Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

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]

User francehater[edit]

User francehater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Racist & xenophobic userboxes are not legitimate here, especially when there are not humorous. The well-named "{User francehater}" should be deleted. Shame On You 22:53, 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 speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe malherek[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, per CSD A7. -- Merope 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page (A6). Fan-1967 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know, maybe "punk" is good? I'm not hip to the kids' lingo. -- Merope 17:55, 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. This is very close to a speedy. Grandmasterka 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stlet Rozinsky[edit]

Article created by a user of the same name. No relevant google hits on this guy which shows him to be a relative of Roman Abramovich. Just vanity. Could be a candidate for speedy delete. Ageo020 00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cut and dried vanity. --Daniel Olsen 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor millionaires, you just can not get a break in Russia these days. --Xrblsnggt 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even the merest semblance of notability. NigelQuinine Blather• Toil 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above will381796 03:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. while it doesn't look like he is very notable, I have heard of some Rozinsky millionaire in Russian newspapers...—dima /sb.tk/ 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Vanity and fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 04:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. No evidence that this personal actually even exists. RFerreira 07:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure hoax, no such person, Stlet not a real name, all bullshit. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A millionaire without Google hits is a millionaire without article here. Actually I think his name must be misspelled; I've never heard of any "Stlet". More probably a hoax. --Thunderhead 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and unsourced. Daniel's page ☎ 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above -- Selmo 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaning towards believing it to be a hoax. Mainly because the British government wouldn't make a millionaire apply for assylum! Mallanox 20:49, 21 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 07:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belhaven Hill School[edit]

Non-notable school, doesn't meet criteria set at WP:SCHOOL. Some P. Erson 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, here we go again... my vote is delete. The article does not establish any notability for this school, a very small boarding school for elementary and middle school children. A grand total of 175 total and 71 unique Google hits for "Belhaven Hill School", so it doesn't seem as if many people know or care about it. -- Kicking222 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another school that has no notability. Everything else in wikipedia is subject to notability guidelines - schools should be too. ViridaeTalk 00:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you follow your own rationale and apply the proposed notability guidelines given in the nomination, you will find that this school is notable. It makes no sense to assert that schools should be subject to notability criteria, and then not to apply the notability criteria that are actually right in front of one. Uncle G 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per above. SynergeticMaggot 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Robotforaday 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it comes to schools discussions, many editors appear to be stuck in a groove, repeating the same arguments again and again. A lot of these arguments are wrong. "All X schools are notable."/"All X schools are not notable." are both wrong. Notability is not a blanket. "This school seems notable/non-notable to me." is wrong. Notability is not a subjective judgement made by Wikipedia editors. "This school is unimportant."/"This school is important to its pupils." are wrong. Notability is neither fame nor importance.

    The new WP:SCHOOL proposal embodies the primary notability criterion, namely that the subject be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject or its owners/creators. This is the notability criterion that first appeared in limited form in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC at least two years ago and that has been generalized to published works in all forms. In its general form it appeared in WP:CORP, and the effect has been to shift the focus of discussion of company articles. Two years ago editors would be giving their personal opinions of how "famous" or "well-known" or "important" a company is, or centring the discussion around the author of the article. Now, as a direct consequence of WP:CORP, editors far more often go looking for books, news articles, magazine feature articles, reports, and the like (i.e. sources), and are basing their rationales upon the extents and natures of those sources. Finding, reading, and evaluating sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. It seems like a good idea for the schools debate to shift away from the "stuck record" arguments towards looking at sources, too. If WP:CORP did it for companies, WP:SCHOOL should do it for schools.

    Therefore I am applying the proposed WP:SCHOOL criteria, in particular the primary criterion, to this school. Looking for non-trivial published works, I find, in amongst all of the mere directory entries like this one and this one (which is content-free!), and a few works whose source is the school itself, a lengthy published report by an inspectorate independent of the school, and a followup report, both cited above. The first is definitely not a mere directory entry, and it appears likely from its length that the second is not, either. The primary criterion is thus satisfied. Keep.

    Notice that the above rationale does not rely upon fame, importance, significance, personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, or blanket statements in either direction; but relies solely upon the primary notability criterion and looking at sources and what they contain. Uncle G 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Just so you are aware, the reports you cited are from government inspections which take place from time to time for all Scottish schools. If they are deemed satisfactory evidence of the school's notability, then that means that all Scottish schools are de facto notable.Robotforaday 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first paragraph of the inspection says that it was part of a "sample" of primary schools, not that it was part of a global inspection of every primary school. Uncle G 09:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this was a random sample, then it confers no special status on the school i.e. these schools are no more or less notable than any other Scottish schools. If it was not random, then the selection criteria are presumably published and become an input to the notability evaluation. Dlyons493 Talk 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sampling in these inspections is not random, but is rather systematic so that over a time period each and every school is inspected, but in any given year a reasonable spread (primarily geographical) is chosen. See Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. If you look around that site you will find reports for pretty much every school. Robotforaday 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I'm not sure that an inspection report from the government makes a school any more notable, unless the criteria for ordering such reports are the same as WP's notability criteria (and I doubt this). JChap2007 02:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a directory entry. The only two reputable sources I could find were the two inspection reports, and I don't believe that qualifies the school for the first criteria from WP:SCHOOL. Besides, you can probably find an inspection report on any school in Great Britain, as the inspection is probably required to make then. Hence, the would mean all schools should stay, which is not in the spirt of WP:SCHOOL. Moreover, I don't see this particular school meet any of the other criteria. -- Koffieyahoo 02:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the school concerned exist for all schools in the U.K., then having articles on all schools in the U.K. is very much in the spirit of WP:SCHOOL. The spirit of WP:SCHOOL is having enough source information to construct more than a entry that would be a directory entry in a directory of schools. i.e. the spirit of WP:SCHOOL is not to construct a directory of schools. Read the introductory paragraphs of WP:SCHOOL and User:Uncle G/On notability. It is clear that there is enough source material here to construct an article that is more than a directory entry in a directory of schools. Contrast the actual directory entries in directories of schools that I linked to above. Those are what we don't want, and those are what we have enough source material at hand to avoid. Uncle G 09:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. --Musaabdulrashid 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable organization. Having been inspected does not make it notable. Opabinia regalis 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Government inspection reports do not confer notability. Also fails WP:CORP as a boarding school. Catchpole 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CORP has the same primary criterion as WP:SCHOOL. It passes WP:SCHOOL, as described above, therefore it passes WP:CORP as well. Government inspection reports (or, at least, these government inspection reports — please read them) are non-trivial published works, the same as any other. Discounting sources simply because they are produced by government agencies is wrongheaded. Sources should be discounted either because they are unreliable (i.e. they come from the school itself) or because they are trivial (i.e. they constitute no more than simple directory entries). These sources are neither. (I gave examples of trivial sources that are discounted, for contrast.) Uncle G 09:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a directory of schools, nor is it a directory of government inspection reports on schools. Catchpole 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's irrelevant. No-one is writing articles about the reports, or even attempting to make a directory of reports. This is an article about a school, not about a report. Please use reasoning that is relevant. Uncle G 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G, this article meets the primary criteria established by proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You have noticed that if Uncle G's sources were in the spirit of the guideline that every school in Schotland should have it's own article as a concequence? -- Koffieyahoo 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are in the spirit of the guideline, as pointed out above. Please take the opportunity that is being handed to you to get off the "stuck record" arguments about "all X are notable/non-notable" that have bogged editors down for so long and concentrate upon finding, citing, and evaluating sources, which is what we are supposed to be doing as encyclopaedists. If you have objections to source material for an encyclopaedia article that are two detailed reports on the subject created and published by someone wholly independent of the subject, please state what those objections to the source material at hand are. Uncle G 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't recall that I've made in a notable/non-notable school argument for weeks. However, WP:SCHOOLS is a notability guideline in whatever way you look at it, just like WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, ... Hence, if you feel that inspection reports are valid in establishing notability, then we should throw WP:SCHOOLS out of the window now, forbid AfD'ing schools, and speedily close all currently running AfDs on schools, as you will be able to find an inspection report on every school currently in wikipedia and every school that will be added in the future. -- Koffieyahoo 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also a question to Uncle G: have you actually read the Inspection reports? You simply can't base an encyclopedic article on them that goes beyond stub level: they simply state that the parents and inspection were satisified with the school performance a few years back. Moreover, the school was chosen at random as stated at the beginning of this report, which could imply that we have now to include a random sample of British schools based on erradic behavious of Her Majesty's school inspectors. I thought an encyclopedia wasn't supposed to be a random collection of information? -- Koffieyahoo 01:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable school. feydey 09:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the notability criteria linked to above, this is a notable school. You appear to be using some other notability criteria. Please point to them and explain how this school fails to satisfy them. Without that, that rationale is insufficient. Uncle G 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no indication in your lengthy essay about verifying the criteria, most of it is discussion about the WP:SCHOOL criteria's origins, and the links given do not give any notability verifications (see User:Dlyons493 observation). I agree with Bunchofgrapes and I think as my rationale might not be perfect, without a reply to User:Dlyons493 also Your rationale is insufficient. Best, feydey 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G and Yamaguchi先生. --HResearcher 09:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and Uncle G. This school is notable. Silensor 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The school is irrelevant: the article establishes nothing except that one of the students has access to Wikipedia. The article cites no sources, it provides us with no history, no discussion of the school. The article is more about the headmaster than about the school, and yet that topic is a distraction. The potential article on this subject leads only to a possibility for putting this on the Requested Articles list. There are hundreds of thousands of potential articles, but we have to assess the one that has been written, and it fails our guidelines in this case. Geogre 11:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I like the fact that we are striving to get more than "notable" involved, but applying criticisms of the subject of the article is limited. They will tell us only what could conceivably be written. Almost every day we have speedy deletions of sentence fragment "articles" under G1, even if they managed to pretend to be about something significant. Nor is this "clean up is no rationale for deletion" because this is not a question of cleaning up but rather a complete rewrite. Consider the speedy deletion criterion of A7: "makes no claim for notability." Again, it isn't "isn't notable" but "makes no claim": an article on a band that says "Talking Heads is a band that broke up in the '80's and they were really cool" would be an A7 candidate despite the fact that, of course, Talking Heads was a seminal group. This particular article doesn't give us as reviewers much to work with. Now, we, as reviewers, can go off and do research on our own, but that has already put the onus on us to write the article. Once we're doing the research and organizing the information, we are, essentially, writing a new article. Geogre 11:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Per Uncle G's research, references to which are now on the article. GBYork 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable school, nothing to show its greater importance or to have it stand out amoungst the sea of schools. Not all school are notable and this one surely isnt. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to followup the documentation seems to be very general a report on a school can be part of a standard reporting system where all schools of that type are reported on yearly, barely signifying some sort of non-trivial outside work. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would actually say thats pretty trivial. Verfiable but does nothing for notability. ViridaeTalk 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Trivial" is "not more than a simple directory entry". I cited two trivial published works above, for comparison with the reports, which are most decidedly not directory entries. Please look at them. Uncle G 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether something "stands out amongst the sea of schools" is a subjective judgement by a Wikipedia editor. Notability is not subjective. If you are using objective notability criteria, please point to those criteria and explain how this school does not satisfy them. Uncle G 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is of course subjective, all you are doing is using your own judgement of what notability criteria to follow. Catchpole 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's completely fallacious. Notability is not subjective. That one chooses to employ notability criteria does not make those criteria themselves, or their application, subjective. Uncle G 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is most definitely not subjective. WilyD 01:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:V, and all other appropriate guidelines and policies - I can find no criterion for deletion, nor have any been suggested (give that WP:SCHOOL is not a policy or a guideline, but just idle musings). WilyD 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with other users about lack of notability. John Smith's 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current state. I see two references have recently been added; it alarms me to see things tagged as "references" that do not support the facts stated in the article. Other than supposing its existence and location, the article lists two basic facts: the current student population and headmaster. The population is at odds with that listed in [1] and the headmaster's name does not appear to be listed in either source. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable school. Carioca 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you asserting that the school is notable? I am prepared to change my vote if somebody can present such evidence. However, I cannot find any such evidence myself, and I have looked. Robotforaday 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless entry on a non-notable school in a town that does not have a Wiki entry, headed by a headmaster who does not have a Wiki entry. Contains information of no general interest in non-encyclopedic form. - Corporal Tunnel 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think that Dunbar does not have an article? And how would that be a rationale for deleting an article in any case? Uncle G 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per all schools. Piccadilly 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Uncle G explained better than I could, the existence and status of this school has been confirmed by indenpendent reliable sources, and an article can be built of off those sources.-- danntm T C 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So let me get this straight- it is being argued that all schools that are inspected (that is, every school in the UK), is notable because you can cite the inspection documents? I am not a crusader against schools entrys- if historical details/ unique method/ a particularly notable place in the community show that the school is more of note than just any school, then fine, let it be in wikipedia. But a report, whilst verifying the existance of the school, in no way verifies the notability of the school. Robotforaday 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no guidelines or policies about notability for schools, nor are there any general guidelines or policies on notability as a criterion for deletion. As far as I can tell, every article that's been deleted on grounds of notability failed either WP:V or WP:SPAM, if not both. There is not now, nor has there ever been any need for deletion on grounds of notability, and in many fields (math, science, engineering) it would be quickly recognised as inappropriate. It's only the confusion between notability and spam/vanity/verifiability that leads to these kinds of arguments. WilyD 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I know of articles that are deleted by consensus in other fields (e.g. football (soccer), where I'm a member of the wikiproject) purely on the grounds that the subject does not meet a pre-agreed and consistently applied standard of notability. I know it's a completely different field, but those deletes took place because of non-notability, not V or SPAM. Robotforaday 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I can't speak to Soccer, but WP:MUSIC, for example, invokes notability all the time for no real reason - bands that fail notability also fail spam or verifiability. WilyD 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge One government mention of the school does not confirm notability. Simply confirmation that a school exists is not enough for it to be listed. Guidlines for separate school articles do exist WP:Schools. The key word in part one is multiple non-trivial sources. This school does not meet the guidlines that warrant existing as a separate school. A merge into the respective demographic area, or if they exist in Scotland, school district article, is the best alternative to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will381796 (talk • contribs)
  • keep please this school is notable and verifiable too erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, someone asserts that this article is notable, but gives no basis for saying so. Could you please give your reasoning? If somebody could give adequate grounds, I'd be prepared to change my vote. Robotforaday 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the government report relied on by Uncle G, I find not a single source that mentions this school independently from others. All mentions are directory-style lists of groups of Scottisch or East Lothian schools. I find one minor, trivial mention in an East Lothian Courier article[2]. Apparently, the school is not considered notable enough to cover in the media or other reliable sources, and cannot be deemed verifiable through web sources. Based upon these findings, I recommend delete. --Thunderhead 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Uncle G has put forward a sensible suggestion so it should be kept if there are verifiable sources and merged to the community it is in if not. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once again notability is not policy, verifiability is. Clean it up and add more references... problem solved.  ALKIVAR™ 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Although WP:SCHOOL is still in proposal phases as a guideline, this article meets the criteria as has been noted by Uncle G. Suggest withdrawal of this nomination for deletion. Bahn Mi 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is verifiability the only criteria that determines whether something gets it own article? I can easily verify that I am alive. Does that make me eligible to have an article written on myself? No, it doesn't. I was under the impression that notability is a fairly important criteria when evaluating the existance of an article. Sure, a couple of sources do show that this school exists. It is verifiable. Does that make it important enough to warrant its own article? No. WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, although still a proposal, should be used to determine whether it should have its own article, and the sources that Uncle G cites I would consider to be trivial sources of Scottish schools. If every school must undergo an inspection and is listed on these reports, then following Uncle G's interpretation of the guidelines, all Scottish school's should have an article. What if the Scottish government did not have these documents posted online? Also, I am not familiar with the organization of Scottish schools, but are they run independently or does the Scottish government control them? It seems to me that a government agency that is responsible for regulation of Scottish Schools means that this agency is not completely independent of the article's subject. Are there any other non-trivial sources regarding this school? This thinking is not logical. It is obvious that this debate is still being discussed and consensus has not been met. Many still fail to see how this article meets the criteria. The AfD nomination should remain active.will381796 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You verifying that you're alive violates WP:OR. Articles must get past policies like WP:V and WP:OR to avoid deletion. Guidelines are a seperate issue, but we are free to keep an article that fails every guideline. The reasonable guidelines for this article are WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. When people talk about spam, they're really saying the article violates WP:V or WP:SPAM - I'm not sure I've ever seen an article deleted on notability grounds that would've passed WP:V and WP:SPAM WilyD 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verification of your living status is easily done using a birth certificate. That isn't OR and it still doesn't mean you deserve and article on WP. ViridaeTalk 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Birth certificates aren't publicly available, so it would, in fact, be OR. WilyD 03:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in many jurisdictions, birth certificates are public records that can be accessed by anyone for free, or for a fee. Similar to any other vital record (ie Criminal record); but we digress from the focus of the debate. will381796 04:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets content policies; individual schools are notable as important institutions in the communities they serve. This school is no exception. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of thinking can lead you down a slippery slope. I know it is a stretch, but some people could begin to think: "hey, every person on the face of the earth influences other people and their society in some important way." Sure, education is very important in a modern society. That doesn't make every school important enough for an individual article. A library is important to a community, providing a means for indviduals to go out and gain access to otherwise unavailable information. But that hardly means that every library branch in my city deserves its own article. will381796 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Few libraries have the significance that most schools have to their community, not to say that I would want to delete a decent article on a library. Obviously in every case it is a subjective call. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as the school-cruft gives me a royal headache, the long running consensus has been that schools are notable. Uncle G's argument on the application of WP:SCHOOL is valid. I will say that I personally disagree with the spirit of WP:School because I think it is too leninent in it's criteria for the notability of school. But alas, that is the status quo consenus until we work to change it. 205.157.110.11 08:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its only the status quo consensus as long as long as you allow it to be one and as recent school AfDs have shown, it clearly isnt a consensus at all. ViridaeTalk 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What has struck me as odd is that there's obviously a double standard here (in AFD). People have to be notable, but schools have to be verifiable. I personally agree that WP:V is the policy to adhere to, but that doesn't seem to count for people. --Thunderhead 11:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is certainly true, but keep in mind that, while most schools are sufficiently verifiable most people aren't. It would certainly be nice to see less deletion of people that actually are verifiable though. Personally, I don't have the time to work on something along these lines, but if someone had suggestions as to how to ensure that verifiable people are kept I'd certainly support that. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is mistaken as Uncle G and others have demonstrated. The article meets WP:SCHOOL perfectly well. RFerreira 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So every school in the UK meets WP:School, as reports can be found online for them all? Wow, stubfest coming up. Robotforaday 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Feel free to be bold and merge tiny stubs into articles on the parent community (see Wikipedia:Places of local interest for some other thoughts). That is an editorial action that doesn't require an AfD, and it's often a lot more efficient at cleaning up tiny unexpandable stubs than an AfD is. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which was the alternative that I suggested up above. Being verifiable does not automatically make you notable. They do not go hand-in hand. will381796 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. See also comments above. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on notability grounds. Mallanox 20:55, 21 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 - A7/A6 —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 05:45Z

Lewis Philpott[edit]

A young actor whose only real credit seems to be a minor role in Batman Begins. The article seems to claim some sort of notability so I am not sure if this can be speedied. GabrielF 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion does not seem appropriate considering this is a person just trying to make himself seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjoyce06 (talk • contribs)
    • That high school play that made it on to the community TV station should give me a Wikipedia article too! Speedy delete :: Colin Keigher 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • in my opinion, this website and the internet in general is all about acknowledgement. i agree with the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjoyce06 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes; subjects of biographies on Wikipedia should already be notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete reads like an attack page (or possibly just nonsense) and the IMDB doesn't back up the claim of having been in Batman Begins, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason this wasn't deleted was because it made a claim (perhaps a false one) of notability. No Google hits support the claims made in the article; this invididual is not listed in IMDB, which most would consider a bare minimum of notability for WP:BIO criteria related to an actor. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it be because of a minor role? I'm gonna check out the film credits on the DVD, will keep all posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjoyce06 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment A minor role that is not even listed on imdb's entry for Batman Begins will not satisify WP:BIO requirments. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentMe again. Found one link about a stage role he had:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lewis+philpott+blackout&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t500&x=wrt

  • comment deleted
    Because it's a biography of a living person, so we have to take care of it. We can't have 7 billion biographies here. Ashibaka tock 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a attack page. Whispering(talk/c) 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 01:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom ThuranX 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Looks mostly like an attack page to me. And yeah, it doesn't fit WP:BIO. My uncle was an extra in an 80's movie; does that make him notable? Definitely not. 1ne 03:27, 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 keep. --james(talk) 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Andaryas[edit]

Non notable editor of a non notable newspaer Afghan Times. The newspapers article itself is on AFD. CLaims to have bought international media attention to Abdul Rahman (convert), though no proof is shown. Article started by a user Andaryas Ageo020 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable enough to me in the Christian Afghanistan demographic of the world. --HResearcher 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How come the 'non notable newpaper' is a blue link? J Milburn 09:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per HResearcher. This serves a global interest group. GBYork 14:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above ChameleonMan 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the Abdul Rahman (convert) page, the story in the Afghan Times is chronologically the first in the list of media coverage -- the story that ran on Voice of America the following day doesn't name the Times but states "The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings."
    Most of us probably don't know that much about the context here, and it's a culture underrepresented on Wiki. I'd say this is a case where "Assume good faith" is a key principle. Dybryd 20:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dybyrd. It's too easy to assume non-notability on Foreign subjects. 205.157.110.11 08:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the good reasons noted above. Mallanox 21:05, 21 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 userfy —Mets501 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braydon Wilde's favorite Super Bowl moments[edit]

Inherently flawed article: original research that is highly non-neutral point-of-view. I'll grant this can stay in the user space (minus the pictures), but it doesn't belong in the main article space, and I would say it most strongly needs deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy - Whpq 00:52, 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. The top keep vote provides the best reason for deletion; we are here to document things that are already notable and verifiable. If you find less notable webcomics on Wikipedia, please be bold and bring them to AfD. Grandmasterka 01:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San: Three Kingdoms Comic[edit]

Non notable multilanguage webcomic, can be seen here in its english form (which is the primary site). The domain on which the comic is hosted attains an Alexa rank of 800,000 and their forums house 6 members. A google search for "three kingdoms comic" or for "三國漫畫" bring back no decent sources (professional reviews, commentary etc). - Hahnchen 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Hahnchen. non-notable webcomic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 05:50Z
  • Delete per nomination and Quarl. --HResearcher 09:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Comic-cruft. 205.157.110.11 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, the first return of the search 'Three Kingdoms Comic' comes up with the site www.shiji.cc/san/ which happens to be the former place of the comic. Secondly, do you expect there to be a multitude of members in the first few days of a forum being up? Obviously it will take some time to get more members than 3-4 days.
  • Keep It's actually very popular amongst its target audience and is far from a "non notable" webcomic. I suggest looking for some web traffic stats before doing something like "deleting" when Wiki has many more less notable and less factual entries listed. If you choose to delete, then at least keep it on a list of webcomics. They don't need help advertising, but I see no good reason to delete given the comic's high readership for being "unnotable." Schlechtentag 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My apologies for misplacing the Alexa link (now corrected). Also note that the Alexa rank for the old domain www.shiji.cc is unranked. The reason there are less notable and less factual entries for webcomics at Wikipedia, is because the webcomic community think anything is notable if they're a fan of it. I would nominate and delete more, but right now I'm busy with work and my internet connection has regressed to 56k. - Hahnchen 02:03, 21 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 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: The Webcomic[edit]

A Grand Theft Auto fan fiction webcomic hosted on a free web host, here. No notability, no decent sources, no surprise. - Hahnchen 00:25, 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. Grandmasterka 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ribald Youth[edit]

Another one of Wikipedia's many non notable webcomics, found here. There are no reliable sources quoted in the article, and searching through Google, I couldn't find any. The is no assertion of notability in the article other than the fact that it exists. Wikipedia isn't a web listing. Note that I can't get Alexa data right now, Alexa keeps on returning the rank of some random Russian site rather than the comic I'm after. Although with the comic finished, Alexa would not have been too useful anyway. - Hahnchen 00:25, 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. Grandmasterka 01:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Dynamic[edit]

Delete. Non-notable radio station. "Radio Dynamic Youth Radio Project" brings up zero Google hits; "'Radio Dynamic' Portishead" brings up 8 unique hits. Prod tag removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 00:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what i understand from the article, the next broadcast is scheduled for October 2006 on 87.9FM . I think this is one of the part time radio stations. Also Portishead is a town with only 18,000 people. So, how can this station be a mainstream or atleast a niche media outlet. --Ageo020 01:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discospinster. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:03Z
  • Delete per nomination(discospinster) and Ageo020. The article shouldn't be here unless something notable about Radio Dynamic can be presented. --HResearcher 09:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —dima /sb.tk/ 17:09, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A6. Naconkantari 01:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson mills[edit]

Nonsense  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
    • Story: Very Funny and unencyclopedic
    • Spelling and Grammar: Atrocious
    • Crystal Ball Gazing: 5/5
    • Vanity: Certainly not vanity, more like insulting. --Ageo020 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. We can't possible know whether Jayson will succeed at life or gain authoritah. Moreover, claims of Jayson's enjoyment of cable television porn are entirely unreferenced. Garrepi 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A6... some sort of self-hating attack page. Already speedied once as A6, but definitely doable again since it's still an A6 candidate. At the least it's a A7 non-notable bio. Salt it. --Kinu t/c 01:10, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo's Castle[edit]

Less an article than an unverifiable story about a Nintendo fan site. Possibly speedy. GabrielF 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:WEB. Not even an encyclopedic article. --Kinu t/c 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no CSD for websites (sadly), but delete per Kinu anyway. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a CSD for websites, but nonetheless, delete. 1ne 03:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Sad stories need notability. SynergeticMaggot 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable story maybe we should add a speedy cat for it. Æon Insane Ward 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would speedy but this article has existed for over half a year already. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:10Z
  • Delete. No way to speedy a former website that wasn't notable when it existed? Wow, we need to work on that. --Thatdog 08:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — nn {{db-bio}} does not even qualify for an Alexa Internet rank or meet WP:WEB - GIen 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —dima /sb.tk/ 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE: this page was blanked and replaced with Keep votes by an anon IP, I have reverted it.*** — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ... discospinster talk 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sango125 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 6th edit. Blocked indefinitely as impersonator of Sango123. Phaedriel 00:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lives on only as a memory and a WP entry. Unfortunately memories aren't a reliable source. - Wickning1 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:30, 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. Grandmasterka 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11: The Great Illusion[edit]

No assertion of notability. How notable can a video that attributes 9/11 to the Illuminati be, anyway?

