Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

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

Mark Crutcher[edit]

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

This page keeps getting deleted without discussion. I am at the mercy of people with more Wikipedia experience.ChristinaDunigan 19:24, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New article

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

Mark crutcher[edit]

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

Mark Crutcher article[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mark Crutcher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Mark Crutcher is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Mark Crutcher. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. — ERcheck (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that it got deleted despite the hangon tag. Would anybody care to explain how this doe not constitute censorship?ChristinaDunigan 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina, I did not delete the article...I did add the note above to notify you that it had been tagged for speedy deletion. I can't speak for the deleting admin on the deletion. I can suggest that, since you find that the subject is notable, you add verifiable sources to the article itself from the beginning — following the guidelines noted above — in particular, for biographical guidelines (also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), citations, and reliable sources. You can create a user subpage sandbox — User:ChristinaDunigan/Sandbox — and work on the article there before posting.

Assuming good faith on the part of the admin, please don't assume that this is an attempt at censorship; rather, a good faith effort to guard against vandalism and creation of inappropriate articles.

— ERcheck (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was marked for deletion and deleted within hours despite the hangon tag, and the Life Dynamics article didn't even get the formality of the quick delete notice. There was no discussion, just nuking. ChristinaDunigan 15:52, 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 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Cook[edit]

Speedy tag ("Cook is no longer with WDAF; he's now working in a position "off camera" with the Kansas City Royals. The article is also very sparse.") removed as not being a CSD. Prod has been tried before but contested, so listing here. No opinion from me. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside of Kansas City.

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's it? That's all we get? He's a male newscaster? No birthyear, no place, no parents, no siblings, no spouse, no kids. No current residence, no history, no interests, no reason for notability other then he ... works. He *could* be notable, but you'll have to do better to tell us why. Wjhonson 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fact only 947 hits for a "Toby Cook" came up on Google. Half of the hits aren't even this guy, anyway. He's not notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--Nishkid64 18:00, 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 move to Incubus discography and merge content from Incubus (band)#Discography. Canderson7 ^(talk) 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also decided to merge Incubus (band)#Singles into the new article. Canderson7 ^(talk) 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs covered by Incubus[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and comprised entirely of an list with no explanatory content, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. John254 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agreed. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Move/merge per below --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:21, 20 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, Mailer Diablo 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move as per below. Do not keep as current incarnated. -- nae'blis 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC), modified -- nae'blis[reply]
Delete As per nom, Wiki is not a place for listcruft doktorb _words^deeds 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Rimmers 17:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Nishkid64 18:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad precedent (would open the door to thousands of such lists). --Thunderhead 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A complex case. I suggest moving the Incubus (band)#Discography to a separate article, and merging this list's information into it. The discography section of the article is currently lacking in actual text. It's basically a fair use gallery, needs work. --CharlotteWebb 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable compromise. For contribution history, we could move this page to Incubus discography and then edit in that part of the band's main page. -- nae'blis 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like a good way to go about it. --CharlotteWebb 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Move as per above. --GVOLTT 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Merge/Move per above. TransUtopian 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a category, since it sucks alot of poop as an article. --Nintendude ^message 00:53, 28 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 List of words having different meanings in British and American English -- Samir धर्म 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK-US heterologues A-Z[edit]

At the moment, it is mostly a duplicate of List of words having different meanings in British and American English, but is receiving divergent edits. The point of it, AIUI, was to bring together all word usage differences between British English and American English. However, there are a number of problems:

At the moment, only the first few rows are in the format being proposed. Apart from this, the effort to turn it into what it was intended to be seems to have abandoned. Promsan, creator of the page, seems to have disappeared (no edits since 28 September 2005).
It is very long as it stands, and trying to bring together this information would make it even longer and produce little benefit over that already provided by the aforementioned article, List of British English words not used in American English and List of American English words not used in British English.
The format makes little sense. What's the point of having four columns if only the first two or only the last two are going to be filled in any row?
It is unclear what one is supposed to do with words that have more than one meaning on the same side of the pond, or meanings common to both sides as well as the different meaning. I can imagine it becoming quite messy.

As such, I feel that we should get rid of this and save the work for the three specialised articles I have mentioned. In the long run, it would be a nightmare to try maintaining this as well. -- Smjg 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've looked through the article's changes since creation, and merged into List of words having different meanings in British and American English the one or two changes that I feel need merging in. -- Smjg 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly turn into something like a disambiguation pointing to the other three, rather than actually delete? And that doesn't require an AFD at all. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please, please do not encourage adding more to the convoluted nest of disambiguation pages already in existence on Wikipedia as a way of making a decision that should be made per Wikipedia policies/guidelines. GBYork 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — incomplete and unlikely to be finished, and unnecessary as per nomination. A disambig link isn't needed as the page isn't linked to by many pages, and doesn't have an obvious title (i.e. not something that I expect would be googled). Mike Peel 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, per the nom. Disclosure: I have worked some on the List of words having different meanings in British and American English which is mostly duplicated by the list under afd. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect this has been bugging me for some time. Dalf | Talk 08:54, 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 redirect to United States Green Party. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Proposal[edit]

Page has been essentially a stub for four years. The information exists at United States Green Party. Andrew Levine 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Andrew Levine 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Green Party -- Whpq 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Green Party --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:32, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and expand or Merge. It seems like relevant information to the United States Green Party. It's barely even mentioned in the Green Party page, but it's talked about a little more in depth in Boston Proposal, so just redirect and expand or merge. --Nishkid64 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four-year stub = obvious merge/redirect. --CharlotteWebb 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Ridge[edit]

nonrelevant topic, article has empty content--Jestix 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of other television weather forecasters who are notable. I think she is as well. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are *all* weather forecasters notable? Isn't this maybe a glitch in the wikipedia relevance criterias. I don't see them as relevant at all, since except presenting the wheater non of them had any influence at all. most of the articles consist of: [name] is a presenter at [station] from [time] to [time]. He was born [place] at [time]. hes wheter forecast appeared weekly at [time]. And this going to be for all of the 100oo.. wheterforecaster faces that exist in this world? --Jestix 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Delete. Eusebeus 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think she is notable." is a subjective judgement, not the employment of a notability criterion. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria for biographical articles are laid out in WP:BIO. Per the article, as it currently stands, this person satisfies none of them. Uncle G 15:06, 14 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, Mailer Diablo 11:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too stubby. Tell us why she is notable among weather forecasters. Maybe she used to be a Miss England or something, maybe she's also a professional female wrestler who served time in prison for killing her husband... Wjhonson 18:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Her name generates just 618 hits on Google. Google "Nishkid64" and you even get more hits haha...and I'm not even notable. --Nishkid64 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My name gets 16300 results on Google Web, and I'm not verifiable. Counting Google hits is not research. Reading those 618 web pages (which might well be detailed independent biographies of this person, for all that anyone who just counts hits knows) is research. Uncle G 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, and go through this list as well. --Thunderhead 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see also Elizabeth Saary and Philip Avery for similar stubby articles. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for being, no notability for doing either. Unless she's a sex-symbol with a cult following which I don't know about, there's nothing on her BBC bio which points to notability per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 06:03, 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 no consensus to delete the article. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geexbox[edit]

