 95 & 96 is of the same nature, you should not hesitate to push for a delete of those too, regardless of its importance until there is something important or insightful. The info within is tiresomely trivial and merits no place here WP:NOT. Ohconfucius

Well.. I wouldn't go for a delete of 95,96,97, but maybe more of a merge, since those routes (especially 95 & 97) contributed to the expansion of the city of Ottawa. --Deenoe 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Doesn't even say which city this is in (I had to follow a link to find out that it was Ottawa). Poorly written articles on non-notable bus routes. -- Necrothesp 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I think this is obvious. --Deenoe 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as wikipedia is not a bus schedule, but include a route map in the OC Transpo routes article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffieyahoo (talk • contribs)

Comment I agree.. I'll go do that now. --Deenoe 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone know what tag to use for a map? --Deenoe 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mmm, browsed to some underground articles and most appear to have a map drawn by some volunteer, hence either creative commons or GFDL licensed. The first article I came across that has an official map is the Copenhagen S-Tog, see [56] and that one is tagged fair use. -- Koffieyahoo 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Jehosephat, I thought it could get no worse! Mea culpa. Oh, the article forgets to mention all of the trees and lampposts along the route ;-) Delete all, of course. Ohconfucius 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see I am tilting at windmills, but these articles are a bit of a work in progress, so they may need to have more content added. ""OCtranspo is the municipal transit operator in Ottawa, Ontario Canada"" comes to mind for one. My reasoning is partly that the group includes information about the relationships between geographic features in the capital of Canada, the transit way system in Ottawa is unusual, with different bus routes for different uses, (region wide, local, express, etc) once one has compiled this information it can be used by menay folks who are interested in other aspects to extract knowledge. It would not be hard to imangine articles on points of interest in the capital linking to the bus routes that serve then to allow the link-to to be used to find what is logicaly accessible by the OC transpo system.cmacd 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree. The routes articles does not give any useful information. They are not historical (except for routes 95 and 97) and the articles are just non-encyclopedic and are against the WP:NOT policy, that's undeniable. --Deenoe 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would that type of information no be better placed in the OC Transpo Routes article? Having individual route articles seems to be too granular as I suspect many routes are not remarkable in any way. -- Whpq 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could put them in a travel Wiki. Vegaswikian 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule -- Whpq 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete or Delete All? --Deenoe 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- Whpq 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikipedia is not a bus schedule 132.205.45.148 23:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Ok you can trash all the remaining bus route pages but I though of doing this instead but with just the starts and ends or terminals of routes. P.S If Wikipedia is not a bus schedule, then all the London U.K bus route pages should go for deletion as well no matter the history except maybe route 30 as it was the route where the double decker bus exploded on 7/7/05. --JForget 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : We have something similar at OC Transpo Routes I believe, but it is not at detailed as the London bus routes list. Also, London routes have history. Ottawa routes doesn't (except, as I said, for 95, 96, 97). --Deenoe 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : However I really like your idea JForget, so I'll start working on that today, hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow. --Deenoe 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They might be excellent in a travel wiki. Vegaswikian 06:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided.....any more consensus, as in Ottawaproject members???Bacl-presby 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Deenoe - so I think the result of this discussion is to delete the expresses, peak, and routes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 85, 87, 99, 118, 125, 145, 154 & 182 route articles. Of course, notes can be added as I see there is some space beside each route.--JForget 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I agree with Deenoe. --Seamesse 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it it is a waste of time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanw1 (talk • contribs)

I think this discussion is over and that we should delete the articles. --Deenoe 22:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivor episodes[edit]

An incomplete list of episodes. This information is available on many other sites and is not needed here. Also, all episode titles on the list are available on the Survivor pages on Wikipedia. If episodes had pages, this page would be good, but since they don't, and they shouldn't, this page should be deleted TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to episode listings in specific Survivor articles (Survivor: Borneo, Survivor: Palau, Survivor: Pearl Islands, etc.) Tinlinkin 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. BryanG^(talk) 06:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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