  • Delete. Gazpacho 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also has no reliable sources Strike that, it has no sources at all. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Search results for this don't turn up reliable sources that discuss the video. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom JChap2007 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It has 10,200 hits on google, and it might be, according to some reliable source we haven't yet found, truly notable. All the same, however, I don't see any sources that have much proof of notability on Google, and the article itself doesn't assert notability in any meaningful way. So ultimately I must conclude that deletion is the best policy here. NigelQuinine Blather• Toil 02:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per above. SynergeticMaggot 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SynergeticMaggot. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conspiracycruft. StarryEyes 07:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though this video has some cult following on the Bit Torrent networks, that is about it...but...um...I don't download videos so...yeah. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This sucks. Has anyone even seen this video at all? The issue of steel burning at 1800 degrees fahrenheit and jet fuel burning at 1200 degrees fahrenheit has not even been touched for the same reason this video exists. Okay, the illuminati thing goes too far and can be avoided, but the allegations are worth noting, don't you think? Coolguy1368 17 August 11:15 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not the place to document things that haven't been documented outside of Wikipedia. Please cite sources upon which an article about this video can be based. Uncle G 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI we have an article that covers reliably sourced disputes about the attacks. And official conclusions don't claim that steel "burned" so no, that is not worth noting. Gazpacho 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this fails WP:V as it is unsourced... though I think the fact that there are no reliable sources points to a sinister Illuminati conspiracy to suppress this film!(fnord)--Isotope23 16:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coolguy1368 can you base keep on a ration reason? While I respect you, your arguement is weak in the face of the matter that Wikipedia does not keep articles based on if they are interesting or not. Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus So if you believe it should be kept, please provide a reason that these pillars of the wiki community should be put asside for this one article. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be wholly unverifiable Mallanox 21:14, 21 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. Grandmasterka 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-Ray[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO; No real notability claims, can't find the albums for sale, very few relevant Google hits (except to what apppears to be an Angelfire personal page). Prod tagged was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:35, 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. If anyone wants to redirect it I wouldn't object. Grandmasterka 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkdump[edit]

This article is a collection of external links and some "tips" on promoting websites. Generalmiaow 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article contributes nothing to wikipedia. I don't even think cleaning it up is viable, because its topic is easily covered by Link exchange, web directory and Link farm. At most, a redirect to one of these. Delete Generalmiaow 01:34, 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. 1ne 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dietary articles[edit]

Badly specified list, which suffers from including everything that has some vage relation with eating or food. Hence, indiscriminate collection of information. -- Koffieyahoo 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-solid keep: this article includes various redlinks, which if categorized, would not exist. Maybe move it to List of food-related articles and add an introduction? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flaccid Delete. Indiscriminate, useless, impotent. Rohirok 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listcruft. This is what categories are for - people should use Category:Food and Category:Nutrition instead. Out!!! - Brianyoumans 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brianyoumans. The high number of red links illustrates one of the reasons categories are superior for listings of this sort. --Thatdog 09:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use categories. feydey 09:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Food??? ST47 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brianyoumans . —dima /sb.tk/ 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page offers nothing that isn't given elsewhere. Mallanox 21:21, 21 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 09:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft 12 block puzzle[edit]

Article about a piece of swag that Microsoft gives out - not notable GabrielF 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Is it technically a variation of a Rubik's cube? If so, the relevant info could be added there. SliceNYC 01:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rubik's cube --Ageo020 01:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ageo020. Not notable enough for its own article. 1ne 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Whats the reason for merging it? So MS gives away a rip off version of a Rubicks cube. You think you're gonna find a citation that ties this puzzle to the Rubicks cube? No citation, no source, no merge. Else its WP:OR.SynergeticMaggot 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can find a mass-market name for it. Gazpacho 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 15 blocks short of being a proper Rubik's cube ripoff. Not worth merging. Thatdog 05:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Thatdog. --MaNeMeBasat 05:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not a Rubik's cube, and this is merely a promotional toy branded with Microsoft's logo. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:11Z
  • Delete, not a Rubik's cube, but a folding block puzzle or puzzle cube, a type used for promotional items for over a century. This one is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Whpq 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not pass go, do not merge to Rubik's cube, do not collect $200. RFerreira 21:59, 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 (no consensus). 1ne 06:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings of compositions by César Franck[edit]

This discography is ridiculously small. My guess is that it is the contents of someone's private CD collection. Unless this page is going to expand to something close to a complete discography of Franck (which would be a mammoth undertaking) it should be deleted Grover cleveland 02:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep it needs expansion, but that's not a criteria for deletion. This list has definite, objective criteria for inclusion, and a finite limit. seems fine and potentially valuable, if one wants to see all the recordings of a work, for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think discographies are great and would agree with you if there seemed any remote prospect that this list would improve. However, given that the list currently contains only 14 recordings, while ArkivMusic lists 581 recordings of Franck currently available for purchase, and that all the listed recordings are of organ music with no mention of his orchestral, choral, vocal or chamber music, I seriously question whether this is ever going to happen. Grover cleveland 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and per WP:OR, unless someone can find some sources that deal with the subject of this list (not the recodings themselves). That the list is incomplete is by the way absolutely no valid reason to have it deleted. -- Koffieyahoo 04:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually require extensive secondary sources for discographies, normally the record catalog itself is sufficient to verify the necessary information about the albums. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please point me to a recording catalog then. I would only consider extracting the information from the CDs/LPs themselves original research. The unencyclopedic still stands though. -- Koffieyahoo 07:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ridiculously incomplete, and if anyone tried to make a serious list, it would be completely unwieldy - Amazon lists over 1000 hits on his name. Franck is a fairly major composer, there are hundreds of recordings of his work. Particularly notable recordings of his work should be listed in the César Franck article. --Brianyoumans 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same arguments as above - it is very unlikely that this discography will ever be complete: the discography itself had only 3 edits since april. A short discography with milestones, historical recordings, etc., that would be interesting though.--Dr. Friendly 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weak Keep If I go to the library and get a book about a composer, it may well have a section of "essential repertoire" recordings of the composer's works. I assume that at the time the book was written, these were the best performances on record: that they represent an acknowledged interpreter of the works, well recorded. I would appreciate the same thing in a Wiki article about a composer. The problem is, if Wikipedian Joe Blow writes the list, and says "These are the best recordings of Franck's work" that is obviously OR. The article would have to come from a verifiable source, such as a music book or music magazine, or at least a reputable website (and how is that detremined?). Then there would be the problem of copyright infringement: The list is the property of the magazine or book. One out is to include in the main article on the musician a link to a website listing essential recordings. Then some deletionist is likely to complain the website is spam, if they also offer products for sale. Checking a few musicians randomly: I don't see such a discography for Beethoven or Carl Czerny, just a listing of compositions. For Wagner, many compositions have their own articles. Lohengrin lists 6 recordings chosen by someone. Is their inclusion OR? Why not 6 other recordings? For Gershwin, the article on Rhapsody in Blue identifies 6 recordings as "Notable" without citing a source for that opinion. Clearly the precedent is set for an inclusion of "Notable" recordings in the Franck article itself or in a split off article such as this, or go to the other articles and remove the discography as OR. For Wagner's Die Meistersinger, the article has an external link to a Geocities blog where someone in 2000 listed the best recordings (in his opinion)of the work. That site does not offer products for sale, so does not appear to be spam. If such a site had reviews or selections made by someone with credentials such as a distinguished conductor or professor of music, it would seem to meet general Wiki requirements of verifiability, and to be a usable approach, preferable to the editor just listing the recordings he owns. Edison 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this list doesn't even claim to be a list of "notable recordings". As I pointed out above, it doesn't attempt to cover such well-known works as Franck's Symphony or Violin Sonata. It is restricted to organ music. Grover cleveland 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that in any article, for the editor to say These 6 recordings are Notable or The Bes is OR unless they cite some verifiable external review or list to say so. Such lists should be deleted as OR unless tyhey have an outside source for the selection. It would not matter if the Franck articlelisted a couple of recordings of every composition by Franck. Still OR. But for consistency, why disallow a list of recordings ONLY in this article? Surely there are collections of reviews such as John von Rhein's: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-0608110217aug11,1,1683241.story which identify the most notable recordings, old as well as new, of a given workEdison 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that editors can expand it. This article is a stub. Wikipedia has about a million stubs. Wikipedia does not require that articles be born whole. Fg2 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but writing a discography generally takes a significant amount of work. If anyone was really serious about making this article more complete, they could, for a start, add entries for the 581 recordings of Franck available at ArkivMusic, and then investigate out-of-print recordings. Does anyone seriously expect this to happen? If not, this article should be deleted. Grover cleveland 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Other articles list perhaps 6 "Notable" recordings of a given work by a given composer, but I challeneg th editors' selection of those 6 as OR, the equivalent of the editor saying "Here are my favorite recordings" unless they cite, say an article by a music critic listing those as the critic's favorite recordings.Edison 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be drifting off-topic here. If you want to challenge lists of "Notable recordings" in other articles that are not backed by references as OR or "Citation needed" then go ahead. I'm not sure what relevance that has to this particular article, which does not claim to be a list of Notable recordings, but rather a "List of recordings of compositions by Cesar Franck". Imagine as a thought experiment that I created an article entitled List of all recordings of anything ever made and populated it with two CDs from my collection. That list would also have clear and verifiable criteria for inclusion and a finite limit. In fact, all the arguments that are being used to defend this Franck list would also apply to my imaginary article. It would need a bit of expansion, to be sure, but so then does the Franck list! Yet surely no-one would deny that that article should be deleted because it is hopelessly overambitious and pathetically incomplete. The same points apply to this Franck article. Grover cleveland 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked at my public library and found 2 guides to classical recordings. They do not list hundreds of recommended recordings for Franck. In fact, Rough Guide only selected 5 of his works other than organ works, and had a few recordings of each. "A Basic Music Library" by the American Library Association only chose 3 of his works other than organ works, and listed 1 to 4 recordings of each. Obviously there is zero merit to listing a duplication of Schwan's catalog with every recording in print, then supplementing it with all out of print recordings. But there is a place for "Notable" or "Recommended" recordings. So rename the article to avoid the accusation that it does not include every recording ever done, and either include representative selections from such guides as are found in a library, or from a reputable online website. Please take a look at my additions, which include 1 or more recordings of each of the works recommended in either of the 2 guides found. Edison 23:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your work. I've created a new section "Notable recordings" in the César Franck article and copied the recordings you added there. However, I still think that List of recordings of compositions by César Franck should be deleted. Grover cleveland 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be expanded and if necessary split into pages by instrument or whatever. It's not great now but there are many wikipedia pages that have gone from being terrible to featured. Mallanox 21:25, 21 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. 1ne 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Rendell[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and appears to be a hoax. John254 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as likely hoax, certainly unverifiable. Every article created by this author is now AFD'ed as a hoax. Fan-1967 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely not a hoax. You can't create pages on Cricinfo as hoaxes.[3] Ansell 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and permaban the editor for creating a string of hoax articles. RFerreira 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. feydey 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not a hoax and is verifiable. A basic google search will show that the content of this article is true. Carlo Rendell was a contracted proffesional cricketer for Middlesex County cricket club between 2001-2 and attended Durham University. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) .
  • Weak delete. I agree with the unsigned comment that Ghits will verify that Carlo Rendell did play for a Middlesex cricket team. My problem is in notability (is he or the team well-known?) and the large number of unsourced claims (motivational speaker, etc). ju66l3r 10:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/speedy delete. Vanity and/or NN. This article probably qualifies for a speedy delete, and could legitimately be flagged with {{:Template:Speedy}}. Guliolopez 10:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of Middlesex not being a "well known" cricket team is remarkable as it is one of the most well known proffesional sides in the world!. They play there home games at Lords Cricket ground "The Home of Cricket" and have produced many, many england players and captains including the current one. Contemporaries of Carlo Rendell included Angus Fraser, Phil Tuffnell, Andrew Strauss, Mark Ramprakash, John Emburey, Ed Joyce, Owais Shah and Nick Compton. Comments about motivatioonal speaking are true but unverafiable so have been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs)

  • Good speaker, Carlo Rendell talks on life after sport for young cricketers and footballers who fail to make the grade. His small but relateive success after failing in his sport is a fine example for others as is reflected by his page. For those of you who have not heard of Middlesex CCC I am quite frankly appalled that you choose to make a comment to delete this man's page. Middlesex is one of the sporting institutions of this country, playing at Lords cricket ground as the above writer mentions. To bring this man's existance into question is a slight not only on him, but on the cricketing and youth coaching community as a whole. Please only comment on an individual when you have the slightest idea what you are going on about.Richardss 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However to add to this, I agree that he is only well known in certain fields.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardss (talk • contribs)

Above user comments were added by profile User:Richardss. This user account is likely a sockpuppet created solely for he purposes of voting in this discussion. Guliolopez 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" It is fairly evident that many of the people passing judgement on Carlo Rendell’s notability have no understanding of cricket and the community that surrounds it. It is therefore impossible for them to comment on his notability within cricket circles with any authority. Perhaps they should keep there ill informed opinions to themselves or do some more research on cricket in England. I am a Middlesex member and am genuinely sickened that Middlesex County Cricket Club was called into question. I do hope these people look it up to see what a mistake they made. Carlo Rendell played for the club for the best part of three years and was a contracted professional, which I believe in its own write makes him notable! How the opinions of those in question would be swayed if it was a sport they actually had the patience or intellect to understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - Please remember to keep your comments civil (don't insult others' intelligence). That being said, if you can add reliable sources confirming your claims to the article, it would be immensely helpful. Even if Carlo is notable, his article could be deleted due to the lack of reliable sources. Srose (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment It apears relaible sources have been added which include The International Cricket Council(They are the governing body for Cricket in the World), The England and Wales Cricket Board(They control cricket in the British Isles and register only proffesional cricketers on there website), Cricinfo(which carries the names of all crickters who have played proffessional cricket and is considered THE website for cricket and one the most trafficked sports websites on the web), and Cricket Archive which is quickly becoming one of the most comprehensive cricket websites avaliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your comments using four tildes at the end of your addition.
  • Delete Any full-length featured articles about this person in Magazines, Newspapers, Books? Any Featured segments in TV news reports? The the websites really are not acceptable per wikipedia standards. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unclear on what is not acceptable about them brian?

Delete as per the data currently available. The consensus that we had in WP:Cricket is that any first class cricketer is notable enough to have an article. But Rendell seems to be only a County Second XI player. Tintin (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add : and even for the second XI, he has played only one match. Certainly not notable enough in terms of cricketing achievements. Tintin (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a relief it is to have someone comment on this article that actually has an understanding of the game and can give acurate critisism. I refer back to previous comments and stongly urge "wikipedians" to only comment on things that they understand as some of the statments made previously are illinformed at best and could be percieved as down right ignorant by others. It seems utterly absurd for individuals from parts of the world that dont play cricket to make judgements on the game and its players. What do others feel? refering not so much in relation to this article but more generally in specific feilds of knowledge?

    • Comment That is not how Wikipedia is set up. You do not need specific knowledge in a certain area to comment on AfDs or contribute to an article, nor should you urge anything of the sort. Please stay civil, and become more familar with wikipedia's policies before making comments like this. --Brian (How am I doing?) 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have left me somewhat chagrin. I understand your piont of veiw though, but still find the system a little frustrating. There are individuals associated with wikipedia who know alot about said subject(cricket)and they are very well placed to comment it may not be my place to ask but was offering a suggestion. Im sorry if i was not civil Brian and it was not a personal attack. I am worried that certain parts of wikipedia will be left in a detritus as a results. Once again i am sorry if you took offence to my remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Career consists of a single second-team match, so fails WP:Cricket notability guidelines. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invidious position this man is clearly not as notable as mike ogburu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) .

  • Daedal were this individual more celebrius he would have no arraignment on his page and as such the present locus has lead to disconsonant doctrines on the definition of notable. The guidelines, though clear, do not legislate for personal preference and administrators are perhaps too demurring to challenge the boundaries of the aforementioned guideline specifications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: Big words alone do not a useful, intelligent, comment or consensus make. Also, please use 4 tildes after your comments to sign your posts for clarity of the discussion. ju66l3r 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough activity as a professional cricketer to allow sufficiently neutral and verifiable comments. No context for the expansion of the article. Ansell 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per Brian. Dionyseus 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've not been convinced by the keep arguments and the article itself doesn't scream notable at me. Mallanox 21:31, 21 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. 1ne 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTML website design codes for people using Notepad[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to-program site. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks for the reasons given by Zoe. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a pretty spotty and basic HTML tutorial that's inferior to what we already have. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing really that useful at all here. DrunkenSmurf 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a how-to that is much better done by the guys and girls at w3c. -- Koffieyahoo 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the comments above. ---Charles 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a how-to, especially one that might exist elsewhere. It uses deprecated tags such as <b> and <i> anyway. :P Probably WP:OR and WP:NPOV (per the Dreamweaver comment) in some ways. --Kinu t/c 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikibooks already has a far more complete guide to the same subject. --Thatdog 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:12Z
  • Delete as per above. Do people still use font tags? Artw 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT an instruction manual. -- Alias Flood 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and above comments. RFerreira 21:57, 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 speedy delete. Sango123 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DealBarbiePays[edit]

Not a pyramid scheme. Over $700,000 paid to members & 100% free to join!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1ne 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyub khan[edit]

Stub, almost looks like a hoax to me.TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like a hoax to me, no google hits Michael Greiner 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax article. 1ne 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are no google hits on this guy, because most media and information produced tends to be concentrated on modern individuals. Its certainly not vanity, only a guy with knowledge on medieval russian history should be able to comment on this person. I have notifies User:Untifler who created this article. Maybe he could give us some insights on this article. --Ageo020 04:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Well its here now, and shows no importance. If it does, I'll change to keep if notifed on my talk page. SynergeticMaggot 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Ruler of the Kipchak commonwealth" is a prima facie claim of importance. Why specifically do people think this is a hoax? Gazpacho 05:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral Delete unless sourced. I don't know if it's a hoax, but in this state it is unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 05:31Z
  • Strong keep: plenty of Google hits if you search for Russian version of the name as given in the article (see for yourself). This is certainly not a hoax. int19h 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Unfortunately, all those results are Russian. Maybe someone's willing to make a trip to the library to find some English-language references? —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:15Z
  • Keep. Seems legit, but my po-Russkii isn't up to translating these sources. Perhaps an {{expand}} template is approriate? Grutness...wha? 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ageo020, int19h, and Grutness. --HResearcher 09:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [4] as far as I can tell is a serios historical account of an invasion of Bulgaria and their attempts to poison rather than fight him. Dlyons493 Talk 12:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and figure out a way to disambiguate this person from the Ayub Khan who was a much more recent leader in Pakistan. Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, the person who mentioned the invasion of Bulgaria and the poison should probably add that to the article as its not there now. ONUnicorn 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming good faith. Gazpacho 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination understandable but should stay in the light of the above. Potentially a very worthwhile article. Soo 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject matter clearly warrants it. Obviously, needs some rewrite. Also we should consider renaming it with the K capitalized. Nlsanand 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a medieval ruler he's certainly notable and while unverified, I'm not convinced he's unverifiable. Mallanox 21:38, 21 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 (no consensus). 1ne 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fire[edit]

Advert, possibly smerge into the disambig and move that to Cold Fire. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slight merge per TrackerTV. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 05:32Z
  • Smerge per nominator(TrackerTV). --HResearcher 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looking at the article history, it was originally a press release copied over to Wikipedia. In an effort to clean it up and make it sound less like an advert it was stripped to its bare bones. Then someone stripped it down further making it just a definition. However, it seems that there is some claim that this product works in a different way than other products of its kind, that it's a new technology. That information should be restored to the article (and supplemented with non-press release references) and the article should be kept. ONUnicorn 14:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a quick search on google, and added some potential sources that could be used to transform this article from a content-less stub that resembles an ad to a genuine, useable encyclopedic article. They are listed on the talk page. ONUnicorn 15:21, 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 keep. 1ne 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EditGrid[edit]

A web application still in beta. How many users? Doesn't say. Innovation? Not stated. I see no evidence oa passing WP:SOFTWARE here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The software has been verifiably reported in the Spanish version of PC World[5] (an IDG publication) and the NetworkWorld newsletter[6]. I'll be adding these references shortly. --Pkchan 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of those is a non-trivial mention, the other two look like much less substantial coverage and are not in English anyway (this is en: after all). Multiple non-trivial mentions is what we're lokking for here, please. Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that the Spanish reference is weak, but the Portuguese one[7] is a product comparison between Google Spreadsheets, EditGrid and another player in this emerging and competitve market of web spreadsheets. And being non-English shouldn't discredit the reference -- isn't Project Systematic Bias about countering the bias in coverage of topics where non-English speakers touch on less often? --Pkchan 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed it is. But JzG's main point was that they appear to be trivial, i.e. that they contain no more information about the subject than could populate an entry in a directory of software products. You're doing the right thing, though: Looking for published works. You'll clearly change JzG's mind if you can find multiple non-trivial ones. Uncle G 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have added some more external references (unforunately they are all non-English). None of them is a dedicated review of EditGrid but, like the one from the Portueguese IDG quoted above, they are (especially the Haaretz one), they are articles devoted to a mid-length comparison between the various players in the online spreadsheet field after Google's entry, and offer far more than trivial mentions in a software directory. --Pkchan 05:21, 12 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, Sango123 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam for a yet to be officially released product --Xrblsnggt 04:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It cannot be counted as unreleased, since many Web 2.0 products name themselves as "Beta" nowadays, even when they are considered released by the general public. See "perpetual beta" in Web 2.0. --Alan Tam 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gmail and, until recently, Flickr are in beta as well. --Pkchan 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It may not exist yet, but being mentioned in several articles, even if their not in english and thus I can't read them (except kinda the Spanish one), makes it notable. --PresN 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that Pkchan's citation demonstrated that it is a notable software product. --Alan Tam 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) user's first edit.[reply]
  • Weak keep per Pkchan, PresN, and Alan Tam. --HResearcher 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a couple more references in the article, all of which are from reliable sources. There are also numerous mentions in the blogosphere, as have been listed on this page from the EditGrid site and can be verified by searching at Technorati. I believe that these have satisfied the "multiple non-trivial references" requirement in WP:SOFTWARE. --Pkchan 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references are not from reliable sources. Blogs and your own words are not reliable sources, and a passing one line mention in Ars Technica isn't enough to confer notability, nor does calling your application "Web 2.0." It's just a buzzword.  RasputinAXP  11:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment None of the references quoted in the article are from blogs. The claim of notabiliy also lies in a product review published by Network World as well as product comparison articles published by IDG, Haaretz, and PC World. --Pkchan 11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is released, is available, and has been written about. The article is sourced, and doesn't really read like an ad. ONUnicorn 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surprised to find this page listed for deletion, as I have encountered a few web sites who are already using EditGrid to store and present data (such as [8]). Seems to have addressed the questions posted by nominator above. --John Seward 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cause I think EditGrid is relevant technology and belongs into an encyclopedia. --Anonymous 14:30, 17 August 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. EDITGRID does exist in real life, and thus as with everything existing it deserves an entry in Wiki. I wonder what all the fuss is about deleting it. --Anonymous
  • Keep per PKchan. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason to delete this entry anymore. Everything seems in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. There are thousands more entries on Wikipedia that don't comform to the policy, I don't know why this one was particularly hand-picked. --wyuenho
  • Comment Just found EditGrid mentioned in print media in a product review of the web spreadsheets in the latest issue, issue 418 of e-zone (who claims to be the no. 1 "computer and digital" magazine in Hong Kong in terms of sales) published on 18th August. I've scanned the relevant pages and uploaded the images to this page for your review during this AfD. The images there will be removed after this AfD due to copyright concern. --John Seward 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks like this will be an important piece of software and the article is encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:26, 22 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 withdrawn nomination/keep. 1ne 02:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nili Tal[edit]

Non-notable individual. :: Colin Keigher 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How did you determine NN? --HResearcher 10:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Amirstal has only contributed to this article. Looks like vanity to me. --Ageo020 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't you find a more flattering picture? Looks like she hasn't slept in 3 days. --Xrblsnggt 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had to turn it into a thumbnail as the user had posted the image in its original size. It doesn't look better four times its size. :: Colin Keigher 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to find several references for her, including a recommendation for one of her films from the Task Force on Human Trafficking http://www.tfht.org/index.php?section=article&album_id=10&id=51 Perhaps someone who reads Hebrew could expand the article further, but I think that the references now establish notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Could be notable. I'd like to hear from a Hebrew speaker as to how notable her documentaries are before giving her the heave ho. The fact that they have played in film festivals as far away as Texas seems notable. --Brianyoumans 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TruthbringerToronto and Brianyoumans. --HResearcher 10:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it considered for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amirstal (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 August 2006.
  • Keep per research indicates that this individual is not NN. :: Colin Keigher 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is one of the most important documentary directors in her country. Her films have been bought by international television networks as well. ::User:amirstal
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 06:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Taliana[edit]

Not notable, and also does not meet the proposed notability test for porn stars. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO either. Notability based on number of films requires 100 films or more. Following these guidelines, she is not notable...yet. will381796 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator(HongQiGong), Koffieyahoo, and Will381796. --HResearcher 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even halfway to meeting WP:PORN BIO, and a long long long way off from meeting WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Taking a look at the WP:PORN BIO criteria, Cris does not meet criteria #8 (over 100 films) - as pointed out earlier by HResearcher. Article does make an argument with regards to criteria #3 to 7. Her name does not show up on either the List of people in Playboy 2000-present or the List of Penthouse Pets, so criteria #2 is out. In terms of criteria #1, I can find no sign that she's won an award from the XRCO or from the AVN Awards. In fact I have a list of all the nominations from 2001 to 2004 and Cris was not even so much as nominated. If she does end up meeting the criteria down the road, we can recreate the article at that point. Tabercil 04:34, 21 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. 1ne 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yadashi Hanami[edit]

Article about somebody's Naruto fan character of some kind. Severe case of fancruft. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:52, 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 keep. 1ne 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box of Rain[edit]

Does not meet WP:N; also based on WP:SONG. Prior to replacement of information from American Beauty (album), the page had little to offer in the way of WP:N. A user then moved information over from the main album article. I then created a redirect, and moved the vital information back to American Beauty. This redirect was contested. Also, a Google.com search of "Box of Rain" returns hits of mainly lyrics sites and no distinctive sources of analysis on the song or it's history (other than the Annotated "Box of Rain", which is already used as a reference). I am asking for a merge and redirect of the Box of Rain page. Since the relevant information was transfered, I am changing the request to just a delete, as per User:Will381796. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as my understanding of policy, requests for merges and redirects should not be made on the AfD page. Such discussion should be made on the page's individual discussion page. will381796 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Moeron eviscerated the content when he merged it back into American Beauty (album). Box of Rain is far more significant than some song articles Moeron has created, such as obscure B-side Born Cross-Eyed. And it's more notable than every obscure Grateful Dead "Dick's Picks" album that Moeron has been churning articles out for. The orientation of WP:SONG is semi-useless for artists like the Grateful Dead who were not singles-oriented. Furthermore WP:SONG currently punts notability criteria to Wikipedia:Notability (songs), which is still in discussion. Song articles have run wild, with many insignificant U2 and all Beatles songs having articles, even ones McCartney no longer remembers. Nevertheless, Box of Rain qualifies per WP:SONG based on "Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music" (American Beauty era rock-folk-country-psychedelic hybrid, cf. New Riders of the Purple Sage and others that followed) is and "Is the signature song of a performer" (Phil Lesh). Wasted Time R 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry that you feel that way about my contributions. With these discussion on WP:AFD, make sure to put '''Keep''' before your discussions above, though it is very evident. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the "what links here", Box of Rain has been used in a soundtrack Freaks and Geeks (soundtrack) and its sound sample has been used to illustrate the Music of the United States article! Neither were put in there by me, nor did I create the article (although I did expand and improve it). Wasted Time R 04:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the song appeared during an episode of Freaks and Geeks, that doesn't automatically create WP:N. As for the Music of the United States, the inclusion of a sound file by another user is different than the inclusion of the song to that article based on a referenced article or other source. Also, I don't think anyone is implying you created this article. Again, thank you kindly for your input. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Moeron also redirected out several other Grateful Dead song articles at the same time, most of which actions were justified (they were the sort of pointless "X is a song on album Y" articles that didn't say much else). But Box of Rain's article has compelling material. The story of its creation illustrates that even at the height of the so-called hippie/counterculture era, family and generational considerations were still paramount. And how Lesh composed it with vocal nuances but not words is also interesting. And its concert performance history also illustrates how sometimes great material can be forgotten and then refound. I'm asking for some common sense here. Which article do you think people will get more out of reading, Box of Rain or Dick's Picks Volume 15? Wasted Time R 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) *Keep. This is a bad faith nomination. Anything the GratefulDead do is notable. It appears there is enough information for its own article, so there shouldnt be a merge, and I see AntiVandalBot even reverted the attempt to redirect it. SynergeticMaggot 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason the bot reverted my one edit was because I left off a "t" in "redirect", so it didn't show up as a viable redirect. Since it looks like I blanked the page and just left "#REDIREC American Beauty (album)", it thought it was a bad faith edit. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I've added a few references to show importance, and I'm going to be adding a few more. I've changed from keep to speedy. SynergeticMaggot 05:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't know that it can be speedy kept but this is an easy vote. Notable song despite its not being released as a single. GassyGuy 05:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Wasted Time R. One of the few modern songs to be widely noted as influential without release in single form. Barno 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not currently a speedy candidate. Per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article asserts the songs notability in the reason it was written, it wasn't a cash cow that storms the charts. Mallanox 21:45, 21 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, A7 nn group.  RasputinAXP  11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isamahii Garden[edit]

NN IRC cruft. :: Colin Keigher 04:43, 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. Per discussion, fails Web notability guidelines and verifiability with reliable sources.. Shell babelfish 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom Wank[edit]