Non-notable software product. Peyna 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. Nickieee 22:12, 13 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, Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. LordRM 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently, it's a product for Linux users, and perhaps is the reason why people don't know much about it. It generates over a million hits on Google (and with that kind of name, most of those hits are genuine). I'm favor of keeping it. --Nishkid64 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is used as the basis of no. 24 Linux distro as per distrowatch, Sabayon. Some people believe the top 100 distros should covered. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. Geexbox+Linux gets 244 distinct ghits, down from the million-plus originally noted, which raises question of notability. The fact some people believe the top 100 distros should be covered is noted; on the other hand, we also have the guidelines of WP:SOFTWARE - article fails to show notability by multiple third-party non-trivial articles, major reviews, or awards; nor is it included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian or Fedora Core, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Tychocat 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unique Google results is a bad test - basically, Google takes the first thousand results, and finds the unique ones. There are 1,020,000 total ghits for the search you're suggesting (not much less than for GeexBox alone - though that has about twice the distinct ones). Basically, looks like a quirk of Google and/or the content. - makomk 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - regarding Google, I agree, but at this level it's entirely symptomatic of the problem. I can Google, say, certain well-known fast-food chains and get literally millions of distinct hits, however. In any case, the subject still fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tychocat 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've heard of it, and it looks like lots of people online have heard of it (in a variety of languages - I see the German and Japanese Wikipedias also have articles, though those aren't obvious in the Google results). Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable sources and I'm not sure if it meets WP:SOFTWARE - it's the wrong type of software to ever meet 3 or 4, and I can't find any evidence it meets 1, though it could well be there (lots of Google results, too little time). -- makomk 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, so do the French, Finnish, and even English Wikipedias - we already had another article on it, and no-one here noticed. Redirecting to existing article (it's shorter, but this one's pretty badly-written). The AfD notice was removed in the process; I'm not sure what to do about that. Perhaps this AfD should just be abandoned; it didn't get much attention, and the new facts don't exactly help the case for deletion anyway. - makomk 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not really a good article right now, but it could be turned into one. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 12:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integration management[edit]

A google search for "Integration management" turns up businesses and certain business projects titled "Integration management," but not the subject this article purports. As of right now this article does not explain anything, cite references, or demonstrate noteworthiness. Nickieee 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this could be a dicdef, but like so many modern business terms it means different things depending on who's using it in what context. This article's a buzzword bingo bonanza. Fan-1967 00:12, 14 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, Mailer Diablo 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wade through the buzzwords and this thing pretty much is a circular dicdef saying "Integration management is the process of managing integration". Tonywalton | Talk 11:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that term has any sort of widespread use -Elmer Clark 11:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this seems like a joke article. LordRM 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — all jargon, no substance; and no evidence of wide usage. JChap2007 18:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks more like a definition than an article. --Nishkid64 18:29, 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. The references brought up by KillerChihuahua sway the argument toward WP:V being met. -- Samir धर्म 06:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Nursing Society[edit]

I'm not sure if this is notable. --Neutrality^talk 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per featured article on NurseZone: Nursing Society Prepares for Future Flights, they are a NSS (National Space Society) chapter[1], nice career article on Nursing Spectrum Care Up There - the big question is, who can clean up and expand this article? There are a ton of sources for a better treatment of this. A founder of the SNS was elected to the Board of Directors of the NSS and became chair of the Education Committee in 2004[2]. Pity the SNS has such a crappy looking website though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn with no assertion of notablity. Batmanand | Talk 11:15, 15 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, Mailer Diablo 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of article was a copyvio from here. Article is now much shorter. -Elmer Clark 12:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nn. "Space Nursing Society" generates only 414 hits on Google. However, it was a featured article in a magazine, as stated above by KillerChihuahua. --Nishkid64 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - only link I can see is the article. I get scripting errors with my browsers. GBYork 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not your browser. Those are server-side scripting errors. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although the article does a poor job or showing it, per UserKillerChihuahua's research, there are verifiable and reliable sources out there on which an article about the SNS can be built.-- danntm ^T _C 02:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KillerChihuahua. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, the article clearly fails WP:V. Even if the three sources mentioned by KillerChihuahua above were incorporated into the article, I do not believe that NurseZone.com is a "credible, third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Ditto for the National Space Society, which is an advocacy charitable organization, and I could not locate the article on the Nursing Spectrum website. With only around 400 GHits, I could not locate anything else, either. When this organization becomes sufficiently notable, it will be covered by a newspaper or other significant media outlet that passes WP:V. --Satori Son 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V per Satori Son. I was really hoping I could find a good reference and save this, alas I couldn't. Ifnord 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:V. GBYork 22:20, 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 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The THINKfuture Podcast[edit]

Non-notable podcast. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 21:14, 14 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, Mailer Diablo 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability given, and for a subject which such incredibly low inherent notability as a Podcast, that's pretty important. -Elmer Clark 12:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 18:34, 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 -- Samir धर्म 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Costello[edit]

nn model Burgwerworldz 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not just a model. See the filmography in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Thie page should be deleted due to a lack of information.MgHoneyBee 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on listed film credits. -- JHunterJ 04:06, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TruthbringerToronto and JHunterJ -Elmer Clark 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most, merge to WWE Diva Search s with other reality show contestants. Her acting credits consist of roles suc as "Girl at Bar". These are background extras. -- Whpq 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TruthbringerToronto and JHunterJ. The article does lack information now, but looks promising to expand. Rangek 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete How would you expand this? Chandra was a Juggy Dancer on The Man Show, played the girl at the bar in Bill the Intern and was also Pretty Twin # 2 in the episode Twins at the Tipton from the TV series The Suite Life of Zack and Cody? I don't mean to be sarcastic, but the keep votes (citing the filmography or film credits) border on the incomprehensible, I might even say flippant, particularly in light of well-established notability guidelines with respect to actors & models. Eusebeus 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Eusebeus - Rangek 17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The filmography speaks for itself. The article could be expanded easily using internet sources, and non-lazy editors. Any actor who has appeared in a number of different roles is notable. Wjhonson 18:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wholly absurd and even cheeky riposte. Laziness has nothing to do with the inherent notability of someone with a history of securing bit parts such as Juggy dancer. How, exactly, do you see all that hard work you are calling for pay off when the subject itself simply falls below the notability threshold? Or are there facets of Man Show juggy dancing that we should pull up our sleeves to uncover? Eusebeus 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes evidently. She gets 500 Google hits and under her alternate name "Shawnie Costello" gets 2500. That's enough for me. Wjhonson 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography speaks for itself. Yes it does -- and it says "set decoration", not "acting", are the talents she was hired for. --Calton | Talk 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which do not in themselves mean she is non-notable. ... One more Google datum: "Costello twins" gets over 12,000 hits. -- JHunterJ 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Counting Ghits is not research. Unless there is something which either or both have done other than being props, please don't keep it to yourself ;-) Ohconfucius