I could think of a million reasons to get rid of this page, but let's just start with non-notable (page hasn't been touched since March 2006), far from NPOV (quite popular?), original research (nearly all of their "references" are merely other F_W links) and downright inaccurate - which is what happens when fans write a vanity page. LoomisSimmons 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: first AFD from 2005-12-12: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fandom Wank —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 05:19Z
  • Merge with every single Star Trek and Buffy The Vampire Slayer article ever Delete. Artw 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same reasons cited during first AfD. --AceMyth 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single reference from anything even remotely close to a reliable source. The article asserts a good deal of notability, and this is supported by "Fandom Wank" getting almost 300,000 Google hits, with (exactly) 500 of the first 1,000 hits being unique, but again, all of the hits I saw were message board posts and blogs. In addition, and what really convinces me that this is insignificant, is that it's hosted on a freeweb service that itself is not notable enough (FYI: Alexa rank of 63,593) to have its own WP article. -- Kicking222 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the main reason they're hosted on JournalFen is that they got kicked off LiveJournal (and possibly other sites), and they wanted somewhere they knew wouldn't do that. - makomk 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Yes, and this entry fails to mention that the reason they were kicked off not only LiveJournal but Blurty as well is because F_W members were actively encouraging members to harass people that they were "wanking", going as far as to post personal real life information of people (including pictures, full names, addresses and even telephone numbers). That's the problem with a fan page - the bias. F_W has its own Wiki, so why does their "history" need to be documnented here? Before you know it, places like OhNoTheyDidnt and Premade LJs - both communities with over 30,000 members - will have entries here. LoomisSimmons 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I don't know much about the days before Journalfen, but as of right now, F_W and its affiliated communities are adamant about not giving out the personal info of anyone featured there, and the mods will immediately delete the comments of and ban anyone caught doing this. You're not even supposed to alert the people being wanked that they are on f_w or participate in the wank on your own. These things are all right in the comm's rules. So if that's the problem you have with the community itself, and your issue is that Wikipedia condones such behavior by keeping the article up, then it's really a non-issue at this point. If you have an instance where someone's privacy was violated by the comm recently, then cite examples.AGNGoo 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Cite examples with what? Original research? LoomisSimmons 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Oh, let's see... reports to the LJ administration? Police reports, if it's gone that far? News articles? What's that? No such thing? Then the information is not properly included in the article. I assumed you had some kind of proof of it when you first mentioned it, but naturally it wasn't there if there's no external corroborating evidence. Check ljseek and see about reports, if you want it included. Miss w 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it "fails to mention" something, then edit it in (with proper cites)... that's a no-brainer. In fact, it seems like a rather important thing to include. Miss w 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And it's also a no-brainer that it can't be proven without even more original research. Other people's blogs and Fandom Wank's Greatest Hits are hardly good sources. LoomisSimmons 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well then, if it's not a supportable fact, it wouldn't be included in the article... so what's the issue here? Miss w 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB and lack of notability through reliable sources. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AceMyth. Switchercat talkcont 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elk & Kicking. StarryEyes 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article fails to be verified by reliable sources that would WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Possibly notable (at least in some senses of the word), but doesn't look like it's verifiable - makomk 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet groups, as before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very interesting article about a website that has thousands of members. The website covers a whole range of fandoms and it is very much the case that major players within fandoms have heard of it. Amazing though it may seem to the person who brought up this AfD, a lot of people have heard of Fandom Wank (and we're not talking people just within the Wikipedia), and there are several articles on Wikipedia of less notable figures, for example: Daniel Brandt. I'm calling that the person who posted this AfD has some sort of grudge against FW. EDIT: And if you want to get rid of this, then (as said in the previous AfD) get rid of GNAA first86.129.32.151 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --User's only contribution has been this AfD vote LoomisSimmons 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only notable in a recursive sense -- f_w is famous to the people in f_w. And please let's not start using GNAA as a criterion of some sort, we don't need that mess again. Madame Sosostris 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first deletion debate probably should have been thrown out, as notability was asserted without being proved. The lack of actual references outside of the community imply a walled garden. Absent extenuating circumstances, three thousand members is not particularly impressive nor does it argue for inclusion. Furthermore, articles are not kept on the basis that articles still worthy of deletion remain. An article must stand or fall on its own merits. Finally, the article itself makes no assertion of notability, despite its length and verbosity. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blogs are a pestilence upon the face of the Internet. Adam Bishop 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A negative opinion against blogs is not a viable reason to exclude notable blogs from inclusion in Wikipedia. Would you deny that there are many blogs that have had a significant impact upon life in this time? If so, I would like to see your evidence. --Thephotoman 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mackensen, and the lack of independent references. --Doc 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a not externally notable website. Choess 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails WP:WEB and per Mackensen, Delete ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last afd.--Antimatter Spork 04:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last afd. El Juno 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want to get rid of one fandom site, you might as well get rid of the entire fandom section. LadyRogue 08:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the community is heavily influential, has a huge membership, and a lot of lurkers. It is one of the most well known fandom established sites that crosses panfannish lines. --PurplePopple 11:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there are scores of articles in Wikipedia that deal with other online fan/fad sites (there is an entire article devoted to the origins of the phrase "im in ur fridge eatin yur foodz", an article devoted to the "Snakes On A Plane" phenomena, an article devoted to the "numa numa" video, an article devoted to Weebl and Bob, etc.), which also exhibit the same faults the person nominating this article for deletion attributed to Fandom Wank. If this article is deleted, we would have to delete all these as well, and something tells me this is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.
    • No, we should delete all those too. Adam Bishop 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per last afd - Nancy Vandal
  • Keep per previous afd and the fact that most of the reasons for deletion are incredibly weak--external documentation can be provided and probably should be. Fandom Wank is significant, and if the problem is a matter of documentation, then the editor should have posted a notice saying that the article needed such, not putting the article up for AfD--or added documentation. Furthermore, see comments by those who have provided them in favor of keeping this article. --Thephotoman 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the community is, in a word, notorious. It does need some work to present a more neutral point of view, but all in all it is just as valid as any other page referring to fandom and having a Wiki page reflects that. Orsik 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Orsik.[reply]
  • Keep I think it's valuable to have articles on particular internet communities, and that's certainly never going to be part of a mainstream encyclopedia. Wiki is a good place to go specifically for information about things you might hear about randomly that you have no clue about, and fandom_wank is one of the places you might accidentally run across in general net discussions. As to the size fo the comm? It's about as big as some of the small towns we have pages for (eg, Perry, NY), and probably has more constant activity. It has as much point as they do. Miss w 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out that the majority of these keep votes are simply "if so-and-so is here, why can't this be here?" which, as Mackensen has pointed out, is no reason to keep anything. If there are other vanity pages that need to be deleted, then let's get rid of them. As for "proving" anything about F_W through external documenation, I challenge anyone to do so. The first AfD should've failed solely because notability was not proven (still hasn't been, other than "lots of people RILLY RILLY LIEK IT!!11"), and now we have the problem of original research. No matter what articles are here that shouldn't be - yes, even the cursed GNAA (which I disagree with as well), the bottom line is that F_W has no place on Wikipedia because it does NOT NOT FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA'S OUTLINED RULES. Notability? FAIL. Verification? FAIL. Neutral point of view? FAIL. And I challenge anyone to be able to "prove" any of the "points" made in the article LoomisSimmons 17:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What "points" are made? It's a descriptive article about a community, and the reason I brought up the small town article is that it is also a descriptive article about a community. I don't see an NPoV issue here at all; the criticisms of the site are mentioned and the number of members is mentioned. It could probably do without the In-Jokes section, but that's a simple edit. I've been working on another community page Buffalo, NY, and the tone there is far less in tune with NPoV. I think it needs a really nitpicky re-edit, but I don't think that this means it should be deleted. Miss w 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that you are comparing a TOWN with an online community as the same thing is mind-boggling. And up until yesterday, this article was extremely NPOV; someone was just polite enough to get rid of all the stroking and back-patting. Nevertheless, I get the impression that F_W is going to become the new GNAA: someone points out the flaws and uselessness of it being here, and its members will come flying in like locusts to defend their precious page. LoomisSimmons 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-physical is not the same thing as not real, or not important. If that were the case, there would be no reason to ever do anything on the internet at all.64.48.158.87 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that you're refusing to see that a community is a community is what's mindboggling. Stating that an internet community is not a valid community is a violation of NPoV. Miss w 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's something wrong with the page, FIX IT. Just because a page is not perfect is no reason to put it up for deletion.--69.182.129.71 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep - FW is a repository for all the idiocy that most places would rather cover up. For that purpose alone it's valid and useful.
Comment F_W does a lot of covering up itself, such as the reason for their being banned from LiveJournal (and Blurty) and the banning of people from their own Wiki who step up to challenge a lot of the lies they tell. Even if there is proof, (screencaps, links, etc), they'll ban that person anyway. So I don't see how F_W is any different than any other community who "covers up" things. LoomisSimmons 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So basically, your whole reason for bringing this up for deletion is that you don't like FW and think they lie a lot, without any corroboration whatsoever of that idea. Cite evidence of said lies. Bring up the screen caps--they'd be housed elsewhere, probably by the person who originally posted them. As far as I know, the only screen caps that have gotten people banned have been screencaps of f-locked posts, which are prohibited in the comm because they aren't allowed to wank f-locked posts. That's visible in the comm's regulations. Exactly what instances are you referring to? Perhaps we could find verification, in which case it would be an interesting addition to the article. Miss w 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I suspect the real issue is that there aren't any verifiable sources and we're wholly unconvinced that this forum is worth an encyclopedia article. Not that any of the above comments have managed to address that issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In keeping with the note at the head of the page, the reason I think it should be kept is quite simple: Wiki is the only place to get non-biased information on sites such as this. Yes, it could lead to the consequence of bad_penny having a page, or OhNoYouDidn't, but honestly? I don't think that's a bad thing. Cyber-communities unattached to major entries (eg, hatrack.com would be attached, presumably, to Orson Scott Card--I haven't checked, though) are orphan information, and they are topics which someone could quite conceivably come looking for if encountered elsewhere on the web. One of the wonderful things about the Internet is the spontaneous generation of distinct sub-communities, and it behooves an online encyclopedia to treat them as legitimate. If we want to avoid having a page for every single comm, maybe we could come up with an over-arching article which includes several under general categories, but at present, that doesn't exist, and an article specifically dealing with one particular comm, as long as it is written in NPoV, is as justifiable as one on a small town or any other minor hobby. (Another possible "general" page would be net-watching as a hobby, rather like philately or bird-watching, with F_W, bp, and others addressed as separate aspects of it. Miss w 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A page on net-watching might be rather interesting and useful. I can think of at least a few other communities similar to FW, albeit with different focuses, which might be included. Vigilanterodent 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: So maybe we should create it, and when it's in decent shape, merge existing articles on the topic into it? Miss w 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No references whatsoever outside of LJ and similar fan sites; fails WP:WEB miserably. Note to closing administrator: There are several "votes" here from socks and accounts that only show up for deletion discussions, not citing reasons why this belongs on an encyclopedia or responding to reasons in favor of deletion. A similar, though less egregious thing happened with the previous AfD that they are citing. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last afd. Proserpine 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you state what you believe that reasoning to be? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively delete the Fark.com article as well. This article and the Fark article mirror each other in structure, and useless trivia. (Maybe they could be merged with other articles on similar communities?) Why is Fark.com noteworthy and Fandom Wank isn't? Fandom Wank is frequently mentioned in the blogosphere, often in context unconnected to Fandom Wank itself 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and has been slowly but surely redefined the meaning of the word "wank" in fannish contexts. It's no longer about masturbation and plot holes, but also about flame wars and ego-tripping. I think that an encylopedia whose article on truthiness is longer than their article on Lutherans, who have an article about a small piece of slash fanfiction which used to be an internet fad in 2002 (Very Secret Diaries) either should re-think their approach to pop culture items and internet phenomena in general or leave things as they are. Jules2 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Jules2[reply]
  • Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that Fark and Fandom Wank can be equated? Also, the existence of one article has never been accepted as a valid criteria for the retention of another. The article discrepancy you describe happens because people belonging to non-notable worthless sub-forums and what not flood Wikipedia because the world must know about obscure trivia. Much like most of the people arguing for this article to be kept, actually. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, indeed I state that Fark, Metafilter and Fandom Wank are pretty much the same type of online commentary. So what about the Very Secret Diaries article? Or Truthiness. Are those really notable? Or as notable as the length of the article in the case of Truthiness suggests? How many Colbert Report fans have typed their fingers off, editing the Truthiness article, or the article on Colbert's fake persona? Are you suggesting that they weren't biased to flood wikipedia in order to give Truthiness its length? Or that the author of the Very Secret Diaries hasn't got them bookmarked? I think you confuse bias with personal investment into a subject. Fact is that Wikipedia could not exist without people having personal investment into the Codex Seraphinianus or Brown rice. That does not make the content of the articles less truthful nor does it make them more or less notable. Jules2 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't respond to many of your points in detail because they're irrelevant. The primary problem here isn't notability but verifiability. There aren't any sources for crafting this article; it's all primary research. And while this and Fark might be similar types of sites, this is rather akin to stating that my local little league team and the Detroit Tigers are both baseball teams: the statement is true in a limited sense but deeply misleading. I've no doubt that related fandoms flooded those articles; their time will come. You still haven't given a justification for keeping this article. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am afraid this will degenerate into wank if we continue this discussion. Well, you should look up the meaning of wank as I am using it here as fast as you, because if your mission succeeds you won't be able to look it up on Wikipedia anymore. Anyway, I am not sure if I can give you a justification for keeping the article, since you're quite intense about deleting it. But personally, I find the fact that the Official Joss Whedon blog has used the word wank in the Fandom Wank definition of the word without actually linking to Fandom Wank in any form a sign that the definition word wank has been irreversibly altered by Fandom Wank among a significant part of the online community. That is one thing that makes Fandom Wank notable. As for media mentions this describes a series of events that partially took place on Fandom Wank. Fandom Wank is not explicitly mentioned, but only because the author mistook Fandom Wank for the LiveJournal fanfic community. Wikipedia could have put her right, if she had actually done research. --Jules2 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, Truthiness has been the subject of multiple articles in the mainstream press. I deeply doubt whether "Fandom Wank" will manage such a feat. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The mainstream press is not the only source of documendation. I could fairly easily provide first-hand documentation (which should trump documentation provided third-hand, which is what you get most of the time with the mainstream press) of most of the claims in this article. Those for which I cannot do so could be provided by others. The only reason I haven't done so is a matter of time constraints. Furthermore, truthiness was a concept championed by Stephen Colbert, who is much closer to the mainstream press than Fandom Wank by virtue of being a cable television personality. --Thephotoman 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read the policy on original research (WP:OR). We're a tertiary source, so we rely on secondary accounts. There aren't any of those for this site. While primary sources can be integrated (and should), we can't construct an article out of those alone. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Your argument against referencing primary sources is not valid, as WP:OR allows for such. The only thing prohibited through WP:OR is posting work in Wikipedia that would result in Wikipedia being referenced as a primary source. No such material is presented here. Tell us what you want documented, and it will be documented. If the mainstream press and textbooks were the only things referenced, it would mean that Wikipedia would be a much less robust encyclopedia--most articles on Internet phenomena would not be present. --Thephotoman 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fandom Wank is a well-known part of the Internet, like Slashdot or Fark.com. Jaguara 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why does a Google News Search for "Fandom Wank" come up with 0 results, but 40+ for Fark and 500+ for Slashdot? Why does a regular Google search come up with more than 100 million results for Slashdot, more than 20 million results for Fark, but only 200 thousand results for "Fandom Wank"? Why can you find no references for the article outside of LiveJournal and the Fandom Wank website? —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a large online community, therefore notable. There is no OR as Thephotoman says. It's self-verifiable. Any POV elements can be removed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Mallanox 22:08, 21 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. 1ne 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rites of Ash[edit]

Vanity ad page about an essentially non-notable band. The closest they come is a scheduled tour, but it hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem to be mentioned on their website. About 4000 Google hits, some to their myspace and related pages, contaminated by phrases that end in "...Wednesday". Opabinia regalis 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete May be notable in near future, but as of now, they are not notable. In addition, article is filled with NPOV problems. will381796 06:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Definately is not notable. My google search got 1,360 hits, and searches on Yahoo got, 203 hits. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:36, 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 (no consensus). 1ne 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sollog[edit]

Sollog was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-04. The result of the discussion was "kept". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sollog.

Sollog is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. He is of no significance or importance. Documenting his alleged crimes in this article also violates the guidelines of WP:BLP, which indicate that such titillating details should be left out when they aren't important. Also this article has major problems with WP:Verifiability. It uses Usenet posts by third parties as primary sources of information. It also uses personal web pages and blogs as sources for claims. Sollog trolled for attention here and he shouldn't be rewarded for his trolling with an article about him. Vivaldi (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I (Vivaldi) added this for Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) who put up the AfD. Mr. Dufour is a new user and appeared to have some difficulty getting all the procedures worked out, namely he forgot to use the procedure for (2nd Nomination), which I corrected. Here is Mr. Dufour's reasoning (copied from AfD/Sollog):

I do not think this article, Sollog, belongs on Wikipedia. The person is not at all important, he made some kind of "psychic prediction" back in 2001 and has not done anything very notable since. Most of his "fame", as much as there is, seems to come from Internet postings from him or people who claim to be him or his "followers", there is no way to sort them out. There is also lots of discrediting personal information in the article which seems to be put there out of spite and has nothing to do with his alleged "notablity". I had never heard of him until someone mentioned his article as an example of the kind of unimportant person who can get a Wikipedia article. Thank you for considering this request. Steve Dufour 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Vivaldi. I seem to have messed up a couple of other topics when I tried to post my remarks here. I hope someone can fix that. I couldn't figure out how to.Steve Dufour 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. If he were someone who hadn't been involved with Wikipedia in a freakish way, we'd be agreeing to delete his article right now. However, that alone makes him somewhat notable. 1ne 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Never heard of that guy before, but now I'm really interested. Also keep his crimes, since psychics are fraud or delusional anyway, so its no surprise that they commit "ordinary" crimes. All seem to be very well sourced. --Tilman 06:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as he seems to meet WP:BIO. -- Koffieyahoo 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's been mentioned in a few newspapers. WP:BIO seems to justify this article under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". If nothing else, he gets 32,800 google hits. I'd say he's notable enough to have an article. --Daniel Olsen 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough and verifiable. I heard of this person even before I started editing Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:23Z
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. Note that almost all of the sources are primary, so much of the article constitutes a synthesis from these (a.k.a., original research). What would be left is a non-trivial couple of articles by a journalist he antagonised, and little else. I do understand that self-published sources (such as his books and website) are admissible for verifiability, but they don't count when determining notability. We don't seem to have multiple non-trivial independent sources to satisfy the notability criteria. And, I must note finally, this is the state of affairs after two years: things are unlikely to improve. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable to scholars and others interested in both religious fringe movements and Internet phenomena. Robertissimo 07:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as I can see, the primary claims to notability are posting on usenet and being involved in some not-very-special legal troubles. Sorry, but that's just not enough in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What are the arguments for keeping? "He's been mentioned in a few newspapers." Yes: mentioned, as opposed to described, written up, profiled, etc.; and a few. "WP:BIO seems to justify this article under Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Very tenuously newsworthy non-events; no renown; minimal notoriety. "If nothing else, he gets 32,800 google hits." That's where chronic, relentless self-promotion (assisted by WP and its commercial recyclers) can get the more persistent and luckier of trolls. -- Hoary 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he was "described, written up, profiled, etc" in the articles about him. It was all in one Philadelphia paper, in one writer's columns. However, he hasn't been notable enough to merit a mention in any major newspaper and no other smaller ones. --Habap 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia City Paper that "profiled" him, is an alternative news weekly. Its headlines read like Jerry Springer show titles. Recent stories that made the front page of this "paper" include the plight of hermaphrodites in Philly. Being the subject of a single tabloid article in a single town is not a measure of noteworthiness. Vivaldi (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any more worthwhile sources. It seems the last AfD (neé VfD) only failed due to a huge vandalism/spam/ballot-stuffing operation by Sollog's very few fans. Wouldn't like to see that again. Soo 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to believe all of those fans were actually Sollog himself. (Wait, do I need to capitalize "Himself"? hehe) --Habap 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine anyone caring about this in five years, which makes it rather unencyclopedic. --Habap 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be that he's a self-proclaimed everything, but until someone credible proclaims him something interesting he's not worth keeping. Arkyan 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Son of Delete, Delete of God (i.e. delete) per Saxifrage and Hoary. Barno 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for giving me a very good laugh with that vote. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • SODDOG! :-P 1ne 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think I made fun of a relative of this dude outside the Student Union back in my college days. He's got some small notable refs in the Philadelphia paper, but I don't think he's got enough to meet our needs. (And that last VfD is hilarious reading.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, especially with the Usenet crowd. Article is pretty well written and would be a shame to lose it. Masterhomer 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I would also like to add that the talk page includes 8+ pages of Archives. That is alot of history.
I'd like to add that a considerable percentage of the archives of the talk page consists of tiresome non-arguments with self-described "fans", who share a remarkably small number of idiolects. What a waste of time that was, and what a waste of hard drive space that continues to be. -- Hoary 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. That goes twice for the article's history, too. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't really see the notability here. Raising a ruckus on Usenet and Wikipedia doesn't count, and the press coverage is really marginal. Sandstein 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saxifrage and Sandstein above. Unless, of course, Sollog comes here in a huff and ardently demands that it be deleted for privacy reasons. Then I may have to reconsider per the Jim Hawkins precendent.205.157.110.11 09:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough per WP:BIO - negative information should be presented as neutrally as possible. Wikipedia should have articles about persons of notoriety because readers come to wikipedia wanting to learn neutral, unbiased information about someone they hear about in the press, from friends, etc --Trödel 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the guy's biggest claim to fame is "Usenet personality", then that's a big, red, flashing neon sign saying "NON-ENCYCLOPEDIC". flowersofnight (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments; meets WP:BIO guidelines and the "I heard of it before coming to Wikipedia" test. RFerreira 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand how "Sollog" meets WP:BIO guidelines, as claimed above. This has a list of ten alternative criteria. Of these, it's very obvious that the first six, the eighth and the tenth are utterly irrelevant to "Sollog". As for the seventh -- "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" -- we might allow "published" to include "self-published", but there are not multiple independent reviews, let alone awards. The ninth is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"; there's no renown whatever and there's very minor notoriety for his trolling and misdemeanors in events (or non-events) that are barely newsworthy, and of course for his risible attempts to claim after very newsworthy events that he predicted them. WP:BIO does add that failure to meet any of these criteria is not reason for deletion; I do not claim that WP:BIO is a license to delete the article, but I don't see that it gives any support for retaining it. (Incidentally, for me "Sollog" fails the "I heard of it before coming to Wikipedia" test; moreover, he fails any "I heard of it outside Wikipedia even after I read of it at Wikipedia" test.) -- Hoary 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also wasn't Klerck more of an internet troublemaker then Sollog? If there was consenus and precedence in AfD for a delete of that article as non-notable, certainly some of that same thinking would apply here. 205.157.110.11 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In so far as this is a voting process, if you'd like to "vote", you're going to have to log in. -- Hoary 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-AfD is not about counting heads. It's a discussion and I like to talk. :p Anyone can count or discount whatever I say for whatever its worth. 205.157.110.11 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough in my view. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable for what? -- Hoary 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unimportant as he may be, the man has indeed been "newsworthy". Though I wouldn't even care about his article, its notable enough under wiki policies, no personal judgements, to warrant having one. He's no psychic and wiki's no paper. --Clementduval 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gotta get in my vote since it looks close.  :-) I can see that the tendency here is to keep everything in case someone, somewhere might be interested. Steve Dufour 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough media coverage to make the cut for inclusion. More notable than the GNAA and lots of other bits of minor net ephemera on WP. Gamaliel 16:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "More notable than..." isn't a reason to keep. 1ne 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? Wikipedia standards of inclusion are decided by consensus, and one way consensus is determined is by which articles are kept and which are deleted by consensus. The GNAA was deemed worthy of inclusion by six or ten or thirty VFD discussions and thus is a reliable indicator of consensus. If something is more notable than the GNAA, then it obviously meets the Wikipedia bar of inclusion. Gamaliel 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the GNAA article is a good metric as I think it's a special case. Not a special case by design, mind: It's systematically-connected to Wikipedia closely enough that I believe the Wikipedia system operates strangely in relation to it. (As an example, the huge number of deletion nominations is an obvious abberation indicating strange currents are at work.) Because I don't think the Wikipedia system operates as expected in regards to GNAA, I throw it out from the pool of data, as a statistician would, when trying to find a best-fit line that would indicate the cutoff point for notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fascinating stuff. He has been covered by several mainstream media outlets including Washington Post and The Guardian. I also think that because he has explicitly accused Jimbo Wales of attacking him rhetorically deleting the article may appear to be a response related to that charge - regardless of whether or not it is related. --AStanhope 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Covered"? Hardly. The WP does indeed give him three short paragraphs within a longer article. (It's a strange article, seeming to imply that Dan Rather is the summit of news/punditry.) The Guardian gives him just two short sentences. Both dismiss him as just one among many internet trolls. But there's no accounting for fascination. -- Hoary 22:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable charlatan "psychic", and article of interest as per Robertissimo, Trödel, and Masterhomer. Orsini 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't seem to follow biographical guidelines and is argumentative, failing NPOV. It is also dubious whether Sollog is notable enough to warrant an article. —XSG 07:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Nutter, yes, but multiple non-trivial mentions in mainstream news media indicates he passes WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which non-trivial mainstream mentions are those? My vote is based on there not being any, so if there are any I'm unaware of I'll be changing my vote. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable through being unique! Mallanox 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unique too but I'm certainly non-notable. How is this an argument for keeping? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read the article? This guy is unique to the nth degree. I realise it's not the most eloquent of arguments but he defies description on anything shorter than an encyclopaedia entry! Mallanox 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are a lot of things that are unique and defy description. Editors generally agree that notability is determined by other things though, which resulted in the creation of notability guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm well aware of that. Guidelines are just that, they are not rules. Editors may generally agree on a lot of things, this is a debate, a forum for opinion. If guidelines were rules we wouldn't need to debate, but we'd be the poorer for it. Mallanox 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. I only mean that your argument would carry more weight both to others here and to the closing admin if it appealed to the consensus on what makes a subject notable or not. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • His lifestyle is very unusual. His name is a tetragrammaton which ties in with his apparent spiritual beliefs though this seems to clash with his brushes with the law. His is a personality that I would imagine only a very small number of people in the world will have met. He is high profile and has managed to get himself noticed by newspapers and has entered into a pitched battle with at least one of them. Plus, I'm not a fan of renominating articles for deletion with a very compelling reason. Confusing unverified with unverifiable is not good enough. Mallanox 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Now that argument has a little more punch to it. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and take a firehose to the article. Remove every last irrelevancy, scandalous personal detail, and anything not backed up by a source which is of the highest reliablity and verifiability--I suspect we'll be left with a {{stub}}. Which is about right, sollog is barely notable enough that Wikipedia should acknowledge his existence, but not worthy of any article which makes the scrollbar appear. --EngineerScotty 00:09, 22 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. 1ne 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Fat Boys[edit]

Non-notable rap group. Article was previously nominated for deletion in March two weeks ago, and there was no consensus to delete, but come on: A Google search brings up only 545 hits, and their Allmusic listing is nothing but a directory listing that tells you where to get their album and nothing else. Their website has an Alexa ranking of 5,462,696. Delete. 1ne 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - They have third party coverage and have been on MTV. I think that qualifies them enough to have an article. It could use some cleanup though. --Daniel Olsen 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we should have an article on every single person that has been on MTV? 1ne 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, this band has appeared on several other media outlets as well. It satisfies the Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media criteria of WP:MUSIC. Thatdog 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no theoretical limit to what we can include. So yes, if everything that appears on MTV fits criteria for inclusion, we can and must include it. Don't know if this group is notable enough, but sounds like it.--Cerejota 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, voted keep on the other one. These guys aren't super notable. --Liface 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above. --Thatdog 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thatdog. J Milburn 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The nominator was mistaken; this was not at AfD in March, but less than two weeks ago. Thus, I think it's unnecessary to have another discussion. I voted "delete" last time, and I would do so again now, as this group (as stated in the nom) is completely irrelevant, but there is no reason to have this discussion again so quickly. -- Kicking222 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh, I'm an idiot about the time. Speedy? I don't think we can do that. 1ne 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The group is notable as per comments above. The need not be "super-notable," to be kept, so long as they're plain notable, which they clearly are. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speddy keep Previous vote was two weeks ago. And yes, we can speedy keep under WP:SNOWBALL as no admin is his or her right mind would risk adminship by deleting an article just two weeks after the previous AfD. This article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, and hence this vote is pointless.--Cerejota 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep* this meets a bunch of the qualifications in WPMUSIC. More than enough to justifiably qualify it for inclusion in the Wiki. I helped edit the article the last time, but honestly is this something we need to rehash every two weeks?--Mcchrisfan 06:40, 22 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 to Rock 'n' Roll High School. --CharlotteWebb 11:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riff Randall[edit]

Non-notable movie character. 1ne 05:48, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 3rd concert in Kansas City[edit]

Page for one concert out of... millions in recorded history. Not meritorious for own article. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, JJJJust, you might as well delete it, just like everything else I add on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdreschman (talk • contribs) 06:08, August 17, 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Do we really need an article on every Alice in Chains concert ever? I don't think so. I think this is actually just an ad for someone's amateur video of the concert that they have put up on YouTube. Not notable. --Brianyoumans 07:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is not just some concert. To quote the article: last ever concert where they performed with Layne Staley. -- Koffieyahoo 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Stuff like this should never be here. Travislangley 09:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable on its own and mentioned in other articles. feydey 09:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inclusionist nonsense. Not encyclopedic. The fact that it was the last concert with X or Y can be mentioned in the article for the band. There's no need for a page for each concert - it'll never end. Ohconfucius 10:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohconfucius. NawlinWiki 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic in the slightest sense. If it's really their last concert, however, merge it with Alice in Chains. 1ne 02:39, 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. 1ne 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Street Licensing Group[edit]

Not Notable, advertising, WP:AUTO. Less than 1000 ghits. Probably notable in their industry, but it is a small industry.--Brianyoumans 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think that in this case "Probably notable in their industry" should translate to "Notable". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Very little salvagable here, nothing that couldn't be found on their website when someone wants to rewrite. --Daniel Olsen 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice. Agree with Daniel Olsen: this reads like an advertisement, and vapidly calls the firm (o)ne of the most-innovative of the firms in its industry without mentioning any innovations. Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a sentance like (o)ne of the most-innovative of the firms, it fails WP:NPOV. Article also fails WP:V, and so fails WP:OR in kind. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clear advertising and only 53 unique hits on Google. Prolog 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles reeks of WP:SPAM, and lacks citations to any reliable sources that would allow it to satisfy WP:CORP.-- danntm T C 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a very general marketing concept and applying it to a very narrow business segment isn't all that special or innovative. This is an obvious advert for the company, and should be deleted per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 07:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This is looking like a cause by a disgruntled anti-capitalist. This industry may not be well-known, but it generates over $80 billion in sales in the US alone. This is ivory tower condescension, especially since the one proposing the deletion has felt the need to return and justify his stance. If it's not self-evident the item should be deleted, then it seems he has not made his case. Additionally, changes have been made to bring the article more into Wikipedia standards. And as to "ghits," I thought Wikipedia was about sharing information, not popularity? W. S. Cross 19:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StereoKiller and StereoKiller.com[edit]

Reads like an advert. Seems like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. sharpdust 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wasn't this posted here yesterday? Is there a policy on how often these things should be reposted here? Not sure...just seems like there should be. will381796 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the history log it only shows this AfD. There was an earlier version of this article with a different spelling (lower case k) that was speedy deleted in May, but that wouldn't prevent this one from being AfD. If an AfD decision is to delete and someone re-created the article then it can be speedy deleted as a repost {{db-repost}}Brian 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - Spam. Artw 06:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is not an advertisment. if purevolume, hxcmp3 and myspace can have pages here, why can't stereokiller. it's full of relevant information and is a highly popular website. do not delete it. if you delete this, then by all means you would be hypocrites to not delete the pages for purevolume and hxcmp3, it would only be fair. just because *you* haven't heard of the site doesn't mean a ton of other people haven't. Cbrickhouse 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
  • I live on this site, as well as MANY of THOUSAND other users... THIS SITE IS THE SHIT!!! This is not spam.. we are all sexy bitches and this is our main wave of communication for band shows, news, and the BEST site for love sex advice... This site has it all, mainly users are 15-35. VERY organized and easy to search for people around your area and many others. Profiles can have LOTS of pictures, and you can rate other users!!!! I WOULD DIE WITHOUT THIS SITE!!! THANK YOU CBRICKHOUSE!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE BEST!