Ghits are data, though. No original research allowed. :-) See new comment below. -- JHunterJ 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She may have appeared in films, but look at what she has done. Check IMDB. Half of her filmography says "Twin #1" or "Twin #2". What's really notable about that? --Nishkid64 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just a model. See the filmography in the article. Yep, and it tells me, "just a model". --Calton | Talk 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close: per IMDB, quite generous to the aspirings, yet all her roles, and those of her sister, fall in the bottom half of the film credits, which you have to click on the "more" button to reveal. Furthermore, most roles are "Twin", "Juggy dancer", and very few named roles. Ohconfucius 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It will be odd, at least, if this one ends up deleted while her twin sister's entry Julie Costello remains... -- JHunterJ 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Indeed, it would be odd. I have put an AfD on her page. Ohconfucius 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? It just finished an AfD this week. I've flagged the new one as a 2nd attempt. -- JHunterJ 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. News hits: The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), July 2, 2001 Monday Met and metro Editions, SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 01F "Double Whammy: Kentucky twins cling to their values while chasing Hollywood dreams". Lexington Herald Leader (Kentucky), January 12, 2003 Sunday, SPORTS COPY; Pg. c2, "Pinup Founder Has a Heck of a Job: Topping Previous Year" (talking about the series of posters for Kentucy University featuring Ashley Judd, Rebecca Gayheart, Leah Lail, Julie and Shawnie Costello, and Kylie Bax). -- JHunterJ 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHunterJLan Di 01:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of her roles have been notable enough. James Duggan 07:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Pretty Twin #2", "Twin", "Twin #2", "Girl at Bar", "Juggy Dancer (The Man Show 2000-2003)" Maybe one day when she gets a named role. ~ trialsanderrors 01:40, 29 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 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Room Source[edit]

NN company -- promotional information only User:Kebnabi 23:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Nickieee 23:47, 13 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, Mailer Diablo 11:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Ad for non-notable company. JChap2007 22:49, 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 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Accordion & Music Festival[edit]

self promotion and non-notable Graveenib 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self promotion maybe, but covers some important information regarding aims of the festival for users searching for more details. --82.2.119.90 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 Ghits Aims of a not notable festival are still not notable. The thing talks about aims and the next event. This just doesn't sound like information someone is going to go to an encyclopedia for. WP:NOT probably applies here. :) Dlohcierekim 03:13, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 11:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki is not a web host. Non notable event doktorb _words^deeds 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Nishkid64 18:48, 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 speedy redirect, as a quite plausible search term, and as per original nomination: "this page should just be a redirect to that one". That doesn't require an AFD tag. --CharlotteWebb 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay fathers[edit]

It just isn't notable at all. There's already a page on Gay parenting, which itself could use a major overhaul. This page should just be a redirect to that one.

Redirect per nom. I would say merge, but the content is pretty low-quality. It looks like the original author intended something of a list of gay fathers, but failed to achieve even that. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay parenting (there's a little bit of info in here that could be saved) and redirect. - Yomangani ^talk 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Gaycruft 205.157.110.11 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to gay parenting. Nothing is really salvagable here; the article is written in a very unencyclopedic tone, and there's not much there to begin with. -Elmer Clark 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — to gay parenting. JChap2007 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to gay parenting. It's not really an article, and like Elmer Clark stated above, there's not much that you can write about this. --Nishkid64 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is plenty that you can write about it. But, at the moment, the article doesn't say any of those those things. DanB DanD 19:20, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The City (group)[edit]

Delete. NN band. The article even says that it was short lived and released only one album, which was a failure. The individual members of the band might be notable, but not the band itself. --דניאל ~~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 20:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the following WP:MUSIC criteria: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Should be expanded. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 16:55, 14 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, Mailer Diablo 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per PT - Rangek 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Satisfying one WP:MUSIC tickbox is not enough doktorb _words^deeds 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Meets one criteria of WP:MUSIC... according to WP:MUSIC that is enough. Drett 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets criteria of WP:MUSIC. Three of the guys in the band have Wikipedia articles. --Nishkid64 18:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Music, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." With three notable members, no redirect is possible. Te ke 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Keep as per above and WP:MUSIC doktorb _words^deeds 06:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus -- Samir धर्म 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Lakes Myth Society[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but has enough going for it that I listed it here instead (mostly because I noticed I had done some formatting on it before, and since I hadn't tagged it then, I figured there had to be a reason). Gets 2 hits on google news, 25000 on google, has an amg entry, the album's listed on amazon with some reviews. - Bobet 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough per Bobets research. --Ezeu 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An advanced google search turns up 707 pages, many of which are blogs and mirrors. Fails WP:MUSIC as they have only released one album, and one a very minor indie label at that. The AMG profile is just a review of the one album. Kill The Original Brothers and Sisters of Love too, as a double redirect. Te ke 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:MUSIC - no charted hits, no national tours, not finding multiple non-trivial articles by third-parties. Not that I would criticize Teke's research, but my Google of "great lakes myth society" got only 415 distinct hits, which anyways verifies that end of things. Yes, they've got an album listed with Amazon, but that in itself doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and the album is ranked down around their sixty-one-thousandth. Tychocat 09:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the above 2 deletes: "Great Lakes Myth Society" gets 24,300 hits for me, the "distinct hits" above is misleading since it means distinct hits among the first 1000 hits, it's the way google works. - Bobet 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Fickle Nature of Google Today a search for the exact phrase turns up 627 hits for "The Great Lakes Myth Society." MUSIC was my point of failure, I just used google to make sure that there is not some underground spread of the group. Teke 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google isn't THAT fickle, lose the "the" (or just click on Google:Great-lakes-myth-society). And my original comment wasn't meant as a retort to your comments, I was just leaving a note for posterity's sake, much like I'm doing here. - Bobet 19:48, 24 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 Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molydeus[edit]

Referred from the speedy deletion queue. Possibly a notable topic in video gaming. I'm not an expert. theProject 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The molydeus comes from the Dungeons & Dragons table-top role-playing game. I can't really speak to its notability, or make a case one way or the other.