<3 LynzieBeBe — Possible single purpose account: Lynziebebe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • OMG, glad I saw this here. This site is the so hot and I just searched for locals in my area and saw some people I havent seen in years! thanks Wikipedia!!!! — Possible single purpose account: SexyDcups (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • This site shouldn't even be called a site. It is a HUGE COMMUNITY of people. This site is full of TONS of information and it is definatly one of the hottest things on the interent. It is a very useful site for all areas of the country. To delete it would be suicide. -DPancoast; user since 2002. — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • I hardly think the description reads like an advertisement, and with the site holding 135,000 member profiles and counting, it seems to advertise itself just fine. Stereokiller is my personal resource for all things music, including news, band profiles and downloads. Not to mention a massive online community I can share my love of music with. The site features member profiles from all four corners of the world. It rules, that is all. - Adam. 204.101.241.2 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable website (which is why it's different from, for example, MySpace); Alexa rating below 282,000. NawlinWiki 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALEXA IS TRASH. It is the worst way possible to rank websites. When I installed their crap toolbar ages ago, i watched my site go to the top 10,000 within days. Go by our statistics - 5,000,000 message board posts, 130,000 members, and 350,000 sessions a day. Perhaps you should take some time to do some research before you make an ass out of yourself again. ALSO - the site uses two domain names - so search for both on alexa and you will see that it's a completely different story. Search for pahardcore.com AND stereokiller.com and do some averaging. Cbrickhouse 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Failing to do so can result in being blocked from Wikipedia. Srose (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit-conflicted comment First of all, no personal attacks. NawlinWiki was stating a very rational viewpoint, which is quite different than "mak[ing] an ass out of [him]self". Second of all, pahardcore.com has an Alexa rank of 297,961; thus, on average, these two sites would have a ranking of around 290,000, and even if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000. That certainly helps to confirm a lack of importance. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement. Alexa rank of 282,210. A grand total of Seventy-one unique Google hits. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you're basing your opinions on alexa's ranking system is completely retarded. Seriously. If everyone that used my message boards downloaded their toolbar, we would see both domains rise to the top 10,000, which is where it once was. And alexa doesn't even support Firefox... which about 20% of my users use. Cbrickhouse 13:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For proof of what I speak of: view our rankings from two years ago. You will see we almost go into the top 5,000. This was because I had all my users download a personalised toolbar. A lot of the people stopped using the toolbar because they use BETTER toolbars, like googles. If google ranked websites I guarantee that we would have great rankings.

    And as for our "unique google hits" - you're basing that on the domain name stereokiller.com, which has only been active for a few years. Search in google for pahardcore.com and you will have much different results.

    Your math/reasoning skills are not very good. It would *not* be an actual average of the two divided by the total of both. It would be much lower if the site used one domain name. Probably around 100,000. Because it's tracking both as seperate websites, it lowers the rankings of both instead of as one site.

    • First off, I mentioned above that if you combined the rankings, they still wouldn't be much higher; as I stated, "if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000." Second, and once again, please try to conform to WP:CIVIL. Finally, I actually got a laugh out of your claim that my math skills are subpar, seeing as I had perfect scores on the math SAT I and SAT IIc. But that's irrelevant; as someone mentions below, I'd be all for sprotecting this discussion, or simply speedying the article right now (as all 8 registered users who have made their opinions known have moved for deletion anyway, while only single purpose accounts have argued for keeping the article). -- Kicking222 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Before I go into my reasoning for deletion, let me say this: saying incivil and rude things ("your math/reasoning skills are not very good", "completely retarded", etc) will not help your case in the least and may in fact result in a block or ban. I believe this article should be deleted because it does not satisfy the guideline of WP:WEB and because it's apparently not very well known - I can find no news article or non-trivial publications on this website. Srose (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I'm going to be un-civil - you people have not listened to a word I've said. Our google pagerank for pahardcore.com is 5/10 and stereokiller.com 4/10 - which is just as good as some other sites I've seen listed here. If you're going to ban me then just do it already. I've done nothing other than to try and get a simple page for my site here, not an advertisement, but because it is an important resource for music and IS widely used, despite what you have illogically deducted. But I ask that if you delete my then delete the like sites as well. Then at least you would have done something right today. Cbrickhouse 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT to see our reasoning for deleting your article. If other articles seem to fail to qualify for articles under the same criteria yours may be deleted for, please feel free to list them for deletion following the instructions on WP:AFD. Srose (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well based on your criteria then, it IS still notable. Our CD reviews are cited on many popular band's websites (some of these bands listed on wiki). I can compile a list if you like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete and semi-protect this discussion please. This article fails WP:V, and in kind WP:OR. It reads like and Advert as well. It may be a WP:VANITY article as well as Cbrickhouse is seemingly claiming ownership of the site. I would remind Cbrickhouse that Blogs, Personal Websites and other trivial sources are not acceptable for citing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • whatever you say buddy. it's obvious i'm not going to ever win this argument. thanks for ignoring the facts, and when my site is up to a million members i guess you'll still be calling it "non-notable". thanks for nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs)
  • here is a listing of some of our citations.
  • I could list more too. If you search for pahardcore.com on google you et this.

    Results 1-10 of about 67,100 for "pahardcore.com". (0.18 seconds) Cbrickhouse 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment These still do not pass WP:V or WP:RS criteria. And comments made like this on that websites discussion boards asking users there to come here and make accounts to contest this, show that you are trying to disrupt this AfD. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I see that Cbrickhouse is using his forum to incite his members to bombard wiki. He has posted a link leading directly to this AfD page. His aim may not be to disrupt, but he is obviously motivated by wanting to severely improve his G-rank. The result is that there could be hundreds of new accounts which will not be used hereafter, and in the meantime plenty if vicious jibes about censorship and fascism from people who don't understand and don't want to understand Wiki's fundamental precepts. Ohconfucius 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non notable web site. Does not meet WP:WEB. Reads as advertizing. No assertion of notability within the article. No sources to support verification of notability. Brian 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - Spam + obnoxious puppetry + above comments.Wickethewok 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a page for purevolume.com, there is no reason why there should not be one for stereokiller.com as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.235.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-17 15:40:08
  • Delete Pure spam.--KojiDude 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you guys really do have nothing better to do, do you? — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Comment - Wording like this by the article's author i wanted to get the site in there to improve our google ranking. however, thats not gonna happen now that i called em all faggots. on this form verify this is just spam, and a violation of Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site..and many other WP standards.--Brian (How am I doing?) 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Nothing you say after that is going to stop it from being deleted, nor is any vandalism you do going to go un-reverted, so you might as well give up.--KojiDude 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I wouldn't say that however, if they can prove they have been covered by WP:RS and edit the article to show this (a few features in newspapers, magazines, tv shows or other published reputable sources would prove it is notable) then the article just needs a clean up, however in light of the statement above, the article was created in bad-faith so I would be neutral on keeping it even if they found sources. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Keyword: if. A really big if.--KojiDude 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiPedia sounds like it may be owned by newscorp. Is that why you allow myspace on here and not another personal networking site? And as for the Alexa/google rating you guys have plenty of cliff claven like facts on here that are super low on the google scale.--Brokenskull 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)BrokenSkull[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Prolog 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my question. I read in your guidelines to the affect that someone other than the owner of the site has to post the content that he was going for here. So if someone else posted it and was able to bring out the sources, would there be a possibility of it being kept despite the fact that this whole charade went down today?{unsigned|204.8.203.16}}
    • If you can get all the sources and ect., then maybe. But considering the whole article was made as an ad, probably not.--KojiDude 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like spam, but only in a sandwich. Soo 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentseems like a legitimate website. i don't see the problem with keeping it.70.91.21.146 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Rich[reply]
    • Reply To Comment Please view the listed complaints against the article and then refute them with a reasoning beyond that it is a legitimate website. My snakes (venomous and non-venomous) and scorpians have a ligitimate website...that doesn't make them Wikipedia worthy beyond my userpage--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumbkidscruft. Danny Lilithborne 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where can I view these complaints?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs)
    • This page. (That one was kinda obvious)--KojiDude 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that this website has certain guidelines/ways to decide whether or not a website is allowed to be listed on Wikipedia and that Stereokiller doesn't currently meet the Alexa rating standard. I also realize that Brickhouse may have offended/upset more than a few people on here, making everyone even more biased against the site. However, that was merely because he doesn't understand why a website that has so many users and so many bands isn't eligible for this website. Have all of you checked the site out yourself? It isn't just a message board. There are thousands of CD reviews on there, mp3s, and listings for shows all around the country, as well as, over a million users. Maybe when it was started in 97, it was just a bunch of our friends messing around on a website, but it has grown and has become ridiculously widespread over the past 10 years. Brickhouse could no longer even keep the old name (PaHardcore), because it was more than obvious that it wasn't just us southeastern PA kids anymore. The users on Stereokiller are from all over the world. The website helps up and coming bands get wide exposure, much like MySpace does. I hope you can at least take that into consideration. Thanks. -Jessclancy 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jess.[reply]
    • 'Jess, while I can respect that completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so you understand. The Alexia rating isn't really used as a guideline (and is often cited for it's inaccuracy. I personally believe it should be done away with), and the Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes. No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims. It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article falls into being an advertisment per a statement made by a forum member. It also fails to meet wikipedia's website policy. I hope this helps you to understand. Basicly this fails WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB and WP:RS --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam -- Whpq 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per spam. We don't need garbage like this on Wikipedia regardless of how "popular" this website is. :: Colin Keigher 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the service is as popular as it and it's supporters claim, then I will change my position only after the article contains citations to reliable sources that allow it satisfy the criteria put forth in Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of websites. The article must also not sound like an advertisement and must be neutral.-- danntm T C 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously an advertisement for a non-notable website. Recommend semi-ptotection of AfD due to "troll attack". Tokakeke 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian and danntm. --Wafulz 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentthis site is NOT spam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwedanced (talk • contribs) — Andwedanced (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • CommentNo one is saying the SITE is spam. We are saying that article sounds like and advertisment. The term we use is 'spamvertisment' or 'spam' to refer to the article. Please see the above arguements --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I would like to say that I understand and respect why you have these guidelines and this screening process. I neglected to mention that in my previous post. Although I just created my account today, I frequent this website quite often when researching my college term papers (and of course, I cite the information and give credit where it is due). Therefore, I completely understand that it is important to your credibility as a website and information provider to make sure that your hosted websites are legitimate. I also appreciate the time you took to be very specific when replying to my first post even though you already did it multiple times on this page and are probably tired of doing it. With that being said (I know, there is always a but), I think that with the variety of different services/information that different sites have to offer, maybe some of the guidelines should be different for certain types of websites. Stereokiller is much different than a site where, for example, someone has dedicated to American History. Obviously, if you are hosting that man's website, you must be sure that it is legit and the information is accurate, and that it is not just some wierdo posting from his basement who decides he wants to rewrite American History and see what internet sucker believes it. Stereokiller, on the other hand, really helps give new and up and coming bands exposure. The mp3s that are hosted are provided to the user for free, so Brickhouse is not doing this in order to have more people paying him for downloads of songs. Also, I understand why you are looking for notable sources/articles to verify that Stereokiller is a credible website for reasons that I mentioned earlier. However, I think that is a little less important than it is for the american history type website I described above, because the bands choose to host themselves. Brickhouse can't be falsely representing the bands, because they put the information about them up themselves. Also, I doubt there are many articles, if any at all, written about Stereokiller, not because it is a non-credible website, but because it represents the underground hardcore scene, which is much less popular than a website that is centered around huge pop-stars like Justin Timberlake or Kelly Clarkson. As far as not wanting to host a website with biased information, I understand that as well. The only information that I could see to be considered biased on the website would be the reviews, but that's to be expected, right? A review is simply one person giving their opinion about what they are reviewing. If they don't like the music, it gets a bad review, much like if Roger Ebert doesn't like a movie, it gets a bad review. That does not mean that Ebert is not a credible source for movie reviews, nor that the movie is techinically awful, it is just his opinion. As far as the article Brickhouse posted about it sounding like an advertisement, I read Pure Volume's post and found them to be quite similar. I realize that PureVolume probably meets the credible article requirement because it is a much bigger website, but it had to start somewhere, right? I realize this was quite a long-winded post, and I'm not sure if you are even going to bother reading it. I also realize that you probably could care less about bending the rules for me because, like I said before, I understand why you have the rules to begin with, and also because I'm sure you just think that I am some random girl on the internet defending her friend and his website. Haha, but I've never been one to not voice my opinion, so you got it whether you care to read it or not. Once again, thanks for taking the time to at least read my response, and also thank you for the countless amount of term papers this website has helped me with. -Jess. Jessclancy 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that. You are on the way to understanding our purpose here. It isn't to write an article about every web site in existence. Projects such as Wikidweb have that goal. Our goal is to write an encyclopaedia, that readers can trust because they can independently verify everything in it should they choose to, that does not contain original research (i.e. completely idiosyncratic viewpoints or new ideas, syntheses, and analyses that haven't been through a process of publication, fact checking, and peer review outside of Wikipedia), and that espouses no point of view in any debates. Our inclusion criteria such as WP:WEB exist, in large part, so that Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia and doesn't turn into a World Wide Web directory. This is why arguments such as "Web site X has an article. We should, too!" will always fail. We also don't include and exclude subjects based upon their personal importance to individual Wikipedia editors. If we used subjective criteria like that, Wikipedia would be a complete mess. We don't include or exclude web sites from having articles based upon thier credibility (although we most definitely do exclude external links to web sites based upon their credibility, see Wikipedia:External links). We include or exclude web sites according to WP:WEB. The way to argue that a subject should have an encyclopaedia article is to cite sources showing that it has been the subject of serious, independent, fact-checked, and peer-reviewed discussion outside of Wikipedia.

      Remember when writing your term papers that it is poor work to cite an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is merely a tool that condenses and summarizes the knowledge, and shows readers where the actual reading material is. If there is no actual reading material about a web site, then there shouldn't be an encyclopaedia article on it. Uncle G 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Youtube.com has 94,500 incoming links, Purevolume.com has 5,970, and Stereokiller.com has 12, of which 4 unique. I don't find the article particularly NPOV, but I am not convinced it has a place within Wiki. My vote is Delete, obviously. Ohconfucius 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the sake of having this information too, pahardcore.com has 25 unique hits. --Wafulz 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Reads like spam, nn site. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ohconfucius has said everything, I was thinking and all though I am no expert on the matter, I feel this article has no place on Wikipedia and does not meet the guidelines. J.J.Sagnella 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to have to go to the train station to look in the paper or a record shop for concert listings. Not anymore. Thanks to stereokiller. The people that book shows use this site to post dates and flyers. Plus everyone is always talking about music, i've learned alot about hardcore music/emo music/heavy music/metal music/Screamo ain't real!/Punk Rock Music/Hip Hop/Indie Rock Music. Thanks Mr. Brickhouse! Keep it going, Brah! Don't let the white man keep you down!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.49.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18 11:16:31
  • Speedy delete Advertisement. LoomisSimmons 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant spam. Pathlessdesert 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Srose and others. 1ne 21:51, 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 rebundled, then speedy deleted as R1 (dangling redirect). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereokiller.com[edit]

Redirect was for an article that was purposely here for spamming. sharpdust 00:34, 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. Only keep comment was based on writing songs for a band whose article was already deleted. - Bobet 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Hada[edit]

  • delete non notable musician; IMDB only cites her as being involved in two films. information is unverifiable and google search only gives just over 1000 hits. will381796 06:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep guessing that she also write songs for the band she's in, she meets WP:MUSIC: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above. -- Koffieyahoo 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm not sure the band's article should stay in either; they sound interesting, but I'm not sure they are terribly notable at this point. Being a newish member of a barely-notable-if-that band and working a little in the film industry... nah. --Brianyoumans 07:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that the band she is in is barely notable, if at all, following WP:MUSIC guidelines. Would a tour of California be considered a "national tour?" Also, there is a planned release for an album, but no release date has been given. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And I see not where it says that she writes songs for hazerfan. will381796 07:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The band should really be coming to AfD too, as it looks to fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Maybe I'll check that out. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no sign of WP:MUSIC on that one. Listed below. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 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. - Bobet 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Cinema[edit]

It's a public access TV show from a college volunteer station, selfmarketed by the creators. The article creator (a new user, probably not knowing procedure so don't hold it against him) removed my original "prod" tag, so I gather they want to contest the deletion. Seems pretty clear-cut, though. Dybryd 07:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; also delete redirect Jami Deadly. NawlinWiki 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Whpq 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete as per nom -- Cloudyeden -- (didn't mean to delete "prod" tag, but i have taken care of the redirected Jami Deadly link. i am new to wikipedia, and admittedly don't know many of the rules. sorry and thank you. matthew muhl)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of common themes on Uncyclopedia[edit]

A fancruftish list and an indiscriminate collection of information. I have absolutely no problem with including an article on Uncyclopedia, but I fail to see the point in creating an article on site-specific memes. Are we going to do this for every single website in cyberspace? Wikipedia may not be paper, but we should take care to keep the signal-to-noise ratio somewhere beyond microscopic. What's next? List of common slang terms among sophomores at Peoira Southern H.S.? I can't see why anyone would want this article. If they wanted to know more about Uncyclopedia, they'd visit the website. Moreover, this page is just begging to become a vanity clearinghouse, and probably already is. StarryEyes 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopeless. Kill it now before other websites want similar "lists". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I dont see this as vanity, In fact I have found this article useful, but only in understanding uncyclopedia memes. Could it possibly be stipped down and merged with the Uncyclopedia article? --Amists 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who has written about these themes? Where has the research on the thematic content of Uncyclopedia, upon which a Wikipedia article can be based, already been done? What source is being used? How is this not original research? Uncle G 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. —dima /sb.tk/ 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Excessively original research. Wickethewok 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Gazpacho 16:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before List of YTMND fads reappears. Danny Lilithborne 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Piccadilly 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Amist's merge sentiment above, but as there are worries about OR, I guess I'll leave it be. However, I did userfy the page to myself (sans the fair use images, which could still go in the uncyclopedia article) because I think it's too cool to lose forever. Sad that the public won't be able to see it anymore.--Chaser T 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most important themes to Uncyclopedia article. We have a list of Fark cliches in the main Fark article: why remove this entire list when some of it can be effectively and usefully merged? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main Uncyclopedia entry. -- Selmo 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article partially as per nom and merge some of the contents of more notable themes (Oscar Wilde quotes, self-reference, etc), as there may be a use for them on the Uncyclopedia article. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 09:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful content into Uncyclopedia, where it belongs. LinaMishima 16:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN and sourced only to the website itself, there's a reason it was removed from the main article in the first place. tmopkisn tlka 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest merge possible. I don't want to have to say goodbye to this list (unless there's one on Uncyclopedia itself, in which case delete). Random the Scrambled 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge it with the article. It was deleted from Uncyclopedia's article becouse it doesn't fit, too long, advertising, etc. Yet it's valuable. I say make it a subpage of the article or a subpage of Wikipedia:Parodies.--Rataube 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN and vanity. Do not merge, this information has no place here and merging would violate style guidelines regarding lists.--Konstable 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - provides some of the themes that confuse *humans* who view Uncyclopedia every now and then. Daniel.Bryant 13:31, 26 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. --CharlotteWebb 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Williams (educator)[edit]

Even if this article provided sources, I still don't see how it is notable enough to warrant inclusion. This fails WP:BIO and the PROF TEST as far as I'm concerned. RFerreira 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. --Thatdog 08:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Revised article now establishes notability. Good job! --Thatdog 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article is very light, and merits deletion on the surface. However, she seems quite important. see this article. or do a search with "Kenny Williams" + Duke. Only about 12,000Gits, but scanning through the articles gives an idea of her importance. More anon. Ohconfucius 10:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • page has now been modified. I think she would probably pass WP:BIO as an author if not as an educator. It is possible that her importance may have been underestimated in the context of racial segregation lasting up to the 1960s in the deep south. Ohconfucius 07:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some book titles to the references section of the article. As well, read the announcement of her death at http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2004/01/symphony_0104.html (also added as a reference to the article), in which her colleagues talk about her contributions. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems reasonably well-regarded by her peers. Here's another link to look at: [9].Zagalejo 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination based upon the work by TruthbringerToronto and Ohconfucius. Odd, but I am an Duke alum and hadn't heard of her before. I agree now that she meets our notability criteria and feel this should be kept. RFerreira 22:04, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mullahcracy"[edit]

This page acknowledges that the term was coined in testimony given in March 2006 as hyperbole or otherwise rhetorical use in reference to the position of Mullah. Consider the name; it does not fit with autocracy, democracy, theocracy in that it is clearly a neologism and the specifics describe the government of Iran rather than a generic discussion of a type of government (it is clearly a sub-type of theocracy if anything). While we do cover those once they become established, a use of the word in a hyperbolic context to describe Iran doesn't qualify as an encyclopedic topic. This certainly shouldn't be in the main politics side bar if it is covered. Jondeere 07:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Doesn't really seem to be made up a couple of months ago; here is an article from 2000 using the word. 10 hits on Google Scholar[10], 43,700 on the web[11] (includes duplicates). Weregerbil 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iran is the founder of this type of government. Lebanon in 1980s and Bahrain in 1981 were on the verge of becoming mullahcracies after Iran, too.--Patchouli 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of the google hits are blogs, and the page from whitehouse.gov that is second on the results page doesn't seem to include the word. If it was acctually mentioned objectively in print, I might think differently. --Musaabdulrashid 03:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Politics of Iran, where it should maybe have a brief mention if more reliable sources can be found. Yes, the word appears to be in marginal use, but generally as a pejorative (U.S.) description of the Iranian system of government, and not as an actual system of government that can discussed seperately from the Iranian system or that can be found elsewhere than in Iran. As such, the article is at best a content fork of Politics of Iran and more likely a non-notable dicdef. Sandstein 05:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:NOT a dictionary, especially for redundant protologisms. We have Politics of Iran and Theocracy, so we don't need this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Sandstein. The Google Scholar hits that Weregerbil pointed out are adequate evidence that the term is indeed in actual use, but the redirection is the appropriate method of handling it at this time. GRBerry 13:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sandstein, common pejorative term. --CharlotteWebb 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia redirect every supposed pejorative term? I is another one off the top of my head, shemale.--Patchouli 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could come up with a better example because mullahcracy has no sexual connotation. My point is redirecting perceived negative terms holistically.--16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename it 'velayat-e faqi'. It's not perjorative and it refers to the exact same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.93.206 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manlio D'Agostino[edit]

Vanity. This article does not give adequate evidence of notability, and reads as a vanity entry. Google scholar produces only 1 entry, and Google only 47 unique hits JQ 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An article about this person was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. See it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Manlio D'Agostino. The article reads like a machine translation with POV problems. However, it is still possible that the person is notable and that a good article can be written about him. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete He is the author of two books but not many other reasons to keep as far as I can see. [12] Dlyons493 Talk 12:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Italian deletion. JPD (talk) 10:28, 25 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 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Myung[edit]

Really "great" CS players are nothing but NN. :: Colin Keigher 08:20, 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 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absana[edit]

Same reason as Aaron Myung. CS players are NN. :: Colin Keigher 08:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy I get just 19 unique Google hits for Absana +"Counter-Strike". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Starblind. Prolog 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep known to make several public appearances around Australia at international events including ESWC. Inventor of the quick-scope method which will be a very important thing in the history of e-sports, which I am sure you will all agree is gaining popularity rapidly. The term "Absana" now a commonly used slang term on gaming servers mainly around Australia and various IRC gaming networks - Even cited on Urban dictionary recently - one of the reasons this was finally written for him. Winner of noticable competitions in past such as Mayhem - In 4e during finals against function zer0 (both teams anyone interested in e-sports south of the equator would know about) --- Harris06 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 19:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it is big in some bloody game does not mean that it's notable. It's an unknown catchphrase and nothing but. :: Colin Keigher 05:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is not notability. The point we should be focusing on is whether enough neutral people have commented on the term to allow it to pass our actual policies, not our "Notability" essays. Ansell 03:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James River Assembly[edit]

Per a previous AFD, this is being deleted. Seeing that I was the one who found this article and AFD'd it the last time and that this is the exact same entry as before, I call for delete. With the last time stating delete, it makes sense to delete again. :: Colin Keigher 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's the exact same entry as before and it's been deleted, why not flag it as speedy for duplicate content? —Scott5114↗ 08:43, 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 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CV Software[edit]

Insufficient context, article is mostly opinion and unmeritorious. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an essay / opinion and not an encyclopaedia article. -- Whpq 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't even tell us what CV stands for. Enquirying minds want to know! will381796 20:03, 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. - Bobet 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FMDC[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable, looks like a description from a downloads site, rather than encyclopedic article. No third-party sources about subject provided. MaxSem 10:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable and a google search gives less than 500 hits for a search of "FMDC + C#". will381796 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay Arnt we building a big knowlage database? If there where something else called FMDC that my article stole focus from or even made people confused on what was what i would understand you. But now there is no such thing. But if you think it should be removed just because it is not widly known please do it. :) --Flow84 09:16, 22 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. Petros471 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT Europa[edit]

Advertisement consisting of 95% marketese and unverifiable claims. Article started by employee. Fredrik Johansson 10:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In no instance is there any claims to the quality of this publication. As such, it merely informs readers of its history and remit. All claims are entirely verifiable and how is the "95pc marketese" figure ascertained? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.212.70.122 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 August 2006.
Formulations like
  • "subscriber base boasts readers from all the major US and European IT companies"
  • "King has an accomplished understanding of"
  • "joined the four-strong editorial team to deliver dedicated online news content to the European market"
don't belong in an encyclopedia. Neither does the information about the staff's affairs, which makes up most of the article. If the information is verifiable, prove it by citing references. Fredrik Johansson 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of meeting WP:CORP via independent coverage, which we'd need to write an encyclopedic article. A magazine with 500 readers is not sufficiently notable to be kept as a publication. GRBerry 13:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine. delete then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.212.70.122 (talk • contribs) .