Hi! I clearly understand molydeus or any other fictional creature is not a high subject, but since I've found page about other D&D creatures (and I've just bought the Fiendish Codex 1 :)) I thought that, for a completeness principle, it could be a good idea adding the missing creatures. Moreover I see no reason to delete this page while other pages about d&d demons, like Balor (Dungeons & Dragons), Marilith (Dungeons & Dragons) or Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons), only to cite a few, remains, in my opinion rightly, on the Wikipedia. I hope to persuade you! :) Bye! --Eldar Featel 12:13, 15 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, Mailer Diablo 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dungeons & Dragons or appropriate subpage. User:Angr 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Other short articles on the various sorts of fiends should perhaps also be merged, either there or to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) (there's a significant difference) as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) as insufficiently notable game character. --Satori Son 21:26, 28 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 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep (relationships)[edit]

This article doesn't site it's sources. I cannot find any actual reference to this meaning in reality. I believe it to be a neologism. Carlif 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a Seinfeldism at absolute best. BigHaz 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that it's entered the vernacular thoroughly enough to warrant an article. Take it to urbandictionary. -Elmer Clark 12:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elmer Clark. User:Angr 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elmer Clark. This article doesn't really have a purpose. --Nishkid64 00:22, 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 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Duffey[edit]

Speedied once, and reposted. I see nothing notable about this academic, I'm afraid. Doesn't everybody publish or perish? theProject 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The question is, How notable is his work in the field of Latin Poetry? i know sqwat about that area so I don't want to vote but if his work is substantially influential then he should stay. If it's just another run of the mill academia shrill then trash it. 205.157.110.11 23:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Does not assert meeting any inclusion guideline. Vegaswikian 17:38, 14 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, Mailer Diablo 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Patrick Duffy as plausible misspelling. User:Angr 15:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Copyvio from %22Los Estados Unidos y los gringos vistos%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6.~~ Also it appears that the book Los Estados Unidos y los gringos vistos por autores mexicanos de los siglos XIX y XX is actually edited rther than authored (by Emmanuel Carballo et al). Dlyons493 Talk 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dlyons. The article you cited is actually a copy of THIS article. See [3] Molinu.org simply aggregated from us, not the other way round. So this is not a copyvio. Wjhonson 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — He's not the Man from Atlantis. JChap2007 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has published one book[4], but it does not seem to be particlularly notable. Being an Associate Professor, he has also published a few articles in periodical (see his curriculum vitae), but I cannot tell if those periodicals are notable. In any case, just because his name could be confused with Patrick Duffy is not a reason for deletion. --Ezeu 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's really not that notable. --Nishkid64 00:23, 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Underground[edit]

Delete non-notable web forum, no claim of notability is made. RWR8189 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Yes, a notability claim(s) is made.

I suggest you actually read these articles, or at the very least, give them a cursory glance, before reflexively insisting that they be deleted.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is, delete per WP:V. -AED 00:02, 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, Mailer Diablo 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa ranking of 182,567; linked to by 14 sites. No indication that it passes WP:WEB. -Elmer Clark 12:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elmer Clark. User:Angr 15:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, I did give the article a cursory glance, and I saw no reliable sources indicating any sort of notability per WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! It consists of up-to-date news! Uhh, Delete Resolute 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covin 911 Turbo replica kit-car[edit]

Incomplette AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not even clear what the article is about. User:Angr 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is about a kit used for the customization of cars. Or the building of care models. Either way, there is no indication that this particular kit is notable or has been given coverage by verifiable reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete (non-notable) or Merge into Porsche 911. Mike Peel 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NN and badly written M a rtinp23 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to merge with the Porsche 911 pages, thank you. However, a proper entry on the Covin kit car would be fine. Why not leave this page up and ask for it to be improved? There is a small core of Covin enthusiasts who, I'm sure, could add some better info.

Surely it's wrong to delete an entry just because it's not very good. Philsy 08:56, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Cappuzzello[edit]

Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable baseball player. References provide not one bit of interesting information. Won one game as a pitcher (lost two), had only one at-bat, not involved in any significant trades. Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) should take note. -AED 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would prefer to retain the principle that all Major League players are notable (which is basically what WP:BIO says rather than debate the notability of individual players. -TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:58, 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, Mailer Diablo 10:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Definitely do not want to set a precedent of deleting MLB players, they are inherently notable. -Elmer Clark 11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BIO, and as a comment, being in MLB is an objective measurement that can easily be verified. -- Whpq 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — MLB is highest level in sport so passes WP:BIO, even if just for the proverbial cup of coffee. Anyway, he played over two seasons. JChap2007 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - profesional baseball player is enough for me. Wjhonson 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All MLB players are notable. Plenty of people do care about this stuff. Zagalejo 18:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --CFIF ☎ 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the type of article that can easily be expanded, by someone like myself, which I plan to do. --Nishkid64 00:20, 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 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCC Software[edit]

Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not even sure if the article is claiming notability in any way. 202 unique Google hits is rather low as well. -Elmer Clark 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising for nonnotable company. User:Angr 15:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — It has some longevity, and given the structure and history of the South Korean economy, being around since 1982 may give it some significance, but there's nothing to really establish notability. JChap2007 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not name a single product of the company, and a brief web survey does not give evidence that the company is still operating (I'm not saying it isn't, but business must be slow...). Note: no transwiki link to Korean Wikipedia (> 25,000 articles). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company has 34,400 Google hits under its Korean name: [5] -- Visviva 01:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of All That episodes[edit]

Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nickcruft 205.157.110.11 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable show, I guess. Nothing wrong with a list of episodes giving brief descriptions of sketches and identifying the musical guest. It's better than having a different article for each episode. --Joelmills 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tuluvas2 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) It is a notable show in my opinion. I see many other articles similar to this one that are not nominated for deletion. I don't think it is an outstanding article and it is kind of trivial, but so are the discographys of fairly unknown artists, some of which are included on Wikipedia with no objections noted.[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many shows have such lists, and there is no doubt that this one is notable. -Elmer Clark 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup --CFIF ☎ 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elmer Clark. Plus, much preferable to an article for each episode. hateless 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)uyu7 dsfghedgairfshuygjhshs UKILHJUTYSHDFDNJDASFATGBEYH[reply]
Keep per precedent and the existence of an entire Wikiproject dedicated to creating episode lists. 23skidoo 02:11, 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 Redirect and merge to Jay Mariotti

Jay the Joke[edit]