  • The article has been changed slightly to adhere to the terms. WP:CORP does not state terms for size of readership.
It is much better now, but as GRBerry says no references to independent sources have been provided. Fredrik Johansson 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unles independent sources provided. JPD (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please advise on the type of appropriate independent source -
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass-Pirates[edit]

Was scrutinized a short article which was possible advertising when it started. It has since been expanded, but still shows no evidence of passing WP:WEB, or why this is significantly more notable than the thousands of other hacked adult password sites out there; everything in the article appears to be based on observations of the site itself and not third-party review of it (so failing WP:V and/or WP:OR as well). ~Matticus TC 11:02, 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 redirect to War crime. There wasn't a consensus to keep this article- the decision was between merge and delete. A lot of people said delete/merge, which is not possible. To preserve authorship history a merged article shouldn't be deleted. As some sections have already been merged a redirect is more appropriate. If this was a merger into one article a redirect to that article would be obvious, but in this case I'm redirecting to War crime, which contains links to the other articles per comment by Nihonjoe below. Petros471 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes[edit]

This page was created with the sole attempt to try to attack Japan by comparing it unfavourably to Germany's post war attitude. Although it has been later changed, the article remains highly POV with no hope of later improvement. This is because it compares only Germany and Japan. It would be like creating an article comparing US and Swedish foreign policy. You could try to make it neutral, but because the choices were originally made to look the US look bad, the US will always be portrayed especially unfairly.

If the article had a general scope to look at how the Axis powers reacted to the war, or all the major powers on both sides, maybe it could work. But I don't think such an arbitrary comparison should be allowed to stay on wikipedia. No one is willing to put the effort in to change the slant, only minor edits. So hope of change would be vain. John Smith's 11:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment so would you then be happy if it were moved to Responses of Axis Powers to World War II war crimes? WilyD 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving it wouldn't be sufficient, because the entire slant of it is to compare Germany and Japan. Although some parts could be used, it would need to be completely re-written from scratch. And no one is going to do that - they won't even try to improve the current format. John Smith's 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I realise the article has huge WP:NPOV problems, but they're not irredeemable. Which means this isn't an article for deletion, really, but an article for improvement. Unfortunately there's no WP:AfI. Hmmm.... WilyD 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the article were deleted, but the content saved/archived somewhere, it would actually provide motivation to write a better, more balanced article about all the Axis powers. Or indeed one about all the WWII powers - I think the latter would be better. Keeping it as it is with the tags won't make anyone sort it out. Sometimes you have to force people to do what is necessary.

          And if no one actually does write another article, it will show that they were never going to improve the current one, nor that it actually matters to them. John Smith's 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • There's Wikipedia:Cleanup, which is exactly that. Uncle G 13:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why would that make a difference? The article has been tagged for ages. Besides if I move it, someone will just revert it. I think a clean start with a new article would be better and this one being deleted. John Smith's 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, roughly speaking "Needs improvement" is not really accepted as a criterion for deletion, unless "but can't be improved" follows. WilyD 13:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I already pointed out, the entire premise of the article is POV and thus against wikipedia policy. Why not have an article comparing George Bush to Ghandi? Or the US' consumption of oil to Sri Lanka's? If those articles were created, they'd be deleted very fast, even if valid points were made. So why should this one get special treatment? If someone said, "well the points are valid and it could be expanded" that would not cut any ice. The call to expand/improve the article has been made many times. It has been ignored at every turn.
              • If someone wants to start a new article, they can go right ahead. But this will never be improved. It is completely POV and designed to attack Japan's "failure" to account for its past actions. Thus it should be deleted. John Smith's 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Both of those analogies fail because you're trying to relate unconnected things, rather than related things - see, for example Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American health care systems compared, Canadian and American economies compared, or generally Category:Comparisons for some examples. WilyD 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The comparisons you mention are not like the one we're talking about here. They're on domestic issues which are fairly uncontroversial. Certainly looking at the start pages, there was no malice intended when they were created. I know the comparisons I made were arbitrary, but I'm having difficulty in finding an unacceptable comparison where you can understand how it's unfair. I don't know, what about comparing Catholicism to Buddhism in terms of sexual child abuse claims? They're both global religions, so why not make a comparison? If you can't see what I'm getting at, I'm not sure what to say. John Smith's 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Firstly (and mostly as an aside) I'll say: If you think comparing the Canadian and American Health Care systems is fairly uncontraversial, then you have been toking too much, and passing too little. But while your point is okay, there is a very strong grounds for a comparison in the germany/japan response to World War II dealies - specifically, that they're allies in WWII (and really, the only important ones), and we're comparing their actions during a time in which they (marginally in practice, but very much in theory) acted together. An article like Comparison of Canadian Internment and American Internment of Japanese during WWII would be pretty reasonable, I think - if the Buddhists and Cathlics teamed up to molest children, then such a comparison might be appropriate. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it, but there needs to be a "connectedness" for comparisons, not just a "relatedness" WilyD 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I think that the US-Canada comparisons are more fair, because there are good and bad things to say about both sides. HOWEVER, if someone picked an area where Canada or the US appeared completely and utterly disgraceful compared to the other, and it was virtually impossible to argue against it because people had got it into their heads that was the case, would that be fair? No, it wouldn't. John Smith's 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I see no reason to believe its unfair based on the outcome of the comparison. If the comparison is appropriate, then it'll be appropriate whether the two parties come out looking equivilent or one comes up roses and one comes up pig shit, it doesn't matter. WilyD 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Eh? With that logic, you're saying it's ok to use wikipedia to attack things/people if they're hidden in a comparison. That's ridiculous! John Smith's 14:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No, that's not true at all, and it really applies apart from comparisons. Our article on Tommy Douglas is far more flattering than our article on Pol Pot, but this isn't a problem. WilyD 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Pol Pot was an individual, so that isn't relevant. His page also discusses his entire life. This is a comparison between entire nations on a specific issue. Now you're making improper comparisons. John Smith's 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I was responding to your very specific point that because an article makes one person/group look bad and another look good, it's untenable. WilyD 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • You did not respond properly then. Those two people are not compared. I am talking about where someone makes an article to compare things purely to attack one party. John Smith's 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • You said if someone picked an area where Canada or the US appeared completely and utterly disgraceful compared to the other, and it was virtually impossible to argue against it because people had got it into their heads that was the case, would that be fair? No, it wouldn't - which I took to imply that the outcome of the comparison is relevent to whether it's an appropriate comparison to make - an idea that's false. WilyD 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • As I've already explained, I'm talking about where a comparison is made purely to discredit/attack/belittle/etc one of the parties in the comparison. Move on now, please. John Smith's 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • If your point is only that the article needs to be cleaned up, I think we've already discussed that at reasonable length. WilyD 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • No, that isn't my point! Look, I've tried to make you understand. You can't/won't. Just leave it. John Smith's 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • If you're making an unclear point, its worth expounding it. I'm not the only one reading this discussion. Other people will attempt to help the discussion come to concensus, and they're also likely to consider your arguments if they're well presented. WilyD 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm going to explain it one more time. You have already made your points, so if you feel I am repeating what I have said, please do not try to confuse readers by complaining again - let them make up their own minds.
    • The article is too biased in its remit. The comparison was crafted to purely attack Japan by making an unfavourable comparison with Germany. It is not possible to make the article NPOV, because it focuses on this specific comparison which is automatically squeued against Japan. Also the points are mostly discussed elsewhere already - there is no need to repeat what has already been said. No one knows how to actually address and improve this article because however they do it, the squeued nature of it keeps making it NPOV. So it has to be deleted, with the content merged/moved elsewhere if necessary. John Smith's 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename — There's already a Japanese war crimes which covers part of this topic. For some reason I can't fathom, there's no corresponding German war crimes or Nazi war crimes page or redirect. (Although there is a Nuremberg Trials page.) The German-specific material could be used to seed a corresponding war crimes page. (But it would also need to cover WWI.) — RJH (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Yes, it is true that the Japanese bit repeats a lot of things that are said elsewhere. I've already said that I think the information could be used elsewhere, but this page itself needs to be deleted. John Smith's 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have created a German war crimes page and merged the relevant information from this article there. John Smith's 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks John Smith. — RJH (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per John Smith's and RJH into the articles on the war crimes perpetrated by each country. It is hard to see exactly what this article provides that separate articles could not, and the numerous controversies relating to Japan's attitude to the atrocities it has committed are already discussed to death in dozens of other POV-magnet, revert-war-ridden articles. There's no need to waste time cleaning this up when doing so would merely be duplicating effort that is already going on elsewhere. — Haeleth Talk 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have already merged the part on Germany. Assuming that the content on Japan is already present in the Japanese war crimes page, or any extra content is merged, what happens then? Do I have to list this page for deletion again, or what? John Smith's 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could vote for merge, but this article is best deleted. Evidence gather is interesting but it really (now) reads like a social article. As this article continues to find neutral ground the author(s) are best advised to publish on paper. Once on paper, then it can be included.
To that, it also follows along the line of original paper. Wikipedia as an encycolpedia should chronical what we see as conclusions reported, not what "we" think. In that, the article quotes NO sources that outline or discuss the theme directly. Hence, delete. Respectfully meatclerk 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per various comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think it would be best to redirect the existing page to War crime as that page links to both Japanese war crimes and German war crimes in addition to many other useful pages. Since the appropriate content has already been moved to the appropriate pages (per comments above), it seems this discussion is now less about deletion than it is abotu where to redirect this page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, a redirect sounds like a sensible solution. I'm open to suggestions if people don't like "war crime". Personally I think it sounds fine. John Smith's 23:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are loads of articles larger than 50kb, so that argument is invalid. Second most of the information discussed in this article is already in Japanese war crimes - why must it be repeated? Third no one has taken any interest in sorting out the article for ages. There was plenty of time to sort it out before. Merging any excess info is much simpler. John Smith's 14:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not for cleanup. Most of this information in this article is not in Japanese war crimes or any other articles. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. --RevolverOcelotX 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything below this line was said after the 5 day discussion period and thus not relevant to the final decision. From the above opinions, it appears there was a consensus for merger. If an admin would like to confirm that, I would appreciate it. John Smith's 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's, Read the AFD rules, discussion can continue on AFTER 5 days if it has not been closed.--RevolverOcelotX 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "Response to event X" articles are common and a very valid topic. There is no need to add on the the already large Japanese war crimes article. This article needs to be cleanup, not deleted. --RevolverOcelotX 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a bit late - the debates last 5 days, so I'm not sure your opinion will actually count. John Smith's 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Read the AFD rules, discussion can continue on AFTER 5 days as long as an admin has not closed it. --RevolverOcelotX 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the above opinions, it appears there was a consensus for merger. If an admin would like to confirm that, I would appreciate it. I do not believe Revolver's opinion would count for the decision because it was made after the 5 day discussion period. However even if it was counted, then there would still be 5 votes for a merger and only 2 for keeping it. So I think an official merger is the correct decision to be made. John Smith's 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's: AFD discussions can last longer than 5 days, and there are many that do. Any and All comments made before an admin closes the disucssion are valid and considered in the final decision made by the closing admin. Additionally, removing other editor's comments is considered vandalism, so please do not do that again. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. John Smith's 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are currently 3 votes for merge, 1 vote for delete, and 2 votes for keep. There is currently no consensus to delete this article but rather to cleanup the article. --RevolverOcelotX 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me count the votes for you. Two keeps are you and Vsion. Merges are me, meatclerk, Joe, Haeleth and RJH. meatclerk changed his vote. That is five. And let me remind you that a listing like this can state the article should be merged - it doesn't have to be deleted or kept. John Smith's 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
meatclerk's vote was to delete, not to merge. The consensus seems to be that this article needs cleanup, not merge or deletion. --RevolverOcelotX 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He changed his vote. "Concure with Smith's meatclerk 04:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)" He was concurring with my agreement to merge. John Smith's 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Other editors have supported cleanup instead of merge or delete. --RevolverOcelotX 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was away traveling to research a different article. I want to verify that I originally wanted delete, but will redirect or merge whichever is most appropriate at this time. meatclerk 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A while ago, I made a strong effort to neutralise this article. Then, the treatment of each side was fairly equal and an effort to compare and contrast their actions was made. Now the Japan side is *way* too long, and some parts (like the "conclusion", which seems like someone's personal conclusion) need to be removed entirely. Nonetheless, the article should stay, perhaps being expanded to include all Axis powers (Bulgaria, anyone?) Acegikmo1 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right and who's going to do that? No one - that's who. It's going to stay completely lob-sided, because no one is going to put the effort in - like they didn't do for God know's how long before. John Smith's 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your comments civilized, John Smith's. There's no reason to indirectly attack anyone or deride another editor's comments just because an article sat dormant for a long time. It happens to articles all the time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is alot of references and sources in this article. Alot of human resource have already been devoted to improve this page. We cannot waste it. --RevolverOcelotX 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about? All these things are well discussed on the Japanese war crimes page - I also created one for Germany. There is no need to discuss these things separately and in such detail. John Smith's 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a very valid topic and is different from Japanese war crimes. There is not another pages addressing most of the issues brought up by this page. --RevolverOcelotX 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this discussion to the talk page of the article as this is not the place to discuss anything other than whether or not the article should be deleted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Wikipedia shouldn't have an article with this name. The article is starting from an unstated conclusion (that there is something specifically interesting in comparing these two "responses") -- this is an essay title, not an encyclopedia article. If there is verifiable information in this article that would be helpful to add to some other article, there's no reason not to do that, but that's not a deletion decision. Jkelly 23:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is generally not a criteria for deletion. The article is valid and it could be expanded to include the other Axis Powers. This article is clearly a notable comparison article. There are many other similar comparison articles such as Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American health care systems compared, Canadian and American economies compared, or generally Category:Comparisons for some examples. --RevolverOcelotX 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Jkelly said, the comparisons and analyses of the 2 nations violates WP:V as well. And you've got so much negative material against (only) Japan and Germany already. How do you suppose you can salvage this article by adding more negative material about other surviving "Axis Power" nations? You're just asking for more trouble, and this is a disaster waiting to happen. Just delete the article already. And if any of the currently existing material is any good, it may be reused in other "valid" articles.--Endroit 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a valid article as shown by the sources. Having negative material about Japan and Germany is not a good reason for deletion. There is already alot of references and sources in this article. Alot of human resource have already been devoted to improve this page. We cannot waste it. --RevolverOcelotX 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the article becomes "a valid article as shown by the sources", because RevolverOcelotX fails to give a convincing case. Most of the sources talk about Japan only or Germany only. The connection between the 2 countries seem to be made superficially by a handful of Wikipedians, which amounts to a violation of WP:NOR, if not WP:V. Also, the current title and content of the article assume that MODERN Japan and MODERN Germany should be blamed for all the crimes in WWII, which, I repeat, violates WP:NPOV.--Endroit 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endroit fails to give a convincing case. WP:NPOV issues are NOT valid reasons for deletion. Other editors have supported that this article needs cleanup and references added. Japanese war crimes is already 51 kilobytes long. Merging would be against Wikipedia:Article size guideline. RevolverOcelotX
Endriot, that is an excellent point. The entire page is personal research, because the sources generally talk about the individual countries. However it's a comparison page, so the sources should be comparing the two, yet that isn't what happens. John Smith's 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RevolverOcelotX, whether I convince you or not, WP:NPOV can and WILL be used as one of the reasons to delete the article, per AfD procedures, if we have consensus here.--Endroit 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:NPOV may be used in AfD, this is not a strong reason for deletion, as such articles can be salvaged. RevolverOcelotX
Usually you're right about that. However in this case, the article has had WP:NPOV problems for over 2 years, and a review is in order. Also, we have this WP:NOR problem comparing the 2 countries. RevolverOcelotX and others are encouraged to come up with a failsafe idea to salvage this article despite these problems. If we fail to do that, I don't see why the article should be kept. I'm all ears.--Endroit 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my mind - Delete/merge. Delete primarily, merge if that is the only option other than keeping it. John Smith's 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated this, so there's no need to indicate "keep" or delete" in your comments. Also, AFD isn't a vote, it's a discussion. RevolverOcelotX
  • Comment: The nominator wrote that "The entire page is personal research, because the sources generally talk about the individual countries. ... " I think the nominator has failed to notice these two sources in the article:
  1. Sebastian Conrad. "Entangled Memories: Versions of the Past in Germany and Japan, 1945-2001." Journal of Contemporary History 38, no.1 (January 2003), 85-99.
  2. Ian Buruma. Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany & Japan. New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux, 1994.
Aren't these two sources comparing the responses of the two countries? If the nominator had misrepresented the case for deletion, then this Afd nomination should be dismissed. --Vsion 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Aren't these two sources comparing the responses of the two countries?" As Endroit points out below, they're only two sources - I said "generally", not all. Besides I didn't make the point until recently, so your complaint is irrelevant. Please don't try to make up reasons to stop this Afd. John Smith's 08:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 sources mentioned appear to be Europe-centric, but their use do not violate WP:NOR....
  1. Sebastian Conrad. "Entangled Memories: Versions of the Past in Germany and Japan, 1945-2001." Journal of Contemporary History 38, no.1 (January 2003), 85-99.
  2. Ian Buruma. Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany & Japan. New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux, 1994. ISBN 0374285950.
But there are 8 OTHER sources which have been introduced. Those 8 other sources and the contents of the article itself are NOT true to these 2 sources just mentioned. Hence the added material being used to compare Germany versus Japan amount to original research, in violation of WP:NOR. Since the added material (80% of the source) is central to the article, we are voting to delete the whole article as proposed. There are other problems relating to WP:NPOV, which I clarified above, and that alone is enough to vote for deletion as well.--Endroit 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those two books are listed under "Further reading," not bibliography or works cited. The entire article is exactly what is called "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." --Saintjust 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to have an independent article for comparison. It suffices to write on the two issues on the articles of Japanese history and German history respectively. Comparison with Germany may be mentioned on Japan's WW2 article as it's a common criticism of post-war Japan, but presenting it as if it's a legitimate and objective topic is not npov since the way it presents the issues itself is highly politicized. --Saintjust 08:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research with Wrong motive, no reasonable source... --Ypacaraí 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written, POV nonsense. L0b0t 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only link between German and Japanese war crimes is that they happened to take place at roughly the same time. Japan and Germany did not fight side-by-side; the war crimes took place completely independently of each other, in different parts of the world, against different victims, while other countries were also committing war crimes (Soviets?) Furthermore, the type of crimes committed is completely different. So a comparison is as relevant as comparing Russia in Chechnya to Israel in Gaza today. Also, counting Japan's crimes against Korea under "WWII War Crimes" is simply incorrect as A) Japan and Korea were not at war, it was colonial rule, which B) started in 1910, long before WWII. Responses of Japan to colonial rule and war crimes is a notable topic worthy of an article but is lost here in an attempt at meaningless comparison. Phonemonkey 14:11, 26 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 userfication to User:Samsara/Frog/Stable. This is an example used by User:Samsara at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions and on several talk pages. Userfication appears to be the simplest solution all around without engendering further acrimony. Uncle G 13:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog/Stable[edit]

I don't know what this WP:FORK is doing in the main namespace. Basically it shouldn't be in the main namespace (see Wikipedia:subpage#Disallowed uses), so should either be moved to the talk namespace or redirected as an illegal fork to Frog. I don't see why it's needed anyway, since you can copy the link to a particular revision if you like it and use that. — Dunc|☺ 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not something you needed to bring to AfD. This was an experiment to do with stable versions. If you were willing to talk to Samsara or me, then we could sort something out. Your point about forking makes no sense, but the disallowed uses does. We are not going to blindly oppose things, there is this thing called discussion, and funnily enough we take part in it. Seriously, the admins here are already overworked, they don't need petty things which can be easily fixed (Samsara and I are both admins, and could delete the page if that is where the discussion went) clogging up AfD and wasting their time. Talk to us, and be civil. --liquidGhoul 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, getting the information first would have helped. I'll move it to my userspace if it's a problem. Is that a permissible way to close this AfD? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:25, 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 keep.--SB | T 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Melbourne Scavenger Hunt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
  • Not notable, no reliable sources abakharev 12:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The University of Melbourne Scavenger Hunt is commonly regarded as the largest event of its kind in the world" is a claim of notability, but no sources are provided, and a Google search indicates that the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt is much more commonly called the world's largest scavenger hunt. I have no idea whether Melbourne's scavenger hunt is larger than Chicago's, but I see no evidence that the Melbourne scavenger hunt is commonly regarded as the largest event of its kind. Delete due to lack of reliable sources indicating that this is a notable activity. --Metropolitan90 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. will381796 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contentions as stated above are no longer applicable. References to articles in reputable newsapapers have been added. Claim of common regard has been removed as it is difficult to prove. This article does not meet the criterion for deletion. --Mrmrpotatohead 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are provided, some notability established, Weak keep abakharev 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given it has reliable sources. As an alternative, it would be worth merging with a relevant article on the University of Melbourne. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to an article on university scavenger hunts. The Dog on the Tuckerbox was stolen during a Uni of Canberra hunt (I can find the ref if need be) - it is a phenomena not confined to any one uni--Arktos talk 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just as notable as the MIT Mystery Hunt except maybe slightly less geeky. 205.157.110.11 09:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They kidnapped Graham Kennedy! Instant notability. It's also been notable in recent years for all the wrong reasons, as indicated in the article. Drett 21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging is not desirable as there is much scope for expansion of this article, which merging effectively kyboshes. As to notoriety/signifigance, this Scav Hunt has been running since at least the 1930s (I am currently digging thru old newspapers to find some references for this, but it is well known amongst Melbourne Uni Alumni). Also its sheer size (150 - 200 participants) and size of the list (usually 600+ items) make it notable. It should also be noted that nobody is asking UofC for references to things like number of participants or size of the list, these figures have just been accepted as quoted.--Mrmrpotatohead 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, long history, recent news coverage and the Graham Kennedy story make this notable. Could do with some cleaning up though, but that's not a problem requiring deletion. --bainer (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that item 149 on the list is "a Wikipedia entry to rival scav hunt", hence this presumably. Worth keeping an eye out for others. --bainer (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many universities around the Commonwealth have scav hunts - having a particularly large one does not justify wiki content, or else there's a "floodgates" argument: even for wikipedia, it seems overly esoteric. Incorporation of all unis into one "scav hunt" article would be far preferable. MojoTas 02:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many university scav hunts have kidnapped Graham Kennedy, though? Drett 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elephants or the Dog on the Tuckerbox at Canberra uni[13] - its all been done before and the difference doesn't make it interesting or encyclopaedic--Arktos talk 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monash uni kidnapped Sale of the Century's then host Glenn Ridge.[14]--Arktos talk 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both fairly notable happenings. However, if those are the only things that those scav hunts are notable for, maybe they should just be included in articles about Canberra & Monash Unis. Note that the article which mentions Monash students kidnapping Glenn Ridge asserts the notability of the Melbourne Uni scav hunt. Drett 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be articles about Uni of Canberra or Monash uni scavenger hunts, I don't think it is notable to even be mentioned in the articles on those universities. Similarly I don't think there should be an article on the Melbourne uni scavenger hunt as per above. All equally unnotable and boring. Anyone who thinks these are notable happenings leads a sheltered life. There are many things that newspapers mention that do not get wikipedia articles. The Age reference does not make the scavenger hunt notable.--Arktos talk 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every school activity is not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this truly is a 'cause worth being made encylopedic. There seems to be so much more being added every day. I want to wait and see how it turns out. JudgeWhite
21 August 2006
  • Note to closing admin, please take into account when forming your view of the outcome of this debate that there are some comments and statements of support from users who have newly registered and have contributed to no other topic (or few other articles).--Arktos talk 00:55, 23 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. --CharlotteWebb 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jassa[edit]

The page is so uninformative, and seems to belong on Wikispecies instead of Wikipedia. Anthony 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The page definitely needs expansion, but merely being a stub is not a valid criterion for deletion. WilyD 13:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is a whole genus of animals unencylcopaedic?! Batmanand | Talk 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. NawlinWiki 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - stubs are the seeds from which articles grow. -- Whpq 19:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - crustaceans are inherently notable. :) Zagalejo 23:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. --Edgelord 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we need to protect stubs such as this one. - Richardcavell 01:46, 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. - Bobet 13:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp Meter Effectiveness[edit]

Unsourced POV essay. It even has a conclusion at the end. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but without predjudice of recreation, as it is possible that the ariticle title could one day be encyclopaedic. Batmanand | Talk 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to work with you on thiis. To me, this article is completely fact based. Are you able to point to anything which is not? Currently, the only sources of ramp metering information are from parties with a vested interest in saying they work. There is a need for an independent source. I don't believe the article contains conclusion(s), only facts. Where do you see a conclusion? Please help me to construct a correct article rather than punitively depriving people the opportunity to see a valid presentation of facts. Or maybe as you suggest it could all be presented under ramp meters. I would appreciate any guidance you could give. Thank you.--Ristrockett 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ramp meter. I don't see why two separate articles are needed. -- Whpq 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Copying it to Ramp meter would not make it less so. Sandstein 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ramp meter and clean-up. The effectiveness of ramp metering under discussion, especially the level of benefits and I think that can be part of the article. I think it is currently original research overall and is not NPOV yet, but some of the sections contain good material that can be salvaged. Kabba3112 08:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy blatant OR Essay Batman! I don't know if there is anything worth merging. The whole essay is written from the slant of evaluating the effectiveness, which is lavishly POV. 205.157.110.11 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am new to Wikipedia and was not aware of the rules. While, of necessity, my contributions are original analysis of sourced data in some sections, I realize that as stated above by Uncle G, the place for this work is elsewhere. Thanks for the lessons.--Ristrockett 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for doing primary research. An encyclopaedia is nothing without the people who did and do the original research in the first place. (When you have your article peer reviewed, fact checked, and published by a reliable source, so that it becomes part of the corpus of human knowledge, we can use it as the basis for expanding ramp meter.) It is simply that here isn't the place to record it. Uncle G 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the essay and original research grounds. Statements such as "none can defend when presented with the conceptual and factual elements of my assertions" by the author on the Talk page are an especial red flag for me with material like this. The appearance of two other new accounts to carry on a dialog on this specialized topic is also curious. - David Oberst 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --TheM62Manchester 10:45, 26 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. —freak(talk) 00:15, Aug. 23, 2006 (UTC)

Killa killa[edit]

Team in the "Brooklyn Kickball League". NN, obviously. NawlinWiki 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can i ask what NN means? 62.232.8.43

  • Is this enough evidence yet that saying "NN" and using other unnecessary jargon instead of actually explaining why we plan to delete someone's work is a Bad Thing? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would an article on the league itself still be nn? Or perhaps a section referring to the league added to the Kickball entry?

  • That depends. Has anyone famous ever played in the league? Does it receive a good deal of press coverage? Is it well-known outside of Brooklyn? Does it play at a professional level? If the answer to one or more of these is yes, it might be notable. Please read WP:BIO and WP:NOT for more guidelines. Srose (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm going to put in delete, but I'd like to comment on the above. I highly doubt the league itself is notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned; the 40 total (and 20 unique) Google hits do not confirm much significance. With that said, the league's web page is well done, the league looks like a lot of fun, McCarren Park is a beautiful place (I saw Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Sonic Youth at the pool there last week), and one of the teams is named KYBSY, which I can only assume stands for Kick Your Balls Say Yeah. So, while the article on this team (and any subsequent league-related articles) will almost certainly be deleted, I wish the best to the league and its players. -- Kicking222 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you would figure someone with the username "Kicking222" would like kickball. ;) NawlinWiki 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL, I'd honestly not thought of that. I never see myself as "Kicking222, computer user!", but as "Mike, happy-go-lucky 21-year-old!" For the record, my username comes from my love of soccer, but it is safe to say that I also enjoy kickball a great deal (in fact, it may be the only sport I'm truly good at). -- Kicking222 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article fails WP:V as it does not cite any reliable sources. WilyD 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of notability. John Smith's 14:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-notability of "Brooklyn Kickball League" is not sufficient enough reason to propose deletion as laid out in point #1 under Articles on the Criteria for Speedy Deletion page. Though the entry for "Killa Killa" may be "limited in content" its position within the "Brooklyn Kickball League" should provide it with the necessary context to "allow expansion." The Brooklyn Kickball League, therefore, could very well be notable and users should be allowed to demonstrate its notability with the ability to expand Killa Killa's heretofore prescribed definition. Especially if these cats bring home the trophy in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WickaSticka (talk • contribs)
      • That's criteria for speedy deletion, which we can all agree are inappropriate here. However, this regular deletion is mandated by WP:V, so the issue is rather academic. WilyD 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, a challenge for deletion through "Deletion of Vanity Articles" [[15]] would probably be more "academic" for an entry about a local Kickball team named after a Dipset reference than demanding a reference for the Brooklyn Kickball League which you'll probably find in an upcoming issue of Time Out New York. But I guess until that hits the newstands I'll defer to your condescending, albeit accurate, point that guidelines under the rubric of speedy deletion are not appropriate for this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WickaSticka (talk • contribs)
          • The nomination was poorly phrased. Why people are so reluctant to bust out WP:V when it's obviously appropriate is beyond me. WilyD 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You know me Wily! I'll bust out WP:V on most AfDs ;). In fact, let me bust out my favorite saying: Wikipedia does not keep articles based on if they are interesting or not. Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus So if you believe it should be kept, please provide a reason that these pillars of the wiki community should be put asside for this one article. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifyable group in a sport of insufficient significance. Far too small and local to get it's own article - Peripitus (Talk) 01:43, 21 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 11:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Star Online 2[edit]

Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE; I could not find any coverage of this anywhere (indeed, Google turned up a remarkable 0 hits), and couldn't find much more about the developers except that they are an "independant company" (sic) advertising on the WoW forums. Crystallina 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not going to bash the article too much, as (judging from the tone of the article and it's creators other contributions) it was obviously written by a kid who simply loves the game. With that said, it's non-notable. -- Kicking222 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really want to keep this, i really do. But, I feel that as of right now the article is just too unencylopedic and if it turned up 0 hits on google, it definitely shouldnt have an article. (My name turns up more hits.) guitarhero777777 03:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like a guide. Ace of Sevens 18:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT
  • Deleteper above--Peephole 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JudasAsparagus 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely odesn't have 0 ghits. Searching for "First Star Online 2" gave me 310 (although some are here/ansewrs.com etc). This article definitely needs a cleanup, but not deleting.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist test[edit]

WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:VERIFY... ccwaters 14:43, 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 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist theory[edit]

WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:VERIFY... ccwaters 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism as it is used here. There is something called tourist theory, which connects tourism with colonialism in some way. This is a new, made up usage of the term, therefore WP:OR. -- Slowmover 15:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Ibrahim Etem Ozden", the creator of this theory, also turns up no relevant hits on Google. Sertrel 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say that Florida disproves this. 205.157.110.11 09:28, 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 merge. Petros471 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1330s in architecture[edit]

The article contains one single piece of information, the article is of poor standard, has numerous headings with no information attached and has been terribly written. Anthony 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per above will381796 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and reform the structure of Timeline of architecture. Pre-18th century should be combined per century, not per decade, in articles. Otherwise, each one of them will remain a stub. --Thunderhead 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 14th Century in architecture. No objection to re-creation of decade-specific stubs later if they look like they'll be considerably longer than this, though. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge though with some reluctance. There is a vast expanse of "Timeline articles" detailing some period in, in some subject with mediating levels of encyclopedic merit. As a whole, I think Wikipedia needs to re-evaluate the place these articles should have in the project. I am partial to Thunderhead's suggestion and I think that should be considered for the other subjects as well. 205.157.110.11 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or merge - we need articles like this - Blood red sandman 14:47, 27 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 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Thomas (Astl Group), Astl Group[edit]

A fourteen-year-old who has started an online company and the webpage says that they're not even open for business yet. Vanity article, advertisement, NN. I am also nominating the article on his/her company, Astl Group -- Merope 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I second that, the article has next to no information in it and has no place on Wikipedia. Anthony 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP, less than 10 Google hits for "Astl Group". Huon 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:CORP.--Isotope23 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth with it's ashes! Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CORP, and pretty much any other WP I can think of. (WP:NOT comes to mind). --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Whpq 19:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 19:45, 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 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that reference Rudolf Hess[edit]

Probably the most bizzare list I've ever seen a new user start on Wikipedia to say the least. Not all the songs support the Nazi Rudolf Hess, but I really can't see an overwhelming need for this list and it some of the more notable artist's songs can easily be merged back into the main article for Hess. Fails: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with this (very well-reasoned) nom completely. Merge the more notable songs back into Hess's article (if they're not already there). I agree with the nom that this is a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can see no reason for keeping this article. Srose (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Slowmover 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I generally despise lists like this, but I feel that this one could, theoretically, be a good article. For such a well-known and controversial figure, the "Hess in pop culture" section in his article is somewhat slim. This list could perhaps be made more encyclopedic if it was split into sections, such as "songs that support Hess" and "songs that object to Hess's practices". It's also interesting to note how many significant bands have referenced Hess. I can't, in good conscience, vote keep, as the article is in violation of WP:NOT. However, I think there's enough potential in the article to try to expand and improve upon it. -- Kicking222 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crufty as listcruft gets. Batmanand | Talk 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an excessive list. Wickethewok 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom has it exactly right. At best this could be merged to Rudolf Hess...--Isotope23 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random. Gazpacho 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not the place for indiscriminate collections of information, however prepossessing they may be. Another concern is vagueness. What passes as a reference, here? One item on the list, Joy Division's "Warsaw", doesn't actually mention Hess by name, but only his prison identification number. Where do we draw the line? Maybe a handful of the most "notable" references to Hess could go in the pop culture section of his article. (And I see the Joy Division song is already in there.) StarryEyes 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. What useful purpose is served by deleting this article? Its a tad eccentric, but its likely to appeal to many who would otherwise access a Rudholf Hess entry in the first place; merge it with the main Hess article. Compare the numer of songs which reference Hess to other prominent German Nazis, such as Joseph Goebbels, Martin Boorman, Adolf Eichmann, or Albert Speer, and its clear that Hess generates an interest within pop culture far in excess of other leading NSDAP figures, thus justifying the continued existence of this list (albeit ideally within the context of being merged back into the main Hess article). KevinOKeeffe 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rudolf Hess per KevinOKeeffe's reasoning. --Kurt Shaped Box 15:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Hess cult is considered fairly important to 'integrationist' neo-Nazi organisations, particularly neo-Nazi bands[16]. Someone's made an effort here; perhaps this should be expanded, or merged into an article about extreme right-wing music rather than the Hess article. Hornplease 05:08, 21 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 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@icon sushi[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE as a non-notable freeware utility (although, granted, it could be useful to some). Crystallina 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wickethewok 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Has 19,400 google hits. Some of these look like they are from third parties, though whether they are reliable is another matter. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Most of the google hits on the first few pages are download ones - expected for a freeware utility. Cannot find any reliable references, news articles, magazine articles etc... for it Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 21 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 merged to F-theory. Note that when one performs a merge like this, one can simply close the AFD, rather than wait for an admin to do so.--SB | T 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Temporal Dimension[edit]

This article is:

  1. Poorly written
  2. Describes a pseudo-scientific fringe-theory
  3. Does not cite sources

It has been tagged as Totally Disputed; additional discussion is available at the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimur (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2006

  • Comment The first criterion you present is not a criterion for deletion. The second one isn't true (as it's presented, it's fringe or post-fringe, but the article isn't pseudoscientific. The third one is surprisingly hard to work on - I poked around ADS and couldn't find anything. WilyD 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a::Perhaps valid counterpoints, WilyD - but in deference to the plethora of delete-votes below, allow me to respond. The new votes seem to articulate my original line of thinking, in accordance with Wikipedia AfD style. But, here's my own counter-counterpoints: 1) Myself and other editors have worked on rewriting to make it less poorly-written, but it's not made significant progress. 2) The term "fringe theory" may be better said as "not a theory, just a random rumination by a scientist that was later misinterpreted by someone as science." There is no formality in the theory, and thus no way to formalize the article. 3) Citations are hard to find because of point 2. I still vote delete, but thanks for your feedback. Nimur 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - it is currently WP:OR but I've alerted the original author to see if they can add references, so I may come back and change my mind. Yomangani 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rewrite seems to satisfy the policies (although it's still a bit haphazard, that's not grounds for deletion). Not sure it is a straightforward merge candidate for F-theory, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it if that's the way it goes. Yomanganitalk 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The presentation of unreferenced scientific terms and theories is massively inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability. John254 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V. Appears to be original research as well. Tychocat 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable fringe theory. Ben Standeven 04:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V. Sandstein 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- I plead guilty for having added the one verifiable fact to the article, the connection to Twistor theory. But the article is not about a fringe theory, whose notability is to be discussed here, but it is a total confusion of different things, I fear. At least the imaginary time has to go. And some actual string theory papers (no droght of them) would have to be cited, to make the first part keepable. Perhaps Lumidek can sacrify some minutes of his valuable time for this. --Pjacobi 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty! Indeed, this article is a haphazard amalgamation of confusion - many ideas from many distinct physical theories; I fear this article will only confuse readers further. Nimur 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some papers and a chapter from a popularization; I've also copied the article to my userpage just in case. It is at User:Ben Standeven/Second Temporal Dimension. Ben Standeven 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisted 18/08/06, which in your star-time is probably still the 17th. Slackers! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, references have been added since AfD listing was made. Not exactly mainstream physics but theories and serious researchers do exist[17][18][19][20][21]. Weregerbil 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is still, after AfD+8, a crap article. It doesn't tell me who the proponents are, the opponents, I see no historical context, just a vague definition and some disconnected links to papers abstracts laymen don't understand. As it is, it's a scientific neologism and if 8 days under the AfD spotlight can't bring this article in shape is has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral now after rewrite. Still doesn't meet my criterion that scientific ideas should be covered in textbooks before they're covered here, but the rewrite at least offers a context. Merge is a good proposal. ~ trialsanderrors 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)/18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quack-cruft. 205.157.110.11 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a partial rewrite. Ben Standeven 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the re-write Ben. I still vote delete and merge your work into appropriate sub-sections in the F-theory articles, and redirect.Nimur 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per GRBerry and trialsanderrors. Present article should redirect there. Nimur 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See GRBerry's vote. If you want the edit history deleted, you should vote delete and redirect. If you want the history preserved, you should vote merge but not delete. ~ trialsanderrors 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten content. I have no objection to a merge, but that requires that deletion not occur, as the old title should be redirected to the article containing the merged content. GRBerry 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content Merged to F-theory[edit]

I have been bold and merged the content to the F-theory article. This seems to be the consensus after the re-writes took place. The new content was well-written and neutral. There is no further need to delete the article. Nimur 19:02, 21 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 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Blass[edit]

non-notable person, Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) Archer3 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and is it really necessary to note that he was killed by an African American driver? Yeesh. BoojiBoy 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, a lot of people are killed in car accidents, that doesn't make them all notable. NawlinWiki 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a memorial and the fact that the subject does not meet WP:BIO. In fact I would say this is probably a good speedy candidate under CSD:A7.--Isotope23 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. will381796 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.123.105 (talk • contribs)
  • delete per above.-gadfium 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. ... discospinster talk 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Prolog 00:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 18:50, 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 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen N. P. Smith[edit]

Not Notable James68 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete Not notable, claims are dubious, Stat arb has been around a lot longer than this guy has been a trader. Seems to be a vanity piece. James68 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability by our standards; as a resume, however, it's not bad. Septentrionalis 02:03, 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 speedy delete as nn bio. Wickethewok 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Turner[edit]

Vanity and non-notable article about a 13 year-old. AFDed a second time (see the noinclude section in this AFD)... Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and protect the redirect -- that would work, wouldn't it? NawlinWiki 15:53, 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 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitgamer[edit]

Non-notable, fresh site ranked 429,296 at Alexa. Delete per WP:WEB. --Haakon 15:27, 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 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime in the Philippines[edit]

Contested prod by Kappa. This article very much appears to be original research. Absolutely no verifiable sources has been cited. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:38, 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 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eneloop[edit]

Basically, this appears to be yet another rechargeable battery type. If this has some new technology or something, it might warrant discussion in article rechargeable battery, Nickel metal hydride battery or a related article, but I don't think specific battery sub-brand is notable enough for an article of its own, especially if it's a very new brand (how new it is, the article fails to tell). Also, the article is advertisatory in tone (to say the least) and doesn't provide too many sources. Prodded by me as "Yet Another Unremarkable Rechargeable Battery Model, advertisement"; ip 213.232.127.35 removed prod with comment "Unnecessary labeling of the article as a unremarkable battery advertisement. eneloop is the only battery on the market that can reverse the millions of batteries destroying the environment every year." and removed my {{advertisement}} while they were at it, too.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN as of right now although I really want to WP:BJAODN the name of the product for some reason. Whispering(talk/c) 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS, and is completely NN. Reads like and advertisment. Toss it in the garbage. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Brian is going to love this, but I think it might be salvageable, as it does seem to differ from traditional rechargeables, at least from the quick look I've had so far. I may return for an argument later on (although I suspect not, this time). Yomanganitalk 23:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the only references come directly or indirectly from Sanyo themselves, and it seems to be an improvement on existing designs rather than an innovation per se. Plus it already gets a mention in Rechargeable battery. Yomanganitalk 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hehe, I did the same research before commenting so I just decided to wait until you had done your own search and came up with the basic results I did -Brian (How am I doing?) 04:59, 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. --CharlotteWebb 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Troia McFarland[edit]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog% 2F2006_August_12&diff=70240900&oldid=70239900 A DRV consensus] overturned the previous deletion of this article. This is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please consult DRV before commenting here. Although procedurally I will abstain, I'll mention that this US Senate candidate has received ample coverage on CNN of which I'm aware. Xoloz 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, why do we have to keep going through this. mikedow
  • Keep, despite her well publicized recent implosion at the primary debate with John Spencer, she still has a reasonable chace of winning the New York primary. Part of the value of Wikipedia is the fact that encompasses a lot of material that a traditional encyclopedia could not cover.
  • Keep, even though I'd normally question the notability of a mere primary candidate; she is one of the leading contenders for a major-party nomination in a very high-profile race (US Senate in NY). NawlinWiki 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete all candidates for senate have multiple non-trivial published works about them. Weak b/c major race per Nawlin. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Republican primary is on September 12th - less than a month away. At that point, if McFarland loses, the relevant info can be moved to New York United States Senate election, 2006. There isn't any harm in keeping an article on an important candidate for a U.S. Senate seat for a less than month: Wikipedia is not paper. John Broughton 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, passes google test, passes "I vaguely remember her from Reagen years" test, passes "she's a bit wacky and eccentric" test, passes "she is quoted in numerous articles and has made TV appearances" test. Wjhonson 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well sourced, encyclopaedic article. What else is there? WilyD 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a rare event that I vote keep. Very rare. Tell your children rare. But anyway, Wily is right. Well sourced and encyclopaedic. Worth a Keep vote. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Former ranking Pentagon official, current Senate candidate that has been featured in the major New York papers and the national media. She's unlikely to win, but she's not some fringe or joke candidate. StarryEyes 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her service in the Reagan administration qualifies her as notable. The candidacy shouldn't count either way (although this is obviously a matter of debate). JChap2007 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Way too much coverage on this one to let it go away. Given that the impact of her candidacy may directly influence Senator Clinton's likely 2008 run, and given her previous notable activities, she passes the notability test. The article is otherwise good, so I can't see a good reason to delete. Captainktainer * Talk 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep keep comeon admin, we're ready for our close....!! :) Wjhonson 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most everyone. RFerreira 21:52, 21 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 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson entertainment[edit]

Nonnotable company, 37 unique Google hits; article originally stated that "they are unknown and have not had any significant projects or releases to date"; I speedied the article based on that, and author removed the quoted language and the speedy tag. NawlinWiki 15:48, 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 Speedy keep withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Pacific[edit]

Delete. Deprodded myspace band. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Reading WP:BAND, they appear to have recorded two albums that have been released by a notable record label ("one of the larger indie labels, who have other notable acts" is how I think it is described in WP:BAND). I am not a great fan of having every tom, dick and harry band on Wikipedia, but WP:BAND has been hammered out over many, many months of long discussion, and I think it should be stuck too. Batmanand | Talk 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are a lot of notable bands on MySpace, so you editors gotta stop using the phrase "MySpace band" as some sort of insult or sign of "non-notability." Meets WP:MUSIC, easily. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Couple of albums on a pretty decent indie label and they were on the Vans Warped tour as well. [22]. With regards to the "MySpace band", I think CrazyRussian is refering to the glut of articles people put on Wikipedia when all the band has is a Myspace page and nothing else, thinking that in itself makes them notable. I do not believe this band is one of those. DrunkenSmurf 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrunkenSmurf. --EndlessVince 20:30, 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 to delete the article. --  Denelson83  23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast of Saving Private Ryan[edit]

Completing incomplete nomination. No need for this -- it's duplicative of the IMDB link in the main article on the film. It's inappropriate for a general reference encyclopedia to have complete cast lists, even for major films. NawlinWiki 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A link to the film's IMDb page in the main article is certainly sufficient. -- Kicking222 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not an extension of IMDb and IMDb is not an extension of Wikipedia. Being a duplicate of another reference website is by itself not a good enough reason to delete any material. Why shouldn't a general reference encyclopedia contain cast lists? By the way, this one is certainly not complete anyway. Also, if you look at an article like Stephan Grothgar, this article is the only one linking to this actor. Doesn't it make sense to have actors linked from the films they played in? olivier 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps Grothgar isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, then. Delete, Saving Private Ryan is sufficient. Danny Lilithborne 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turns out Mr. Grothgar is not very well known as a film actor, but is better known for TV roles and video game voice parts. I've updated his article. NawlinWiki 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--Isotope23 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 16:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per olivier. WP:NOT paper and this can provide verfiable, useful information for people who look up Saving Private Ryan. --Daniel Olsen 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the issue here isn't verifiability, usefulness, or notability. The issue is why should this exist as an article independent of the Saving Private Ryan one? Cast lists belong on film article pages. See Revenge of the Sith for an example. Furthermore, the cast list need not include all the actors for the film, necessarily - only the ones which are considered notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Girolamo Savonarola 20:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge The cast does not require a separate article. This information should most logically be located in the article for the film. If this information is not currently there, then a merge is warranted. Otherwise, delete, because we don't need to duplicate information just for the sole purpose of having another article. will381796 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 20:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per will381796. Jacqui★ 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. The only possible reason for merging is the precedent set by Revenge of the Sith. Srose (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamSmithee 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable actors and/or major characters are already listed on the movie article; no need to list every bit character and extra that appeared in it. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the major stars are already mentioned in the main article, all the minor ones are superfluous. Raggaga 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TM 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that imdb has the info is irrelevant. The info itself is just not generally relevant enough to justify a page on the Wikipedia. Jun-Dai 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — to Saving Private Ryan. The list is useful and can be perfectly fine here, just put it in the right place. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge/redirect per Girolamo Savonarola. --CharlotteWebb 11:59, 22 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 lack of consensus. The article will be kept. --  Denelson83  23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion by Evertype with the explanation: "The inclusion of the specific content here violates copyright. The page is already out of date (a maintenance problem), and the ISO 15924 article now links to the official code list on the Unicode website." I've removed the speedy tag and brought it here as this doesn't seem to fit the criteria for speedy deletion. No opinion from me – Gurch 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If we cannot use the list, how can we use the codes? We then probably should also not use the codes itself anywhere in WP. It is nice that we use ISO 639 language codes and also have lists for these codes. It's a pitty this is not possible for script codes. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: by copyright
    1. are we allowed to include the codes in every script article?
    2. are we then allowed to compile a list of script articles sorted by these script codes?
- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously I support the deletion of this article. Evertype 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The code lists are copyrighted, and the contents of those lists are made freely available from an authoritative source. Putting copies of these lists on the Wikipedia is a Bad Idea. The list here is already out of date, as I pointed out. The ISO 15924 Registration Authority does not need a Wikipedia list to compete with it. That is why we make the authoritative lists freely available. Of course you may use the script codes in articles about scripts. Just don't try to duplicate the offiical list, since any list here could be vandalized (for instance) or contain other error or simply be out of date. Evertype 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything can be vandalized. Every list can be vandalized. That the RA does not need a Wikipedia list to compete with is questionable. It depends what the RA wants. Anyway, it's not the point what RA wants but what wiki-readers would like and what is allowed and what not. Can WP generate a list of wikipedia script articles by ISO 15924 codes? The official list does not have the feature of being available in WP with all the advantages that come with this - you can download WP and read it offline, you can click on a script name to learn more. That way I found Deseret. Everyone who needs the stuff in business will for security allways have to look up the stuff in the official list. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If WP uses the codes for Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing systems as you supported at Category_talk:User cyr, could WP then generate a list of Boxnames with script name written out in full? If not, WP should probably not use the codes. Maybe nobody should use them if he wants to give overviews of own content sorted by script. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the opinion of the ISO 15924 Registration Authority that a Wikipedia article on ISO 15924 should not contain a list of the codes, because it will be always out of date. The article should point to the authoritative source, the registrar. The registrar obviously isn't, and shouldn't be, obligated to update Wikipedia articles or any other non-authoritative source for the codes. The ISO 639 groups are also very unhappy with the unauthorized duplication (with errors) of 639 code lists on the Wikipedia. Evertype 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the one who added the list to Wikipedia, although to ISO 15924, not a separate article. I did so, because I expected to see it there, when I first read that article. I thought about the copyright issue for a moment before doing this. (Personally I think fixed-length abbreviations are hardly copyright-worthy, although logical numerical keys and the particular layout might, but let my layman point of view aside.) Finally I decided the links to the articles on the scripts that I added (and three trimmed columns) made it something different than a mere copy. The list on Wikipedia can of course never be more than informative, everyone’s expected to know that. I too wonder, however, whether the RA would still consider Tobias’ scenario a copyright infringement, although that would require some work first, because, for instance, some included scripts are still not or only described on corresponding language articles. PS: What part exactly is out of date? And who thought “Kana” meaning Katakana instead of Kana was a good idea? Christoph Päper 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the job of the RA to track an unofficial list to make sure that it is accurate. This page is out of date. Don't know why? Check the real list. Evertype 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Let a lawyer review all ISO/IATA/ICAO related lists that we have in WP. Wikipedia is not there alone to please any RA or company. Of course WP has to fully respect copyright. Nevertheless User:Evertype (who is the RA) still did not answer some related questions. Is WP allowed to create a list of articles sorted by 15924 codes? Is WP allowed to create a list of userboxes sorted by 15924? Evertype supported the use of ISO 15924 codes for userboxes and now argues that WP should not publish a related list. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • YES I object to the publication of duplicate lists which call themselves lists of ISO 15924 codes. The list you have published is inaccurate. It is out of date. It is incomplete. This is bad. It is misleading to end-users, and therefore irresponsible. Use the codes. Make your set of user boxes. Do not publish a duplicate list of the codes and encourage people not to use the actual standard. What part of this is confusing to you? Evertype 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. Support deletion as alternative suggested has been satisfactorily implemented. I suggest a candidate, tentative solution. We add in each script a "Category:" entry for Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes (and the equivalent for the numeric codes), for example: [[Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes|Arab]] for "Arabic alphabet". The resulting category will be such a list, but it will not claim to be complete (and will not claim to be fully accurate, as nothing on Wikipedia can make such a claim – such is life!) – Kaihsu 18:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the cat to Template:Infobox Writing system. But the cat will not bring sorting by code, nor one can see the code. There are good reasons for lists, even if cats exists. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It will sort by code with the (for example) "[[...|Arab]]" part, "Arab" being the relevant code. I have changed the template "Template:Infobox Writing system" to do this. One can see the code by reading the entry for the writing system (for example "Arabic alphabet"). – Kaihsu 07:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't you do this the old-fashioned way with an ordinary Category rather than a fancy infobox trick? you know, [[Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes|Arabic alphabet (Arab)]] Evertype 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox makes sure that the code is only input once, to guard against divergence (= error). The category does not show the "|...]]" bit – it is only used for sorting. – Kaihsu 08:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should we delete other lists of ISO codes, as well? Nonsense. —Nightstallion (?) 11:57, 23 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 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icy pots[edit]

Vanity-based Neologism. Cassavau 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Vanity-based neologism" is perhaps the shortest AfD rationale ever- and perhaps the most appropriate, as well. Delete. -- Kicking222 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V WilyD 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course. I would have just prodded it. Dybryd 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that I did prod it, but the tag was deleted by an anonymous user, so I moved it AfD according to protocol. --Cassavau 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and any article that ends "More information can be found at this Myspace page." NawlinWiki 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Sertrel 20:44, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Bolshevik Party of Israel[edit]

Delete. Unbelieveably NN alleged political party, in reality just a bunch of dudes. Almost could be speedied as a nn-group. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC) -----Addendum: As a reader of Russian, I read the website and the "coverage" and opine that it's most trivial - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Small does not mean nn, and surely any political party in a Western Democracy, if it has fought elections, is by that notable? Batmanand | Talk 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Elections? Where? :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to delete after further reflection and lack of election-fighting evidence. Batmanand | Talk 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be confirmed any candidates have stood for election. Then, and only then, Keep WilyD 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence it exists beyond the website. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable entity, TewfikTalk 19:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability was not proven abakharev 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost a WP:BJAODN canidate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Its highly unlikely that this group is more than a fringe group like the Crustacean Liberation Paty.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no asseration of notability Martinp23 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy BJAODN. Made me laugh. MaxSem 08:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Shuki 15:07, 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 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chio in the Morning[edit]

Fancruft for a local radio show. Lack of 3rd party reliable sources. Google hits for ("Chio in the Morning" -wikipedia -myspace) = 499. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:V. Recury 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — I am not so sure about the WP:V thing. I have 1,130 hits on this from google. most of these are on topic, the only thing that should be questioned is the reliability of the hits (for use as sources). The article does need some cleanup, but that is nothing a {{cleanup}} tag can't fix. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You lose half the hits if you -wikipedia and -myspace. What you have left are promotional references. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  07:50, 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 merge and redirect to Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000). the wub "?!" 14:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slann (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

This page has a blatantly wrong reference and the information provided is doubtfull. Any information of consequence is already in Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000) Thefuguestate 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all of the reasons stated in the nom are reasons to cleanup or merge/redirect. I don't see any reason to delete being advanced here.--Isotope23 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems like a clear-cut article for merge and rewriting... Not for deletion. --Falcorian (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsideration after a second examination and considering what those above have said it, does seem prudent to re-direct the page to the Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000) entry rather than delete. Thefuguestate 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you can ask an admin to close the AfD per nominator's request, then Boldly redirect it.--Isotope23 20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000) as per the suggestion already on the article. --Pak21 14:04, 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 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False/Fabled Super Saiyan forms[edit]

This page should be deleted because of WP:NOR, oh and WP:RS as well. Whispering(talk/c) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No known web site has reliable information on the image's origin (as it is a work by an unknown fan who has not come forward to claim it), thus the copyright information below is the best that can be managed.
This basically admits the article/rumour is based on an anonymous drawing. --Wafulz 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (NB: I know nothing about DB) Article is about "false-" or "fabled forms" which by their nature makes the article tend to OR or NN. First false/fabled form is stated to be a "lable"[sic] used by "some fans" and doesn't provide sources. Second section again cites "some fans" without reference then goes on to state "it is not a new Super Saiyan form" anyway. For the third section see Wafulz above. Shiroi Hane 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and cry soft tears of desperation. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 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 to merge the article into Civilian casualties. --  Denelson83  23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting civilians[edit]

This is just a definition. It also smells strongly of a POV fork Avi 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article on offense. No bloviating about Lebanon 2006, though. Citable cases of prosecutions or security council actions on these grounds are ok subjects for this article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is just a word definition. If a list were to be complied of all the alledged violations or all the countries with a policy on it then it would be a very long list indeed. Better to make notes on allegations of targetting civilians in pages on specific conflicts and have specific pages for peices international legislation. Thefuguestate 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It may be only a definition now, but it's valuable subject matter and the article should be expanded to give more infromation (what part of the geneva conventions, a couple notable examples, reactions by other countries, etc). --Daniel Olsen 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For it to be a WP:POV fork, it would have to take a particular side in a controversy. Avi has not said what side he thinks the article takes. And the only reason I haven't expanded it further is that I hate working on articles only to have them deleted as "forks" when they are really "spin-off" articles. --Uncle Ed 18:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef stub, with no clear path for expansion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it became more than a dicdef, it would have a really strange scope. Topic is better handled elsewhere, I'm sure. Merge to civilian casualties. I knew it was handled better elsewhere! Recury 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to civilian casualties, which could really use some material on the relevant international laws and so forth. This is a pretty major concept way before the incidents mentioned in the stub (e.g. the Hostages Trial). Kirill Lokshin 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge An unencyclopedic and pov title but some of the content seems acceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kirill Lokshin (but leave out the POV qualifier: "and is specifically condemned by leaders of the Western world such as America and Israel.") Yomanganitalk 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not non-neutral. It ascribes the opinion to the people who espouse it, rather than presenting it as Wikipedia's own. Neutrality is about not having Wikipedia adopt a side as its own in any given discussion. What it is is unsourced and potentially original research, and in need of of a {{who}}. Uncle G 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, which is why I didn't say "leave out the non-NPOV qualifier" - if they source it they can put it back in. Yomanganitalk 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calling it "POV" instead of "non-NPOV" is a respelling without a difference, and doesn't change the fact that the problem is lack of sourcing, not non-neutrality. Uncle G 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legal concept distinct from civilian casualty. "Targeting" means doing it knowingly and intentionally. That has legal, moral, and political consequences beyond those present in inadvertent killing of civilians while targeting enemy soldiers. Michael Hardy 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a gerund, which is nonsensical as an encyclopedia article title --Musaabdulrashid 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, probably easier to develop at Civilian casualties. Sandstein 04:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into civilain casulty. If the section gets to big it can branch off into trageting civilians. Jon513 10:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kirill Lockshin, it doesn't seem to be a concept that merits a distinct article from civilian casualtys. TewfikTalk 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current contents is basicly a dicdef with a few usages, and no clear idea of how the article might be expanded. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 21 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 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bananatown Video Sharing[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. It has an insufficient Google and Alexa ranking, and unlike YouTube, does not have many sources about it. Crystallina 16:37, 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 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioteams[edit]

Appears to be vanity/neologism; may also fail WP:NOR. To be specific:

  1. Vanity: the author and main contributor to this page is User:Ken.thompson. The inventor and primary expositor of the theory described in the article, and the maintainer of the Bioteams blog, is called Ken Thompson.
  2. Neologism: searching for people other than Ken Thompson who use this term yields remarkably few results. While there are about 15,000 Google hits for the word "Bioteams", my brief sampling of these suggests that most of them are related to an apparently unrelated German company of the same name (website), while the rest fall into two broad categories: articles by Ken Thompson, and references to the Ken Thompson's blog (often in the context of people observing that they've never heard of "bioteams" before). Indeed, the article itself describes this as "a new area of research".