Was nominated for speedy deletion as a non-notable website. This isn't a criterion for speedy deletion and nominating articles using that as a criterion doesn't make it one (subtle hint: stop nominating, or change the criterion; stop making the life of deleting admins hard). So, here we are: slow delete for being a non-notable blog-cum-website. ➨ ЯEDVERS 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, find this to be notable. Jaythejoke is incredibly popular in Chicago and has been featured by multiple news sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chgojoey (talk • contribs) .
- Our criteria are not based upon the subjective opinions of Wikipedia editors. The criteria for web sites are laid out in WP:WEB. Uncle G 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the Wikipedia Administrators:
If I understand the reason behind nominating my August 11 entry for speedy deletion, one or more people have objected to the entry on the grounds that the subject of the entry, the Jay the Joke website, is a “non-notable” website.
In response, please note that as of the present moment, the Wikipedia encyclopedia now boasts a total of 1,316,282 articles in English (i.e., Monday, August 14, at 15:50 GMT).
Note moreover Wikipedia’s fundamental open-source commitment—a “free encyclopedia,” which “anyone can edit.”
In order for someone to raise a reasonable and fair objection to my proposed addition to Wikipedia’s 1,316,282 articles, I am afraid that the subject’s lack of noteworthiness in another person’s eyes is simply not sufficient. After all, facts are one thing. But who is to have the power to determine noteworthiness?
Instead, in all fairness, and in the spirit of Wikipedia’s core commitment, for an objection to lead to deletion, the objector would have to show that the substance of the proposed entry is false—and not only false merely, but false in some non-trivial sense.
Therefore, unless the person or persons who raised the “non-notable” objection can meet these last conditions, there clearly is no good reason to prevent my proposed entry from becoming a part of this encyclopedia’s growing family of entries.
Thanks. David Peterson 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Chicago)[reply]
- Our standard is verifiability, not truth. Uncle G 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Jay Mariotti. While Jay the Joke doesn't fail WP:WEB (I could read one tribune article and the chicago reader article, the third wanted registration so should likely be removed), if one were to clean up the article per WP:MOS it would be stubby. However, it could easily be made into a well referenced section on Jay Mariotti. Syrthiss 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friends: One of the more revealing features of the Wikipedia entry for Jay Mariotti is the way the entry already is framed according to incidents and around themes that are of major importance to Mariotti's enemies. In other words, overall, the Wikipedia entry for Jay Mariotti as it now exists reads more like a smear of its ostensible subject matter (Mariotti) than it does an entry about the same. Notice, for example, that out of its ten references, no less than nine are datelined June 16, 2006 or later; and the last, posted by Eric Zorn to the Chicago Tribune’s website on October 28, 2005, is nothing but an attack on Mariotti. Thus when you discuss merging an entry about a website the avowed purpose of which is “uniting Cubs fans and Sox fans through a common hatred of Jay Mariotti” (Jay the Joke) into an extant Wikipedia entry which already betrays very much the same purpose, I have my doubts. Thanks. David Peterson 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I want it understood that I regard the extensive revisions to my proposed Wikipedia entry for ‘Jay the Joke’, introduced by Anonymous User "64.50.38.194" (19:27, 17 August 2006), to be serious falsifications of the original. The purpose of the original entry was to describe a smear campaign organized against one particular individual, which, ultimately, has expanded to provide a license for hate speech and Internet intimidation more generally. However, the net effect of the revisions introduced by "64.50.38.194" has been to transform an entry about hate speech into what now reads as an entry about a sincere project on the part of a couple of individuals “to unite sports fans throughout the city [Chicago],” with “Critics of the blog” simply “point[ing] to the posts in the comments section as being excessively abusive.” In short, the revisions constitute an historical fabrication. Thanks. David Peterson 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (Chicago)[reply]
Friends: That is to say, what the Wikipedia guidelines describe under the rubric ‘Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Sockpuppeting_is_not_to_be_tolerated Sockpuppeting’ and similar offenses. Thanks. David Peterson 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (Chicago)[reply]
If you believe you can expand on Hate speech, the Hate speech entry might be the proper place to do it. If there is to be a Jay the Joke site, it should explain the history of the blog, the stated mission of the blog, the blog's authors and news the blog has made. It gained a little bit of notoriety because of Guillen's slur vs. Mariotti and Mariotti's subsequent vacation. It gained a little more notoriety because of your role in publicizing the juvenile comments section. You really shouldn't be posting an article for a topic you are so closely involved with. Thanks... "Mr. 64..."
Also, how is it a fabrication that critics don't like the abusive nature of the comments section? Isn't that your complaint?

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable blog. User:Angr 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — to Jay Mariotti Also, see WP:OWN. JChap2007 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A three month old blog? Non notable to the extreme, even if the target is notable. Resolute 05:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jay Mariotti. It's noteworthy in Mariotti's career, but I doubt this merits its own entry. Shermerville
Merge this. It's an editing matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radla[edit]

Incomplete AFD, found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Paolo Liberatore. No opinion. -Royalguard11^Talk 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adalbert of Prague. -AED 23:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I expanded the article - there's short item on Radla in (usually reliable) online encyclopedia Kdo byl kdo. IMHO this kind of very specialised articles should wait on real historians and micro-stubs should be deleted automatically. Pavel Vozenilek 04:47, 16 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, Mailer Diablo 10:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be genuine obscure historical figure. User:Angr 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite (or really write) by Pavel Dlyons493 Talk 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pavel's rewrite looks good to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep especially in the context references put forth by User:TruthbringerToronto -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croft No. 5[edit]

Article prodded as failing WP:MUSIC, deprodded with claim that it now meets wp:band. I disagree. Nothing links and there is not one indication that it meets the criteria. Ghits are 887. Article also does not meet requirments of WP:RS. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does not assert anything that would satisfy WP:BAND. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The external link demonstrates the international touring. Google hits are a poor indicator, as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band is based in Scotland, and they will perform at the Tonder Festival in Tonder, Denmark on August 24. As well, their site indicates that they have performed internationally in the past. They have released two albums, both of which are available through Amazon in the United Kingdom. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would agree that they come close to meeting at least one criteria, which would be this one: Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.. Yet it still fails, due to it not being reported in notable and verifiable sources. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their website is a verifiable source. We can verify any of the information there regarding their appearances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Their website is not a verifiable source, as WP:RS specifically says. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hm. According to WP:RS, "[m]aterial from self-published sources...may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following: ...relevant to the person's notability..."
      - Continuing, "it should also...be subject to verification by other sources."
      - So, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So, no. Unless you can verify it from elsewhere, at which point the self-promoting website becomes moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, yes. The website is a-okay according to WP:RS, and we can verify the information in question elsewhere individually - the question of their nobility, which is answered by the website ad thus okay per WP:RS - by, for instance, checking the actual schedules of the festivals, and, if possible, finding reviews. There's no question those exist, so the website is subject to outside verification in this case, and the website is a-okay per WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Entirely wrong. Remember the lessons of Aladin (AfD discussion), whose web site contains articles from newspapers that, according to the actual archives of those magazines, never existed and Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), whose web site was a complete fiction (constructed by a reliable source, no less). Uncle G 11:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still holding my ground on this one. Nothing in the article is sourced, and the links can provide a form a self published source (which it still does not meet), but thats all. Its still not notable. SynergeticMaggot 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your ground would have been better laid if you had use the phrase "reliable source". It is subjects that are notable, not sources. It is articles that are verifiable, not sources. The relevant properties of sources are their provenance and depth, i.e. who created and published them and whether they are apposite, reliable, and non-trivial. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're making my point, actually. I've quoted the relevant text at WP:RS regarding this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. I'm refuting your point. Your argument is that the web site is a reliable source. It isn't, for the reasons given. Subjects' own web sites are simply not reliable sources. TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. Instead of making a fallacious argument, please do what xe is doing and look for similar sources independent of the subject to show that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Then we disagree on this one. I'm just reading what's there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy more seriously than simply reading a web site and uncritically beliving what it says. Uncle G 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I again, take it very seriously. My disagreements with your interpretations as to how to handle this do not mean I take it any more or less seriously than you do, and I strongly object to your continued categorization of my beliefs in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply reading a web site and believing uncritically what it says isn't a serious application of our verifiability policy, your objections notwithstanding. Anyone with a modicum of experience with the World Wide Web should know that there is no guarantee that what is published on a vanity web site is true. I pointed to two valuable lessons above. Please learn from them. Uncle G 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My disagreement with you is not an example of "believing uncritically" or a lack of an ability to learn from other situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your ability to learn has not come up in this discussion, and is a straw man. Your disagreement (which is with more than one editor, note) is that "The website is a-okay" and that is an example of believing uncritically what it says. As I said before, TruthbringerToronto has the right idea of what to look for. But you aren't following xyr example. Please follow xyr example, please take our verifiability policy more seriously than simply taking bands' web sites at their face values, and please learn why it is a bad idea to do so from the valuable lessons mentioned above (which are far from being the only such occasions). Uncle G 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your advice, but there's really no need for it. Don't doubt my seriousness about these policies, I know full well what's up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TRuthbringer(Talk | contribs) . Good work man. Could u expand the article. --Ageo020 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Evidence that the band will perform at the Tønder Festival can be found at the site of the Festival itself: http://www.tf.dk/pages/band.php?set_menu=94&id=584 TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Croft = Cruft. Anomo 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Truthbring Toronto. Silensor 08:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles; also, I suggest that for a band to tour somewhere, it's making several stops around a country. This band's claimed schedule shows one show here, then back in Scottland, another show there, and then back in Scotland. Considering the venues also appear to be music festivals, it appears they have an enterprising agent, rather than international demand. Along these lines, Google only shows to me 218 distinct hits for "croft no. 5"+band; I agree Google is not the final arbiter of notability, but at this level I consider it symptomatic. Also no evidence of charted hits. Tychocat 14:16, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gildersleeve[edit]

Non-notable ingenue actress, barely two weeks into her first role. Article was prodded and deleted previously. Recreated, so discussing deletion here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd weak delete a Googling confirms the actress and character name on several websites, but she doesn't seem to be in the IMDB just yet. I'd say delete for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. I found an ABC publicity picture and listed it as an external link. I think her current role makes her more-or-less notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serviceable stub of recurring character on makor television show. JChap2007 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not a notable actress. No imdb article as well [6] --Ageo020 01:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a role in a major television show, soap or not: per WP:BIO, "notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" pass. Crystallina 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "notable actors and.." So first they have to be "notable" and then have been in a well-known production. Doesn't make sense in trying to establish notibility. But I agree, if she has been on well-known films and television productions that makes her somewhat notable. --HResearcher 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all other current contract cast members have wikipedia pages, including relatively newer actors like Ambyr Childers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeofneighbours (talk • contribs)
Weak keep per TruthbringerToronto, JChap2007, and Crystallina even as the citation provided doesn't quite make sense. --HResearcher 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. rookie American actress on an afternoon soap with no track record. No hits on abc.com. Ohconfucius 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current role, major network TV series. Have we started deleted articles on newly notable subjects just because IMDB doesn't update as fast as Wikipedia? VivianDarkbloom
Delete per nom-Doc 22:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stilgar135 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO; for not having multiple non-trivial-articles by third parties; she's won no awards, shows no indication of any fan base, nor made any enduring contribution to the historical record of her field. I see no claim that her role is either major or important on the show, either. She's working in a well-known production; lucky her. No indication that she's notable herself yet; at best, this sort of claim to notability by association only belies her own notability. Merge into "All My Children" article, at best. Tychocat 14:31, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Wells[edit]

Non-notable rapper, appears to fail WP:MUSIC; probably a hoax. Google shows 9 hits for "Shawn Wells" Wordsworth, 3 hits for "Shawn Wells" "Masta Ace" (none of the hits in the second case link to a page with both names together), and 0 hits for "Shawn Wells" "Fantastic 4" (the article said he acted in that movie). Unlike the usual article that fails WP:MUSIC, this one goes one step further and omits even a MySpace link, making it absolutely unverifiable. Kimchi.sg 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to unverifiability -Elmer Clark 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on IMDB, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bucketsofg✐ 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that 24.207's post was removed [7]. I went on Google, things are a bit complicated because there's a football player by the same name. Name gets 631 ghits [8] (of which his Myspace is the top hit, so he does have some claim to the name, it would seem). "'Shawn wells' hip-hop" gets 150 hits [9], and "'Shawn Wells' music" gets 450 [10]. Probably the most credible-looking article I've found about the guy is this: [11]. Definitely not a hoax, though I'm leaning agianst it meeting WP:BIO. Regards, Luna Santin 23:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Subject is not in credits of either "Fantastic 4" or "White Chicks". Mr. Wells may or may not exist, but the article is a hoax, and at least a violation of WP:V. Tychocat 14:40, 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 keep as a subpage of Tachyon. I have not merged due to the argument that it seems to work better as a subpage -- Samir धर्म 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyons in fiction[edit]

This article violates WP:NOR and WP:RS Whispering^(talk/c) 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete per nom. ~ c. tales \\tk// 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Tachyons . merge only the more notable sources as trivia. --Ageo020 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Ageo. ~ c. tales \\tk// 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[after edit conflict] Delete outright. This just...isn't really even interesting enough for a merge. I think Tachyons#Tachyons_in_fiction really covers it well enough; we don't have a big list of fictional uses of plasma, for example. But if others think it would add to the article, go ahead and merge. -Elmer Clark 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 50% original research, 50% List of uses of the word "tachyons" in fiction. --IslaySolomon 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sounds like a vote for cleanup and moving the page to List of instance of tachyons in fiction. hateless 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I think that would be a more accurate title, I'm sticking by my delete vote. There's already a tachyons in fiction section in the article tachyons and I really don't think Wikipedia needs yet another obscure fan-list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --IslaySolomon 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that the 'Tachyons in fiction' section in the main tachyons page was the original location of this list, before it was moved to the current page. [12] The entry currently residing there was copied back to that page by me, to serve as a summary for this article. [13] Mike Peel 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and do not merge. Merging would degrade the quality of the Tachyon article by making the bulk of it a hodge podge list of occurences of the word tachyon. -- Whpq 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg✐ 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move — to List of uses of the word 'tachyons' in fiction, although the OR/POV should be cleaned up. This is otherwise a serviceable list. I didn't find it that interesting either, but such things are subjective and not really a reason to delete. JChap2007 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tachyons — Some of the points in the article aren't that notable, but most are. Remove non-notable points post/pre-move. Keep the points in a 'Tachyons in fiction' section, not a trivia section (as per WP:TRIVIA). Note that this article was recently (16 August 2006) split from Tachyons by Pjacobi (talk • contribs). Mike Peel 20:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per Mike Peel. hateless 22:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge as above. Hornplease 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete. Do not merge with Tachyon article - this cruft was removed from there recently. It is quite useful practice to put the "popular culture" references into a leaf article so they do not pollute the main article (see Gorilla). Knowing how fast people would infest the Tachyon again I would suggest keep. It makes no harm and kids have convenient place to play. Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 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 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outwit the West[edit]

NN promotion Clappingsimon talk 00:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Ads or promos should be kept if it is controversial or quite popular.--Ageo020 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Marlboro (cigarette) -- Vary | Talk 02:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ageo020. Not remotely encyclopedic. Will anybody actually care about this contest once it has run its course? Resolute 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--PremKudva^Talk 09:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg✐ 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally posted the page, and now have read more into Wikipedia standards. It should be deleted, and I have no problems with that outcome. SolsticeRG 00:45, 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 delete -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfunk[edit]

Non-notable neologism. The article is uncited; the talk page also mentions "the term is not in widespread use". Kimchi.sg 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism with no citation. -- Vary | Talk 02:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from being a neologism, the article almost qualifies as patent nonsense. Resolute 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — to P-Funk mythology. It's only nonsense because it's describing P Funk's fantastical lyrics, and has been around since the 70s, so its not a neologism. JChap2007 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge per JChap. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:26, 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 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetrait[edit]

Just another generic blogtool. Despite its alleged popularity, it has no Alexa ranking. Fails WP:WEB. Crystallina 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Still in beta. Fails WP:WEB? SynergeticMaggot 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has just come out of beta.