For these reasons, I am inclined to the view that this article should be deleted.

If the consensus ends up being that this should be kept, note that it is in serious need of cleanup; particular problems are the unencyclopedic writing style, the poor wikification, and the long, rambling "bibliography" section which contains texts that are mostly only tenuously connected to the claims of the article, and certainly do not appear to be about "bioteams" as such. — Haeleth Talk 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete All the above reasons. Thefuguestate 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent nom. --Daniel Olsen 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete EXCELLENT nomiation for AfD! I agree with your research and I can't say much more than this fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I believe you should get a citation for this..in fact, on my next break I will do just that --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very well-written and comprehensive nomination. This inspires me to make a Nominator Barnstar. And I'm less than half joking. :P I can't give any further reasoning than the nominator did, try as I might. Srose (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the related articles Interlock research and Lateral communication should be looked at as well as possibly being a neologism and unverified respectively.--Isotope23 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom no... per great nom no...... per marvellous nom :) You deserve a barnstar and infinite praises from Jimbo himself ;) Martinp23 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) M[reply]
Comment - ah - you've already got the barnstar - well done :) Martinp23 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a biological concept. Dryman 22:01, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raine's School[edit]

An article about an Internet webshow that is going to air. Need I say more? Danny Lilithborne 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated under this AfD:

  • Delete or even Speedy Delete - Doesn't make any attempt at notability, it's just some South Park ripoff cartoon that hasn't even been made yet, and even if it is made it still wouldn't deserve an article. All the episode articles should be deleted too. GrahameS 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I spent the last 15 minutes trying to decide whether to go with AfD or not...thanks for making the decision for me. Agree that the episode articles and templates should go too. --Onorem 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are added per WP:V, which is currently fails. WilyD 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When it's made and gets some third party coverage, they can have an article here. --Daniel Olsen 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, fails WP:WEB.--Isotope23 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Jacqui★ 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. No, you don't. RFerreira 21:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. I'm not seeing the notability footprint. Luna Santin 01:21, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic Associates, Inc.[edit]

non notable advertising. unlikely to meet WP:CORP hard to see how it casn be verified independantly and self created so therefore falling foul of WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO Spartaz 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom--Spartaz 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom will381796 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence or claim of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:29, 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 redirected to correct capitalisation. Be bold in future and do this yourself if you doubt it will be contested :) --james(talk) 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund pevensie[edit]

Duplicate article of Edmund Pevensie. We should merge anything into Edmund Pevensie, then redirect to there. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 18:13, 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.

Bahram Hooshyar Yousefi[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:BIO. Computerjoe's talk 10:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rees (racer)[edit]

not very notable go-karter. Page created by me using extraneous material which had been posted into [Peter Rees]. No vote, just listing for others to decide BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - WP:BIO says Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league qualify for an article. He obviously does. --Daniel Olsen 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daniel Olsen ChameleonMan 19:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No longer a go-karter, subject is now a Formula Renault driver. I question whether Formula Renault fits into the intent of "a fully professional league", as it's a minor-league training series, and I doubt anyone lives off the driver's portion of the race winnings. Article lacks cited sources to indicate any featured coverage as either an accomplished kart racer or an entry-level formula-car racer. No vote pending sources. Barno 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, we are not going to have articles on every athlete in a professional league. A top-level professional league for a popular sport, sure. But if it's either a non-top-level league (like this) or a not very popular sport, then that's just silly. Recury 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. Professional sportsperson. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge discussion to the talk page of the article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.L. Owen Elementary School[edit]

I prodded this elementary school, a prod2 was added, the prod was removed so I bring this for this discussion. If elementary schools are now notable, then it should stay, in the meanwhile I shall stick with the policy of delete. --Richhoncho 18:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment yeah, I know AfD is not the place for content issues, but whilst you are all fighting the school article fight, someone please source this article.--Isotope23 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep or merge per whatever compromise proposal is around. Thank you for bringing this issue here for "discussion", I'm sure debating the same topic for the 1,000th time will be an excellent use of our time. Kappa 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the record it was Kappa who deprodded.--Richhoncho 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, ha...we need something to keep you guys busy. Anyway, thanks to Kappa for adding verification.--Isotope23 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I hate spending time in this place. Kappa 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although rules for notability do not exist, current consensus for inclusion of schools is described in WP:SCHOOLS. This school simply does not meet any of the described characteristics of a school that should be included as a separate article. The mention of the school in the Watson Chapel School District is sufficient at present, unless other means of notability for this school are discovered and sourced. will381796 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, since all that is here is a one-line directory entry for the school. Even with expansion, it would still need to clear the WP:SCHOOLS criteria, and I don't suspect that it does. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Watson Chapel School District. Schools are notable, but there's clearly no need for an individual page at this point. If the section grows there, it can come back out again. Jacqui★ 21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jacqui. No reason at all for this school to have its own article, but there's no harm whatsoever in making it into a redirect. -- Kicking222 22:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jacqui. --Gray Porpoise 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. It is not necessary to discuss merges at Articles for deletion. Bahn Mi 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more than two possible outcomes when an article is nominated for deletion. As for the statement that schools are all notable. This is not correct. Current proposed guidelines WP:Schools clearly show that there should be a limit as to what schools can be important enough to have their own article. will381796 00:46, 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. Petros471 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaDawri GT-6[edit]

When I saw this page it read "There was no such thing as a "GT-6" produced as the earlier entry indicated. For La Dawri information se http://ladawri.com." I checked with a GSearch and came to the same conclusion and duly prodded the article. However, the article has since been modified back to an earlier version. I shall remain neutral as I'm not versed in the minuatae of automobile manufacture. --Richhoncho 18:47, 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 speedy deleted as patent nonsense. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Tanamera[edit]

Possible hoax; can't find any confirmation on Google. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can confirm that he really existed, but frankly I suspect somebody's just trying to have a bit of fun at the expense of people who don't know how to spell Guantanamera. Delete, or redirect to Guantanamera, if confirmation can't be provided. Bearcat 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense, so tagged, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:54, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T'Pring Towery[edit]

Not notable author. Only books I can find a trace of on the web are published by a vanity press. Originally tagged the article for prod, but the prod was removed (with no explanation) by an editor whose sole contributions are to this article. The Google search turns up 35 hits, 14 unique and pretty much all related either to the Wikipedia entry or to a website affiliated with lulu.com, the vanity press of the author. Pascal.Tesson 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO as author of book that fails WP:BK, no WP:RS, possible WP:VANITY. And wasn't T'Pring that chick Spock had to fight Kirk to the death for in Amok Time? --Kinu t/c 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Whpq 22:45, 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 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PESInsight[edit]

Advertisement for a website of questionable notability. Has been tagged with {{advert}} for 2 months, no significant work done to straighten it up. Suggest deleting as advertisement, WP:NOT a soapbox. Fails WP:V too (no citations for anything in the article). --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:10, 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 redirect to George Felix Allen -- Samir धर्म 06:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.R. Sidarth[edit]

Person is only notable due to an incident with Senator George Felix Allen. All content in this article was taken directly from the senator's article. Probably doesn't qualify as duplicate content but still shouldn't be out there. StuffOfInterest 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As stated in nomination. StuffOfInterest 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable except for association with Allen controversy. Sandover 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:BIO. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. modargo 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until consensus met on merge question. Then delete or redirect. Richardjames444 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to delete after reading the relevant talk pages. Richardjames444 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sidarth is Mohandas Ghandi's grandson- does this make a difference re notability? Richardjames444 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment actually he was Ghandi's secretary, so never mind. Richardjames444 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Grandson of a notable person, or of their secretary, doesn't make someone notable in themself. It does sometimes make them worthy of mention in the notable person's article. Some day, years from now, when Sidharth goes into politics himself he will be worthy of an article. At that time someone will find this old AfD and laugh at his early history. :) --StuffOfInterest 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect People will reasonably search for this person, and there should be an entry - which redirects to the section of the Allen article. He's been on television, and has been interviewed, which means users have a reasonable expectation of an entry. Stirling Newberry 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this controversy has been noted on George Felix Allen's page. I don't think a separate article is needed for this one. --Ageo020 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected Seems to be the consensus of the merge debate on Sen. Allen's talk page, and a sentiment for it here. Richardjames444 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as is. If someone searches for it, they'll be taken to the proper article now. RFerreira 21:38, 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 Speedy KEEP, nominated too recently and WP:SNOW. -Doc 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

barely notable, inflammatory, exists just to push conspiracy theory cruft POV TheOnlyChoice 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing has changed from its first nomination (Feb 2006), second nomination (Mar 2006), and third (May 2006) Middenface 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep, it's even more sourced now than it was on previous AfDs (CNN, Fox, national post, etc.) rootology (T) 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol --Striver 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gazpacho 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, referenced and endlessly rehashed, and note that the user, whose user page says 'I come to edit', made their user page their first edit, and the other three to do this AfD. Something smells funny on *that* one... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; nothing has changed, except for certain sections which seem to be undergoing revert wars. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, referenced, encyclopedic. Edison 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much as this pains me. Notable group of nutjobs in high places. Someone's gotta make it a bit more neutral, though, and cite some responses to loaded questions like "How did all three WTC buildings collapse close to the speed of which they would have collapsed had there been no structural stability at all?" when that isn't what happened at all. Raggaga 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this should be a criterion for speedy keeping. This has been nominated now 4 times, and mostly because of its political content/potential to cause offense. Could the closing admin please place a notice on the discussion page to leave it alone? - Richardcavell 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, needs cleanup however. ReverendG 02:32, 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. Hordes of single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Loy[edit]

Non-notable and reads as a vanity entry Stevenscollege 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The page does read like blog-promotion. But the fact that major old-media outlets (NYT etc) turned to a personal blog as a source in a time of major national crisis is kind of significant to the history of media -- just because it was probably one of the first times that had happened. However, merging the info into a section on "Media coverage" (which I'm surprised to see doesn't exist yet) on the Hurricane Katrina page would be fine--or maybe put it in the blog article. Minus the puff-quotes of course. Dybryd 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems Mr. Loy is also featured in Spike Lee's new movie about Hurricane Katrina.[23] -- 137.53.94.17 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion As the subject of the article, I'm not qualified to express an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. However, I just want to say that it is NOT a "vanity page," if I understand the definition of that term correctly. I did not create the article, and I have no idea who did. Nor have I participated in the revert wars that have happened in recent months; I've watched them with some amusement, but have remained on the sidelines. Anyway, if the Wikipedia community thinks it's not sufficiently notable to be included, that's fine, but I would appreciate it if people wouldn't imply that I created an article about myself when in fact I did nothing of the sort. -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:14 PM EDT
  • Keep Seems newsworthy to me. -- Anon, Aug. 18, 2006, 11:57 PM EDT
  • Delete It seems from the coverage that this blog was never used as a source for any news; just in the scores of articles about Katrina a couple noted his coverage of it. And nothing of any note has happened since then, nor does his blog have enough readers to meet the standards of notability. Not to mention that he has now made an entry on his blog about how his entry is up for deletion--insisting that it is not "meatpuppetry," naturally, but simply informing his readers (who are, as far as I can tell, his parents and a few college friends) of the "interesting" fact that it's up for a vote. Nautikale 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Solid case for notability provided with verifiable & reliable sources. Alexa gives a current rank of 227,116 (3 mo. average), but also shows a recent spike (last week) to ~51,000 and a peak of ~25,000 during the Katrina days. -- Scientizzle 06:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am also surprised a "Media Coverage" section on Hurricane Katrina does not exist yet. While I do not find this article to be a vanity post, the information contained in this article would be much more relevant as part of the Hurricane Katrina page. Ravenkatie 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only contribution has been this AfD -- Scientizzle 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be the most I would agree with. The only arguable notability of the blog was a few puff pieces related to Katrina a year ago. The only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage, and it was not enough attention that an account of Katrina would mention Brendan Loy other than perhaps as a minor footnote. Wikipedia should reflect that. I still think he's not worth a mention at all, but if he merits any Wikipedia mention it should be as a minor footnote to Hurricane Katrina, not an entry of his own. Nautikale 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, look. I again reiterate that I am expressing no opinion about whether the article is notable. That's a decision for y'all, not me, to make. But I'm not going to let blatant untruths and character assassination go unchallenged. First of all, the implication that I'm engaging in meatpuppetry, despite my repeated, straightforward, honest statements to the contrary, is a flagrant violation of "assume good faith." Secondly, the assertion that my readers are my "parents and a few college friends" is laughably false. Really, I'm flattered by the assertion that I have thousands of "college friends," but it's just not true; I wasn't that popular in college! :) Before Katrina, my blog averaged around 1,250 unique hits per day; during and in the immedate aftermath of Katrina, that shot up to 7,500+ per day, and as many as 20,000-33,000 on some days; and since November of last year, after Katrina, it's hovered around 2,000 per day (see for yourself here), with occasional higher bursts (last week, for example, I received a ton of traffic because of widespread blogospheric discusison of my commentary on the Lieberman-Lamont election (and, to a lesser extent, the London terror plot). That leads to my final point: "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage" is simply, flatly, verifiably untrue. See, for example, this list of 69 links from InstaPundit since February 2003 -- only about 20 of them related to Katrina. Other topics covered on my blog that have received significant attention from multiple prominent bloggers: my coverage of the Bush-Lieberman "kiss" (try googling "bush lieberman kiss," without quotes, and see what comes up); my commentary on John Kerry's deficiencies during the 2004 election; my coverage of the South Park controversy back in March (check the Wikipedia entry and the link to "Internet clip" in paragraph 4 of "Real-life censorship controversy"); the Lieberman-Lamont election and the London plot, as I mentioned (see for example Technorati); and there's plenty more. Technorati notes I have recevied 737 links from 310 blogs, by the way. Also getting plenty of attention: my coverage of USC and Notre Dame football generally, and specifically my videos of the USC-Notre Dame game last fall, taken from the ND student section, which have gotten repeatedly linked by fan sites for both teams. Oh, and if you want non-blogospheric sources of "attention" ... I was on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal and mentioned on Fox News nearly two years before Katrina because of a Lord of the Rings-related story. And, two months before Katrina, I was in the South Bend Tribune just for my blog generally, not for any specific topic. Now, AGAIN: I am not asserting that this level of "attention" makes me "notable" -- that's for you all to decide, not me. I'm simply refuting the false statement that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." My intention here is to correct the factual record, and nothing more. Whatever you decide, I simply hope you'll base your decision on verifiable facts, not unverified and untrue assertions. I also hope you'll assume good faith and not attack me for leaving this comment here. The mere fact that I don't appreciate being the subject of factual untruths and character assassination doesn't make the article a "vanity entry." (And, if I were into sockpuppetry, wouldn't I leave this comment under someone else's name?) -- Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 3:48 PM EDT
        • Ok, wow. Please make sure you understand the terms you are using before reacting so vehemently to a discussion. I reiterate that I just don't think this person or blog meets any of the guidelines of notability, either people or websites. Instapundit is a good comparison: that's a website that has attained enough of a readership and notoriety on its own to merit an entry. Having been linked from it does not make a blog of the same stature. Nautikale 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My "character assassination" reference was to your unsupported, false, assuming-bad-faith allegation (at 05:17 today) that I was engaging in meatpuppetry. If you'll withdraw the allegation, I'll withdraw my use of the term "character assassination." As for your reiterating that you "just don't think" the subject of the article is notable, that's fine, and for the umpteenth time I am not expressing an opinion about that conclusion -- I'm just saying that you need to stick to facts and not state things which are blatantly and demonstrably false, like that my blog's readership is limited to friends and family, or that "the only attention this blog seems to have ever gotten is directly related to the Katrina coverage." Those are both factually incorrect assertions, as I've demonstrated above, and if you're not going to either acknowledge their falsity and retract them, or else attempt to refute or somehow explain away the factual citations above which discredit your unsupported statements to the contrary, I don't see why anyone should take your contribution to this discussion seriously. My response is "vehement" only because you are assuming bad faith and making false assertions of fact about me, neither of which have any place in Wikipedia. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:00 PM EDT
          • P.S. For informational purposes only: you may find this page helpful in assessing the extent of the Katrina-related media coverage about my site. Please note, the page does not include non-Katrina-related articles. --Brendan Loy, Aug. 19, 2006, 6:07 PM
  • Comment I have expanded and cleanly referenced the article. I think it stands up to WP:BIO & WP:WEB pretty well.
    • WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Check.
    • WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Check.
    • WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." Check. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pure vanity page as evidenced by the fact that the subject has updated it himself and constantly posts here vigorously defending his honor against 'character assassination'. Writing a blog is decidedly unnoteworthy no matter how much it is temporarily popular. 24.63.250.152 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Loy's constant presence in this discussion is rather indicative of his personal investment in this vanity page staying up. Regardless of whether the subject wrote the entry himself or not, whoever the author is has an obvious non-journalistic interest in Loy. 82.69.72.36 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Jaffa[reply]
    • IP's only contribution is this AfD -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My presence in this discussion is indicative of no such thing, as I've repeatedly made explicitly clear. My only "investment" is in correcting the factual record and preventing untruths from being passed off as truths. Do what you want with the damn article, but if you say things that are demonstrably false, I am going to correct them. If that's wrong, then I don't want to be right. Your assumption of bad faith on my part is indicative that you don't seem to have any respect for Wikipedia's most basic principles. The same goes for everyone who insists on ignoring the verifiable facts I've presented and focusing only on the ulterior motives that you ascribe to me, notwithstanding that my actions are perfectly reasonable and justifiable without any ulterior motive (and thus assuming good faith is dictated). (Brendan Loy) 67.133.222.170 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While Loy may deny his personal investment in keeping this page up through words, his incessant replies to almost every entry seem to indicate otherwise. His rebuttal to "blatant untruths and character assassination" reads as a veiled attempt at advertising and making the case to keep. This page has been nothing but a pissing match between Loy's supporters and his detractors. To merge as part of a wider look at blogs or Hurricane Katrina would be acceptable. It is not worthy on its own.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.65.55 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep — per Scientizzle. Dionyseus 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A review of the subject page, coupled with comments by both Loy and his college friends ( I believe user Scientizzle is a close personal friend) reveals that the blog is, in fact not designed to inform per Wikipedia's standards, and, in fact, is being used by Loy and his friends to publicize his blog. In addition, it is worth noting that the entry has been subject to frequent edit wars, which indicate that it is being used as a forum for his friends and detractors to air personal grievances. The entry provides little to no value as a scholarly enterprise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.117.18 (talk • contribs) .
    • The article being subject to frequent edit wars is not a valid argument for deletion, otherwise George W. Bush or anything else here should be deleted... -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am friends with Brendan. That does not change the fact that almost none of the anonymous IPs (and new accounts) that have commented here have presented a valid, detailed argument against keeping (by addressing the relevant policies and guidelines). You may not think the subject is notable, but Wikipedia has two established notability guidelines (WP:BIO & WP:WEB); I have detailed above 4 criteria from these two guidelines that the article appears to meet. I believe I've objectively come to my "keep" vote and properly supported my conclusion. Additionally, while Brendan Loy has been (in my opinion) overly zealous in defending his honor here, there have been several specious and demonstrably false claims made in support of deletion. I honestly wonder where all these anon IPs and new accounts with no Wikipedia edit history are coming from. Please stick to the facts, make sounds arguments, and avoid personal attacks. -- Scientizzle 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I appreciate your contributions to the discussion and your evident hard work on the entry, although I still disagree with your conclusions. But I disagree with any characterization of the previous discussions, including my own, as "demonstrably false claims" or personal attacks. You will notice that I qualified the statements I made with things like "as far as I can tell" and "seems like." This is because I am not friends with Brendan Loy and know only what I read online. For example, I said it seems like the only attention his blog got from outside sources was connected to Katrina--and I stand by that, qualified by the "seems." It's great that Mr. Loy can give an exhaustive account of every time his blog has been linked by another blog, and I wish him the best in expanding his readership, but the average user on Wikipedia who does not read his blog regularly would not know or care about a two-day spike in traffic to his website last month. Nor would they particularly care that a fake South Park video clip linked to by another Wikipedia entry happens to be hosted on his blog in one of the two places it is linked to on the page. The only larger significance that the blog seems to have achieved was in relation to Katrina. This is not a claim that nobody has ever linked to the blog in relation to another topic, or that I'm committing character assassination on Mr. Loy by failing to recognize his achievements in other areas. I just don't think, as a casual reader and relatively new acquaintance of the blog, that it has significance of the type generally required by Wikipedia. I have referred to Wikipedia's guidelines previously, but to repeat: Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (people)(WP:BIO). He has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field. He is not a published author with multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work. He has not achieved renown or notoriety for his involvement in in newsworthy events. At best, he has achieved minor note for assembling information on Hurricane Katrina, so at most I think it it would be accurate, if generous, to mention his blog as related to media coverage of the hurricane. He has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Brendan Loy does not meet the guidelines of Notability (web)(WP:WEB). I do not consider the handful of what I would call puff pieces on Brendan Loy multiple non-trivial published works. No disrespect meant, but I do not believe articles headlined "Weather nerd" are non-trivial pieces. His website has not won a well-known and independent award, nor is it published by any site independent of Mr. Loy himself. Nautikale 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see anything here that's worthy of an ecyclopedia article. Sounds more like some guy with a blog looking to do some self-advertising.-66.254.235.231 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Self-stroking glamour post, just like his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.208 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost storm[edit]

I prod'd for a host of concerns and prod was removed without explanation: the page wasn't at all formatted well(was not addressed when prod was removed), the article cited no sources and was not very well verifiable on google(the sources have only been from company website so far), the article used the first person voice(not addressed), the article read like an advertisement(not addressed). And after all that it also appears to fail WP:CORP i kan reed 19:47, 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 Del. Blatant abuse of wikipedia: a solicitation for personal gain of user:Druid wicca, quoting: "They are available through eBay and PictureTrail.com under the user ID of druid_wicca." `'mikka (t) 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy Bracelets[edit]

Spam, spam, spam. NN product. Prod removed by author. --Merope 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, nothing but advertising for "fabolous" but nonnotable product. NawlinWiki 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Entirely advertisement, clearly not notable. Switchercat talkcont 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this not eligible for speedy delete? will381796 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Sadly, no. Review the policies here. -- Merope 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, pure spam. `'mikka (t) 21:40, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, keepers are unanimous. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights and the Holocaust[edit]

I think this hits the trifecta of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NNOT.
I acknowledge that this was a mistaken nomination, and suggest a speedy keep Dybryd 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you had waited more than 29 minutes before nominating it for deletion, you would have seen that, in fact, the article is already well-sourced and is far from being original research. There is a significant body of literature on the comparison, which the article aims to explore. I'm unclear why you think NOT is applicable, or why you think it's not NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you're right, I was just zipping along doing stubs and didn't really check how the page had changed. Sorry--at least on AFD lots of people will notice your brand new article, eh? Dybryd 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a well known and often used debate tactic for animal-rights supporters. will381796 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSpeedy Keep per nominator's withdraw of nomination. well sourced encyclopaedic article. I'm not sure we can ask for more. If a number of people have a stupid opinion, but it's enough that it passes WP:V, then it ought to have an article. WilyD 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is already pretty good. And if even if it wasn't, why don't we give it more than mere minutes before we start AfD'ing. I'm also not sure I see any concrete arguments against this article, merely boilerplate WP policy refs. IronDuke 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The easiest way to catch bad articles is to read over the newest articles - that's why many AfD are on articles that are minutes or hours old - and they're usually worth deleting. We all make mistakes. WilyD 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wily, I think when someone sees that an established editor has created a stub, it's best to wait more than a few minutes in order to give it a chance to grow. If it's an anon, fair enough, but if it's a known editor, a tiny bit of good faith should be shown. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I acknowledged it was a mistake on the part of the nominator. I was just trying to explain to the inquiring mind what had happened. WilyD 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is possible we all make mistakes but this was the state of the article when it was put up for AfD. It is well sourced. Given the quality of the article the least one could do is be specific about which parts are viewed to fail WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NNOT. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't WP:OR, doesn't violate WP:NPOV, and, in my opinion, seems to be a noteworthy subject. Srose (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be well sourced and valid article. May be the nominator could clarify exactly where they seem the problem in this article. it is not inherently obvious. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic topic, well written, well sourced - quite remarkable given its brief existence. The nomination was a bit hasty. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There's a lot of controversy surrounding the subject and so there will be a great deal of sources. Jacqui★ 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Slim and I discussed its creation, even though she and I are (or thought we were!) at opposite sides on this issue. Anyway, this is a typical example of a thoughtless nomination that accuses a spin-off article of being a WP:POV fork.
    • We need to modify the VFD requirements. People should have to give detailed reasons. Showing examples of how an article violates NPOV, if that's the policy cited. The burden of proof should be on the nominator, and it should should not be settled by voting. --Uncle Ed 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure all it shows is that I'm an idiot. An appropriate consensus was quickly reached, and voting would be open to way more abuse than this system. Dybryd 22:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dybryd, you are not an idiot. You were perhaps hasty, that's all, though acting in good faith. Next time, maybe you could consider clicking on the user page of the page creator. If it's someone's third edit, that's not a good sign. If it's their 40,000th, it's a better sign. But no harm done. IronDuke 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's only their third edit, you know they're still sane. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 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 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazerfan (band)[edit]