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G7. I notice the author was careful to remove only the main text of the article in the blanking, which probably means he really wants it gone. Kimchi.sg 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Charm John Kim[edit]

Fails, WP:BIO. No assertion of notability beyond designing a ceiling fan for Eliington. 35 G-hits. Deprodded by creator. Reads like a personal vanity web page, blog or advertisement and is a link farm. Not encyclopedia under WP:NOT. :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN entity. Dionyseus 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page -Elmer Clark 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom and above. Page blanked by author here, and reverted by me of course. SynergeticMaggot 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Given that the page creator is basically the only person to have edited the content of the article, wouldnt his blanking of the article qualify it for a speedy-G7? Resolute 06:10, 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 keep. I have tagged for neutrality per discussion on talk page -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Via Anelli Wall[edit]

the article is very POV and I don't consider it an argument for an encyclopedia (it's not an important fact); see more explanations in the talk page piero tasso 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The wall is real, it is controversial, and it deserves an article. If you feel that the article is currently POV, why not make it balanced instead of trying to delete it? Dionyseus 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- that's the matter, I don't think it deserves an article; it's presented like the new Berlin Wall, seems to be important and scandalous, but it's not so --piero tasso 01:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article by the Guardian Unlimited disagrees with you. [14] Dionyseus 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Padua. Wall has received media attention from non-trival publications, so mention of the wall should be given. However, a full article is probably not needed. — NMChico24 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually mean reliable publications, yes? Uncle G 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In stating non-trivial publications, I was implying reliable as well, of course. — NM Chico24 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a few references to the article, including the Guardian Unlimited article. There is a lot of coverage but unfortunately it is in foreign language media. If there is an article on the problems of immigrants in Europe on Wikipedia, perhaps it could be merged there. To my thinking, Padua is an example of the problem but the issue is not Padua so it would be inappropriate to merge it with Padua. GBYork 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, we prefer English language sources, for the convenience of editors and readers (although at the same time we prefer originals to translations, in order to eliminate sources of error), but non-English language sources are definitely not excluded. Bear in mind that {{cite news}} has a language parameter. Uncle G 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - irrelevant comment above. Doesn't have to do with topic. STYoto 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: STYoto (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Keep — Controversial topic covered by major daily newspapers JChap2007 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Padua article. Controversial or not, subject is not large enough to merit a separate article at this time. Lots of topics covered by newspapers do not merit articles. SteveHopson 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BBC News has an article about the wall. [15] TimesOnline has an article about the wall. [16] Sydney Morning Herald has an article about the wall. [17] Certainly there's enough information out there to expand the article, and certainly as time passes there will be more news about the wall. Dionyseus 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added those references to the article. Now it has plenty of good references. GBYork 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I have enough time (it may take more than a month) I should write an article about Via Anelli (not only that wall), I've just to see if I find something really interesting. I'll write in Italian, of course, but then I'll ask someone to translate it for me :-) --piero tasso 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: I'm admin on de:, and we decided to keep this article (AfD discussion). Sarazyn • TALK • DE 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't understand German so I would like to userfy Via Anelli Wall for myself in case it gets deleted. Is that allowed? NLOleson 12:54, 24 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 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling all-star promotions[edit]

Not notable Khatru2 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please consider using proposed deletion instead of AfD as a first measure for articles like this. Kimchi.sg 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--PremKudva^Talk 09:26, 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 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Cube[edit]

hoax or OR - I've never heard of this or its allegedly notable author, and Google produces nothing except mirrors JQ 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Dionyseus 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "notable economist Scott Baker" is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article it would seem, and neither is his theory. No evidence of notability given. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. NN and possible WP:NEO. SynergeticMaggot 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All three editors above are missing the point. The notability of the author is wholly irrelevant. The relevant criteria are mentioned in the first three words of the nomination. The article cites no sources for this purported economic model, and, like John Quiggin, looking I can find no sources. This article is unverifiable. That is the policy per which we delete hoax theories. See WP:HOAX, which explains this. Delete. Uncle G 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX, some sort of pseudoeconomics nonsense. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:53, 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 merge to Spider-Man villains - Bobet 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burglar (Spider-Man)[edit]

Article is about character who does not have a name and only appears in one context. Article should be deleted; merging would be redundant as this idea is central to the origin of Spider-Man Chris Griswold 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the character reappeared later, I think Amazing Spider-Man #200? And has a daughter, Jessica Carradine. I don't know if that's enough to make him worth a page, but he does have more than one appearance. -HKMARKS 01:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hasn't he appeared in many other issues as well, in flashbacks? wikipediatrix 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes. But as I said, only in one context: The origin of Spider-Man. He is a detail in another character's story; he has not notability otherwise. Nor a name.--Chris Griswold 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into into Spider-Man. At most he should be a mention in the Spider-Man or Peter Parker articles since there is very little info on him and unlikely to be more in the future. TJ Spyke 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spider-Man villains would probably be a better merge destination. Spider-Man is a pretty hefty article with a lot of ground to cover. -HKMARKS 05:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Spider-Man villains. This seriously does not require a separate article. Resolute 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he reappeared in #200 (and cameos leading up to it) after he finally got out of prison. He finally died. His daughter Jessica Carradine later got to know Ben Reilly. And yet he was never named. Merge into Spider-Man villains. Doczilla 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Spider-Man villains per HKMARKS -Markeer 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This info deserves to be available somewhere on Wikipedia, even if it doens't deserve its own article. Zagalejo 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. We should not remove the info completly. --Edgelord 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, but please don't refer to him as the "Burglar" (capital "B"), that's just silly for a no-named character. BTW, I heard he was Joe Chill's cousin. -- Dyslexic agnostic 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call this consensus to merge? I think we can. -HKMARKS 06:17, 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 CSD A1 - no context. Kimchi.sg 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Be-Rad[edit]

appears to be total nonsense and in any case is unverified Blood red sandman 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs which refer to Jesus[edit]