This band was brought to attention by an AfD of one of its members, Beth Hada; some research indicates that the band has no albums out at this point, there is no indication of a national tour, it is signed to a record label that got less than 20 Google hits and appears to not have a Web presence outside of references to this band - essentially, it does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 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 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Captives Free[edit]

Non-notable propaganda website, nominated for speedy deletion under an invalid speedy criterion so brought here. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:V WilyD 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep organization receives over 40,000 ghits. Seems to be pretty notable among the psycho-conservative christians. If more information added and cited to this article, emphasizing its importance to that audience, I can see it being a useful addition to Wikipedia. will381796 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, inherantly POV --Musaabdulrashid 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on formal grounds: the article fails WP:WEB in that "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria [of WP:WEB] via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." Sandstein 05:05, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Deutch[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion as CSD-A7 non-notable, but I wasn't sure so it comes here. Technical nomination - no opinion is being expressed by me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Non-notable individual known by some for a commercial for a non-notable company = deletion. will381796 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Dryman
  • Delete. Reads like advertising copy. Individual does not meet WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article smeels like WP:SPAM, and article lacks verification from independent reliable sources that would satisfy WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article has been changed to suite above suggestions. In regards to non notable individual, Roni Deutch is a commonly mentioned tax related company such as Jackson Hewitt. Roni Deutch was a Requested Article. The article meets many of the biography requirements "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field," as well as many of the alternative tests (professor test, verifiability, expandability, google test). mathewguiver 5:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article still reads like an ad or vanity article / advertising — a biography that advertises her firm's services — it mentions her company as having "helped thousands of clients" and as being "recognized" by the BBB. Is this a company ad or a bio of a person? — ERcheck (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: The article has been revised again, it now reads like a biography of a person. If there are any other suggestions on how to improve the article please let me know. Thank you. mathewguiver 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pending clean up to remove ad spam. I have seen her commercials in at least 5 different major markets in the Midwest and South East and the way she says Deutch never fails to grates my ears. She merits an article but it needs to be better then what this is. 205.157.110.11 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It may read like a biography of a person but a very non notable person. As far as suggestions, well, invent some notable things about her. GBYork 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: In response to her non notability... Roni Deutch is the head of a major tax corporation that services clients throughout the united states. Her corporation is highly advertised through television commercials. She and her commercials are often mentioned in hundreds of forums and blogs online example 1 example 2. She is even featured in Urban Dictionary for Deutch, and she even has her own fan page. She was the first person to use the phrase pennies on the dollar, which has gained her quite a bit of popularity. Game FAQs even mentions her on their page selling a video game "Roni Deutch may settle your tax debts for $20, but this is the better deal." Also Jackson Hewitt has a wikipedia page and that is who I would consider similar to Roni Deutch. mathewguiver 19:12, 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 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Royal Rumble TV Show[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion with the words "fake tv show", which is not a speedy criterion. So it comes here on behalf of the nominator who should have done this her/his self. Technical nomination, no opinion from me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as searches on Google lead to information about the Royal Rumble itself, but nothing else along the lines given in the article. :: Colin Keigher 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. SubSeven 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ST47 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as complete nonsense. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per NeoChaosX --Edgelord 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a hoax but it's not nonsense. I wish we could speedy it. - Richardcavell 02:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-Wars[edit]

Article does not assert that this browser-based game meets WP:WEB. --W.marsh 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB, Alexa rank 109,363, unreferenced, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and starblind and as per WP:WEB ST47 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Anomo 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nor per WP:WEB, but the fact that it's POV and original research. The entire article reads like an ad. Havok (T/C/c) 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think WP:WEB is really applicable, btu this doesn't follow guidelines at all. It's an ad and a borderline guide. If someone wants to make a good article, they can start from scratch. Nothing here is useful. Ace of Sevens 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above--Peephole 13:05, 21 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 16:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabaet[edit]

del. A name only once mentioned in Bible. No more than a single sentence is an article kinda Names mentioned in the Bible. BTW, is there an article of this sort? `'mikka (t) 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete see List of Biblical names ST47 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this article (stub?) would make a hole in the web!
  • Delete we don't need an article about one use of a name. JPD (talk) 10:29, 25 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 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Garrido[edit]

Despite the page's long history, I see no evidence of notability. Page on es: redirects to something in the Wikipedia: namespace, which leads me to believe it has been deleted. Joke 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the stuff about the big bang is at best self-aggrandising nonsense. –Joke 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete –Joke 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per every sane thought any scientict has ever had ST47 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The Spanish page lists him under people who only exist in the imagination of their creators. Yomanganitalk 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quack-cruft. 205.157.110.11 08:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he is right and that he has nailed with an extremely simple argument the old question of the origins of the universe. I envy him. 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. RFerreira 21:11, 21 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 do not delete. If someone wants to redirect/merge, go ahead (as long as consensus exists on article's talk), that doesn't need afd to decide. Petros471 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P funk mothership[edit]

Nonsense. Maybe notable (or not), but it'd need a ground-up rewrite. Prod removed. Fireplace 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (changed to Weak Keep) the mothership concept was pretty important in Parliament lore, and is central to (and on the cover of) their Mothership Connection album, one of the most important albums of its time. However, the current article is unencyclopedic and would need almost a complete rewrite to fix. If anyone is up for doing just that, though, I'll happily change my vote to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated vote after improvements by Drett. Still needs some sourcing and clarification though, especially statements like "However scientists from America's MIT and Europe's ESA have both observed a strong trend toward increasing world Funk levels..." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to P-Funk mythology (which might also need a bit of re-writing). — Catherine\talk 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to P-Funk mythology as above. 205.157.110.11 08:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I contested the prod on this on the basis that I would fix it up a bit, and then I went to sleep (too funked out, I guess). I've made some changes: removed unnecessary superlatives, added qualifiers to indicate what is part of the mythology. What do youse think now? Drett 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As someone completely unfamiliar with the genre, after reading the (revised) article I still have no idea what the mothership is supposed to be. Is it just a stage prop? Does it belong in some narrative? This is why it strikes me as needing a rewrite from a blank slate. Fireplace 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Hey, I've changed it a bit more. I thought it would need a rewrite from a blank slate too, but I think what is there can be worked into something good. It's a bit better now, but it needs some more about where it fits in the narrative. Drett 21:46, 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. Petros471 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Gordon[edit]

No sources, only claim to notability seems to be that his daughter was on American Idol. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that Rocky Gordon is a jazz musician that I have reviewed, and so has Jazz Times magazine to name a few. I support this artist 100%. Danny Desart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find any reliable independent sources on him. He's released three albums on what I see as an obscure indie jazz label (Misata). --Wafulz 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and wafulz and as per WP:MUSIC ST47 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!! In 2002 Hilary Sager reviewed the CD Perfect World in Jazz Times Magazine and although was not a fan of the production, she did say the following, "...Careful listening reveals Gordon's talent for crafting a melody, and devising understated memorable hooks." In addition, I did hear Gordon get airplay on KOAS 105.7 and KXPT 97.1 in Vegas a few years back. I would check the history of Jazz Time Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs)

    • User's only significant edits are at the article and AFD. Ryūlóng 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This I found Rocky all over the internet. And I know he's a very good up and coming jazz musician. He worked with Spyro Gyra's keyboardist and producer, Tom Schuman. And I know that to be accepted in Liebman's Saxophone Masterclass you have to send an audition tape or CD. Liebman only chooses 15 or 16 people from all around the world, all ages. How much more credible can you get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravioli3 (talk • contribs)
    • User's only edits are at the article and AFD. Ryūlóng 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!! This is an up and coming artist with a building underground following. He's worked with some heavy dudes in the industry over the years, like producer Dennis McKay for one, who has produced everyone from Chick Corea to Judas Priest. He's just not a household name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzdude (talk • contribs)
    • User's only edits are at the article and AFD. Ryūlóng 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the article stands it should be deleted. However, if those people who are in favour of the article remaining could at least improve the article with sourced facts then it should stay. --Richhoncho 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per massive sockpuppetry at this AFD so far. Ryūlóng 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And failure of WP:MUSIC, of course. Why this article didn't fall under {{db-bio}} is beyond me. Ryūlóng 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Who cares what the article should fall under. It has proven credibility for an upstart musician. User:Bustapete
      Another new account created solely for this AfD - David Oberst 06:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, only keep votes appear to be anons or new accounts created to push this article. - David Oberst 06:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit The Editors** Who ever heard of Mr. Oberst outside of his reply? What does someone from the northwest territories know about jazz and credible musicians? I am at the least a columnist. I write for Smoothvibes.com and freelance for Jazz Times and Downbeat Magazine. Where are his credentials? Media:Danny Desart
      • I can hardly quarrel with Mr Desart's appraisal of our relative jazz credentials. However, I can certainly recognize anonymous vote stacking attempts, which I'm sure he would abhor, and ad hominem attacks, his position on which I have much less surety. - David Oberst 05:07, 27 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 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PerspectiveWiki[edit]

Not notable wiki engine. The Google search for PerspectiveWiki (one word) turns up 5 unique hits. "Perspective wiki" does a bit better: 645 ghits with 196 unique. That still isn't much as most top pages are listings of wiki engines. Only mention I could find is a year old mention in an article of InternetWeek and refining the search by adding "engine" cuts it down to 65 unique hits, [24] none of which qualify as solid third-party coverage. The page has been tagged for months with every editing tag out there. And did I mention the page was created by a single-purpose account? Pascal.Tesson 21:36, 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 Speedy redirect. I am an administrator, and Martinp23 is correct. Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Nominations of the form "I have merged the content into X and now want this article deleted." are erroneous. Remember: If you had wanted the content deleted, you would not have copied and pasted it into another article. Uncle G 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grassfield Elementary School[edit]

I have merged the limited content into Chesapeake, Virginia Chesapeake City Public Schools. Nothing notable enough to justify the retention of this article. Delete. BlueValour 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it's been merged already, can't it be speedied as housekeeping? Akradecki 22:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it's been merged already, then this is a "speedy redirect, close the AfD, and move on with our lives" type of situation. -- Kicking222 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this was incorrectly closed by a non-admin. It should have been deleted first and the non-admin didn't have that power. I am happy for an admin to Speedy Delete. BlueValour 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep - I closed this discussion as a non-admin because it is an incomplete merge. When you merge two articles, like you've done here, BlueValour, the page you've merged from should be made into a redirect, because people will still be looking for the page at its old name. A redirect doesn't require a delete or admin powers, so I carried it out, as authorised in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. So its best to just do a speedy redirect, where no admin is needed. Thanks Martinp23 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I merged the content /not/ the article. Please don't give lectures when you do not follow the guidelines yourself. It was /not/ an unambiguous Keep. BlueValour 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You merged the complete content of the article, which amounts to the article as a whole. It's normal procedure to make a redirect, as suggested here, to the new page from the old - not delete it. If the page is deleted, the problem is that the contributors' details are lost, which conflicts with the GFDL, which wikipedia tries to follow at all times. When an admin does come along, he/she will close this discussion exactly as I have - the difference being that admins don't have much time and I have more, so I may as well carry out what I can in terms of closing AfD's Martinp23 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. A merge/redirect is an editorial decision that the creator can reverse. A delete/redirect he cannot. BlueValour 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The creator could reverse a delete/redirect by just copy=pasting the inforamtion as held elsewhere into the article. If the creator were to revert a merge/redirect, he could just be put right and pointed to the appropriate AfD. It looks like I'm not going to be able to bring you round to my reasoning, so I'll ask the closing admin to decide on what the proper course of action was (should I have closed when I tried to?) (I'm going to sleep sonn - so may not reply for a while) thanks Martinp23 00:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If a delete/redirect is bypassed then the Speedy delete procedure comes into play and, if need be, the namespace can be protected. A merge/redirect is simply an editorial move with no binding effect - a merge/redirect is a variation on a Keep. BlueValour 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Exactly. This is why deletion, and AFD, play no part in article merger. Uncle G 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect - my last vote appears to have been deleted. Martinp23 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Please note that deleting after a merge destroys the edit history and violates the GFDL. If we are going to keep the content, deletion is not an option. -- Visviva 10:16, 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 - Hoax/Fiction (would be CSD candidate IMHO). Tawker 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chesterfield[edit]

This is a fake bio. There is no Daniel Chesterfield. It is a fake persona created by a comedian for a viral video posted around the internet [25]. Beyond the fact that this whole article is complete nonsense, the video isn't very notable. IrishGuy talk 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax/fiction. Akradecki 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete destroy all hoaxes. Danny Lilithborne 23:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Free-time experiment in wikipedia's editability. ReverendG 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, destroy all non-notable hoaxes. RFerreira 21:09, 21 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Know-It-All[edit]

Made up info about Kelly Clarkson's next album. No sources listen and google search returns nothing, besides which there's no way track times or info would be known this far in advance.GrahameS 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I saw this as a new page created as well today and tried my best to find any information to verfiy it. Every article I found about her had no information about the 3rd album, just that she was going to be recording it soon. So if there is a source out there I could not find it. DrunkenSmurf 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not a crystal ball. Akradecki 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and akradecki and as per WP:NOT ST47 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CBism. Danny Lilithborne 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. ReverendG 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax and Wikipedia is not a record store. 205.157.110.11 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no two ways about it, this is a Hoax. TgC19
  • Delete It's just too good to be true. MorwenofLossarnarch 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of this article has already been confirmed as not true before it was added here Maverickfl 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recording for this album has barely begun. There are at least 40 songs in the running to make the album. This article is entirely fabricated.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priority Club Rewards[edit]

Spam, probably copyvio. Petros471 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally tagged for speedy deletion as {{db|spam}}, which the article author removed. Didn't bother to restore it myself; I was too busy figuring out how to put the following in words. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at very least Completely rewrite. Notability aside, strong suspicion of a copyvio aside (sorry, I couldn't find a web source to back that up that easily, so I can only say it looks like something copied off of promo material), this would anyway need a complete rewrite, because it's 100% marketspeak and goes completely against the Wikipedia style. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely non-encyclopedic, and really not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Akradecki 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I'd say just reading it that its been created from some internal company document. Advertising and NPOV and I doubt its notable enough to justify trying to find any reliable sources. --Spartaz 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even an attempt at being an ecnyclopedia article, nor could it easily become one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, per nom, starblind, and akradecki ST47 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant spam, no question about it. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam spam spam spam. It ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion. - Richardcavell 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group. Compare OnePass, WorldPerks, SkyMiles frequent flyer programs which all redirect to their parent airlines (Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines). (As far as I can tell so far, the only corporate loyalty program that merits its own page is AAdvantage, which is notable independently because it was the first such program. Sertrel 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Visiting [26] redirects to a subsidiary website of the InterContinental Hotels Group. Sertrel 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sertel. I work for Intercontinental Hotels, and even I dont find this article worthy. It is just copy and paste from a website (not the one listed). Spam; poor formatting, non encyclopedic Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:05, 21 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironvine[edit]

Advertising/spam from a company that doesn't meet the notability criteria for corporations. Akradecki 22:25, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THAF Files[edit]

This is an article about a series of books that have yet to be published. Article therefore fails as crystal ball gazing, not notable and pretty impossible to independantly verify. Suggest author recreate after publication if the books are successful. Also hints of vanity and advertising and possibly NPOV Spartaz 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom --Spartaz 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Akradecki 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like an interesting concept, but according to [www.cafepress.com/rdgraham this] it's only available at Cafepress at the moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and starblind, and as per WP:NN and WP:NOT a crystal ball or whatever ST47 23:01, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nett Solutions, Inc.[edit]

Was deleted via prod, reposted. Spam. Petros471 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Third- and fourth-ever edits by User:Cbsonoma. The first and second ones are below. No other contribs. Note that he refers to "this guy" when the article in question is about the company. Note also a certain CBSonoma has posted elsewhere about Hagmier: [27]. As for my "vendetta", I wasn't the one who nominated this article, and I treat all non-notable articles the same way, Mr. Hagmier Sonoma. StarryEyes 02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Was deleted before and reposted. Company fails WP:CORP. Speedy seems glaringly appropriate. Dipics 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was deleted after an admin deleted it from an uncontested prod. I take that to mean that the author disputes the prod but is not familiar with wikipedia process. Lack of notability is a valid reason for speedying, however. - Richardcavell 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Dipics. Dave Null 15:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I could have probably got away with an WP:IAR speedy deletion as spam, but it doesn't actually meet any speedy deletion criteria. CSD G4 (recreation) does not apply, because recreation of an article deleted via prod automatically counts as a contested prod. A7 does not apply for companies. Hence this afd. Petros471 15:52, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Hagmier[edit]

Here's the bio of the CEO of the above-mentioned company. Has about 1,000 Google hits. The article appears to be factual, even the bits about dating Hollywood actresses, but the article boasts no sources, original research, a lack of notability, and possibly vanity. Note also one primary contributor, a User:Therabreathinfo, and mysterious disappearances of NPOV and vanity tags. StarryEyes 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick Google search turns up no reliable sources talking about him in the first few dozen hits, suggesting he's non-notable. The removal of the npov and other tags -- without explanation -- at least hits to vanity/advertising. But I will assume good faith for now. eaolson 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't appear to be vanity and while he may not be the CEO of a Fortune 100 Company, he does seem to have achieved notable success. Also, there is a reference to Fortune's Small Business Magazine having done an article or blurb on him. Keep it. User:CBSonoma
Note: First- and second-ever edits by User:Cbsonoma. No other contribs except above. Note also a certain CBSonoma has posted elsewhere about Hagmier: [28]. StarryEyes 02:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear vanity. My favorite is the "list of hot chicks that I bagged" at the end. 205.157.110.11 08:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article. Dave Null 15:23, 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; default to keep. Petros471 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions of Kate Bush songs[edit]

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 22:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many articles on musical artists contain lists of cover versions, and there's nothing inherently OR about such lists. This one just happens to be long enough to spill over into its own article. More information than Wikipedia absolutely needs on the subject, to be sure, but WP:NOT paper. —Celithemis 23:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random. Gazpacho 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Raggaga 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep As a Kate Bush fan this is information I might be interested in looking up. Normally such a list would just be in her article, but this is long enough to need its own page. And it's not really OR, just collation. Dybryd 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The numbers are for delete, but dear admin: notable only to those with an interest in the subject is still notable. Dybryd 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one serves a purpose as a valid content fork from Kate Bush. 205.157.110.11 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Anonymous user (obviously), though with quite a few contributions. It seems to be a shared IP, however. StarryEyes 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but I am by far the best looking of the bunch. 205.157.110.11 23
07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OREdison 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A finite list with rigid criteria, far from indiscriminate. This list makes no original research assertions. Legitimate fork from Kate Bush article since it shows the wide influence of her music. I don't know much about her myself, and was surprised to discover this. --SevereTireDamage 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think there is anything wrong with a list like this. It's usefual and certainly would be a topic people will search for or be interested in finding out about. Evil Eye 17:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Exactly the sort of thing someone might want to research. Mallanox 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge, as per SevereTireDamage. —freak(talk) 12:11, Aug. 22, 2006 (UTC)
  • Week Keep (full disclosure - Kate Bush would join Glenn Gould in having a couple of entries on my desert island discs). I haven't looked closely at various songwriter/band articles, but I assume a section within an article of songs covered by others wouldn't be challenged as WP:OR, so I'm not sure a fuller list is inherently a problem - certainly requiring sourcing footnotes on each song would seem onerous, and I assume not common practice? If there is a consensus that lists of covered songs in general are unencyclopedic then this one can be tossed, but if the issue is the notability of the songwriter I'd have to demur. - David Oberst 07:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment - Taking a look at Category:Dynamic lists of songs, most of the members are somewhat arbitrary subjects such as List of songs about disease or List of songs that have reprises, leading to User:StarryEyes' valid grumble. List of cover versions of Kate Bush songs seems an exception in dealing with a specific artist, and is perhaps mis-categorized (perhaps Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers instead)? There seems to be things like List of artists who have covered songs by The Smiths, List of artists who have covered ABBA songs, List of Genesis covers, etc., while on the other hand List of Pearl Jam songs covered by others seems to have been merged and redirected to Pearl Jam. I've upgraded to a stronger Keep - artist-specific lists like this should probably be rounded up, considered as a group, and some sort of consensus found to either delete them or establish some sort of notability guidelines. - David Oberst 00:30, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about romance/nocturnal[edit]

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. Note: this list isn't about songs about romance, but songs about romance with a "nocturnal" theme. I suppose lists of songs about romance with List of songs about romance/mid-morning can't be far behind... StarryEyes 22:24, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:25, 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. Petros471 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about the seasons of the year[edit]

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as this is somewhat meaningful ST47 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Meaningful maybe, but what's the foreseeable use for this? Raggaga 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Not useful, but not as crufty as some of the other lists of songs. --Gray Porpoise 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't see too much of a purpose for this list other than taking up space. --Wafulz 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 02:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with the above that it has meaning, seasons can be symbolic; not so much original research as some of the other nominated lists. Needs more blue links CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still indiscriminate in the vague "meaning" they might have. For me, Seasons in the Sun hold meaning as they song that I lost my [cough] to, but that meaning doesn't add to the encyclopedic worth of this list. 205.157.110.11 08:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think many people are interested in songs about the seasons. At Christmas, people sing and listen to Christmas songs and during the summer, there are summer hits played on the radio. J 1982
  • Delete per nom. --musicpvm 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I'm with "about" not being a significant feature of songs and lists of that basis being indiscriminate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Michael Hays 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - David Oberst 02:24, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title has 2 or more rhyming words[edit]

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:27, 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 keep (no consensus). 1ne 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with more than one music video[edit]

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don't see who would care ST47 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the other lists, nominated above, this is an eneyclopedic topic. Since music videos often cost a bit to make, there's usually an interesting reason why a second version needed to be made, often due to controversy such as "Opportunities" by Pet Shop Boys and "Post Post Modern Man" by DEVO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this one is well-defined, maintainable, and mildly interesting. Gazpacho 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gazpacho. Some of the comments on the article's Talk page seem to suggest that it has the potential to end up a terrible mess, but as it currently stands it's quite a handy little thing. BigHaz 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Still fairly random, but not nearly as bad as the others. I could envision someone actually looking for this information. Raggaga 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one actually has useful information. Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --TM 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to agree. - Richardcavell 02:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who needs a list of title? It can be included on individual song pages. ReverendG 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some of the info is interesting, there's no reason to have it collected in one place -- no user is going to search on the string "more than one video." Notable info can just go on the song pages if it's not there already. Dybryd 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep mostly for Random article value. I agree that no one is going to actually look for this article but it does have encyclopedic value as Starblind noted. It's one of those articles that if you stumble upon, you actually feel like you gleemed a bit of knowledge after reading. Something far less prevelant in alot of our Random Articles. 205.157.110.11 08:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seeing this article title, one asks themselves 'why do these songs have two videos?' It's an interesting question. Very few songs do, so whch actually have two? Why? The aritcle should stay to provide, at the very least, a starting point for people who come across a song with two music videos and want to find out more. Evil Eye 17:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The longer a song is out the more likely to meet this criteria. At some point most songs would be in the list. Vegaswikian 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a student of film study it comes across to me as a useful list to see how two film makers would interpret the same piece of music. It has artistic merit and is wholly undiscriminate. Mallanox 22:24, 21 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dance party albums[edit]

Here's one that got away from you, Starry, though this isn't in the same category you were trawling. Usual indiscriminate collection of information. And since the words "dance party" isn't in the titles of most of the albums, who's to judge what's included and what isn't?. Nominate and delete. Raggaga 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Since there's no article on "dance party" as it currently stands, I don't think this can ever end up with objective criteria for inclusion. BigHaz 00:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What an unverified list. ReverendG 02:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally like raving to the classics of Englebert Humperdink, but you find no mention of him in this indiscriminate list. 205.157.110.11 08:19, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable movies[edit]

This list is un-maintainable, imagine a list of DVDs. There are hundreds and hundreds of more umds movies to come.--Coasttocoast 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom. It's like making a list of every movie ever released on DVD or VHS. will381796 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List will keep on getting longer. and per will381796 --Ageo020 01:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. StarryEyes 01:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopediac. ReverendG 02:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reasons on talk --Snarius 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The UMD format for movies is dying(with most studios dropping or reducing support), but it's still like having a list of every movie on DVD. TJ Spyke 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and catagorise Whilst this certainly is not a raw list, it only adds minmal information over a catagory. The red links are mostly mis-aimed, as far as I can tell, and actually do have articles for them. LinaMishima 16:38, 21 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (Reborn)[edit]

This is a new low, even for trekcruft, doesn't come close to meeting WP:WEB— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - some internet trek series are capable of passing WP:V - there's one that starred Walter Koenig (Star Terk: New Voyages) But this ain't like that. WilyD 01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per above. Also, I can't seem to tell whether these have even been created or not. Some wording of the article seems to be in the future tense, in which case it should be deleted because WP is not a crystal ball. will381796 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Though I personally would LOVE to see Gary Sinise play Dr. McCoy in some fashion. 205.157.110.11 07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete!

This is a hardworking fan series. Why in the blue hell should we delete something that we the fans are working hard on and want other fans to know about? We have on Wiki comic books and other things that worth while about reading about, but because this is a FAN series it's viable for deletion?

  • Delete. WP is not for advertising, IF this becomes notable then it can warrant a page. TJ Spyke 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spyke Noteable? Oh, how oh so generous of you! And what would be considered noteable by this gracious gesture? Do we have to appear on Good Morning America? If this is the case, there are several hundred thousand entries on Wiki that aren't even worth mentioning. If beggers are going to be choosers, then what is the point of Wiki's existence in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)
  • Spyke That's wonderful junior, but those rules are so broad you can drive a bus through them. When you come up with something more substantial maybe it'll hold water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.6 (talk • contribs)
  • First, don't call me junior. Second, sign your replies. Third, This little fan series obviously isn't notable since it can't pass any of the WP:WEB standards since every other internet subject has to pass them to have a page here. TJ Spyke 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spyke

Kid, you're only 19, until you grow up a little, you'll be junior. I choose not to sign my replies, and WP:WEB standards could apply to anything. You could delete half of Wiki with those rules. Until someone gives my SUBSTANTIAL ruling against it. I'm gonna fight to keep it up.

Sorry junior, your arguement still holds no water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Wikipedia has standards and guidelines dictating what is eligible for inclusion. Otherwise, it would be a collection of whatever random information anyone wanted to post (i.e., the internet). And while I do disagree with some of the guidelines for inclusion, they are here for a purpose. If you want to change the guidelines, then please, contribute your opinion and back it up with facts and logic. Persuade other editors to support you and hopefully if you do it well, your opinion can become the Wikipedia consensus. If you want to advertise, do it elsewhere. Also, please be respectful of other editors. Thanks. will381796 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will

I take offense to the "notable" comment made by Spyke. So I choose not to be respectful in that regard. Second, this isn't an advertisement. We aren't making money off of this, nor are we attempting to persude others to come visit or read the site.

If "advertisement" is a problem, then you're a hypocrit. Look at half the comic book references placed in here. All comic book related characters owned and operated by another company. Doesn't that constitute advertisement? If you want a wiki that is strictly facts, then enforce the rules 100%, don't pick and choose because "it doesn't suit you".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)

    • Those comic book characters are notable, so far this fan-series is not. Learn to be respectful kid, you still haven't given a valid reason for why it shouldn't be deleted. TJ Spyke 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spyke

Noteable in what way slick? Just because they're making money? Or have been on the news? And who are they noteable to? The fans or those who never pick up a comic book. You're using standards that are way to broad junior.

  • Delete Fails WP:V! There are absolutely no references beside the shows home website. Shinhan 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Google hits for (link:www.startrekreborn.net) = 1. A website is only notable when 3rd parties are writing about you, not when you decide to write about yourself. Fails: WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I respect the work and dedication that Mr.Unsigned Whippersnapper and his associates are doing on this fan site, I think he is putting the cart before the horse in terms of notability. A fansite can be notable but it takes time, effort, and increasing familarity. Now I would agree that the nomination could have had a more civil tone but don't view this AfD as an indictment on the worth of your site. When the fruits of hard work and labor bring you success and notability, the Wikipedia community will welcome an article about your site. However, it is not Wikipedia's place to be an engine towards bringing you that success and notability. 205.157.110.11 02:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_17&oldid=1116878510"