Unmaintainable list which violates WP:NOT. Jesus is a bit of a recurring theme. You might as well have a List of songs about love. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of songs about lists. --IslaySolomon 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt the list is complete even, its unmaintainable. Far too common. The list of songs about love analogy works pretty good too. Kevin_b_er 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Far too broad where the criteria are concerned, but anything narrower would end up as a list of religious songs, which would also be a massive list. BigHaz 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What's next, List of songs which refer to Buddha, List of songs which refer to eggplants, and List of songs which refer to gerbils? wikipediatrix 03:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintanable and potentially huge. KleenupKrew 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh boy is this unmaintainable. Gazpacho 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable. Every church hymn would have to be included in this list. --Ageo020 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of above. Wikipediatrix: You forgot to list Rudolf Hess as well. = P -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--PremKudva^Talk 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too lengthy if it were to be accurate. Maybe if narrowed down, it could work. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. Doczilla 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 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. Kimchi.sg 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Master's degree[edit]

Unnecessary duplication of the much further expanded Master's degree article. Please see related AFD discussions: Professional Bachelor's degree and Professional doctorate. As with both of these articles, there is little or nothing in this article to merge to Master's degree that isn't already covered there. — NM Chico24 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agent 86 08:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a professional degree is different. There are distinctions made in the academic world. As for the other Afd's the nominator mentioned: the Doctorate was deleted correctly and so was the bachelor's (all three delete votes). Nickieee 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not convinced that this is an encyclopaedic concept. Further, it is POV as to which degrees are included. BlueValour 03:31, 18 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, NMChico24

Delete per precedent set by other two articles -Elmer Clark 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here that is not seen in article Master's degree will381796 05:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listicrufts. List masquerading as an article, but subject matter already exists as indicated by nominator. Ohconfucius 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--PremKudva^Talk 09:28, 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 keep. - Bobet 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trikke[edit]

This is wikispam -- a lot of the text is verbatim from the text at [www.trikke.com]. At the very least, this article requires a substantial rewrite; while I can see how the topic might merit an article, as it stands, it's just an ad. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam unless someone can find reliable sources per WP:RS. Crystallina 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but COMPLETELY rewrite, including the external links It is a well-known product. "Trikke" gets 548,000 Google hits, the second of which is a link to TIME Magazine naming it one of the best inventions of 2002. In fact, I seem to recall that the accompanying image was the lead photo for the "Best Inventions" section of that issue. They're also sold by reputable businesses such as Amazon and Modell's. Most of the G-hits I saw related to the product, so the high # of hits (and that 722 of the first 1,000 results are unique) certainly indicate that, at the very least, these things are sold everywhere. -- Kicking222 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting concept, but these things aren't exactly crowding bikes or roller blades off the sidewalks at the present moment. — NM Chico24 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't just an ad anymore. Actually searched it here to get more info on just what these are.Sabar 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There aren't many of these about either, but they're notable enough for an article. Tonywalton | Talk 11:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep something named invention of the year by Time is good enough for a keep. -- Whpq 14:10, 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 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCIS Episode Generator[edit]

No claims of notability have been provided in the page. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. It was tagged for speedy deletion (although that was invalid), and nominated, and deleted, via prod; some days later, the original author came back and contested the prod by recreating the page, so, I'm taking it to AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Softpedia is thataway. Kimchi.sg 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Igotnothintosay 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) What's wrong with the page???[reply]
It fails WP:SOFTWARE like the nom said, Delete. Shinhan 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable software. plus copyright problems on using the name of NCIS on the software. --Ageo020 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Not noteable

Betacommand 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 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 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaMedDevice[edit]

Article about future convention. Not notable. 1000 g-hits. Reads like an advertisement. :) Dlohcierekim

Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dionyseus 02:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, crystal ball. — NM Chico24 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Dennette 05:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of snowclones[edit]

WTF? This is in no way, shape or form an encyclopedia article. I can't even begin to say just what it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please also see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowclone (2nd nomination) — NM Chico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOLE completely sums up my views on this one. And yes, WP:HOLE is generally used for biographies, but the point is that I have no clue in hell what anything in this article is saying. -- Kicking222 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Dionyseus 02:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Doesn't make much sense. — NM Chico24 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patent nonsense -Elmer Clark 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like nonsense at first to me also, but then I finally wrapped my head around it: it's a neologism to describe common phrases that often get variations made of them, like "Does the Pope (blank) in the woods?". However, by rendering the list in faux-algebraic format, and ordering the examples in chronological order throughout history, the author of the article makes it extremely and unnecessarily hard to read. Having said all that, I still say Delete. wikipediatrix 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Vast list of OR. Crufty danishes and melted gummy worms. SynergeticMaggot 03:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the best to Snowclone and delete the rest. The existance of this page didn't do much to help Snowclone's case I don't think. Irongargoyle 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete double you tea eff. See above. will381796 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the examples of snowclone in the list are neither "patent nonsense" nor a "hole in the ground" -- just because a subject is unfamiliar to some readers does not invalidate it. This list article has been referenced in numerous places across the Internet. Please see, for example: Literal minded blog; Tlogmer's Wikipedia blog; Crayz.org; Cheek blog; Aidan McGlynn blog. See also the extensive discussion of the term's origin at the UPenn linguist's Language Log It would not be appropriate to (re)merge into snowclone, as this article was, in fact, split off from there precisely because it had grown too long. Obliga-note: I was the one who reorganised this list into its present chronology; this was intended to present its information in a more encylopaedically accessible form, by allowing it to be verified and found more easily. Another option, organising by source or media (i.e. print, film, TV, advertising, music, etc.), was not attempted because at the time, there were far fewer entries. Chronology makes sense to show (1) longevity of certain elements; (2) development over time; (3) connection to historical (pop)culture. I've attempted to regularly prune the less notable examples, but likely it could do with a bit more trimming, and clearer explanation of the term snowclone at the head.--Leflyman^Talk 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not very compelling sources, especially when one of them is a Wikipedia blog. wikipediatrix 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, providing Snowclone survives its own current AfD nomination. If there is to be an article on snowclones, it makes sense to provide a list of them for illustrative and explanatory purposes. The list shouldn't be (or try to be) exhaustive, and it should be sourced as much as possible (which would in practice limit it to only the most notable examples), but it does seem to me worth having. I admit the list could be merged with Snowclone, but that seems like an unnecessary combination of two different types of article to me. (Disclaimer: I've added one or two to this list myself.) Terraxos 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Leflyman and Terraxos. The Strength of the arguments for keeping both this list and the associated Snowclone article are quite persuasive in both cases and have changed my mind. Irongargoyle 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leflyman and Terraxos, assuming that Snowclone passes AfD. —Aristotle 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are serious problems with the list as it stands, but it is certainly not "nonsense." I don't even see how someone could mistake it for nonsense. --Iustinus 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging whatever is salvageable. Deltabeignet 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the Snowclones article, came here, read the list, understood at once what was going on. The algebraic format is perfectly comprehensible. The list is far from perfect (eg., off the top of my head I can add "See A B" from the old "See Dick Run" story books; and "Can you say X?" from the Mr. Rogers TV show) but the concept is appropriate.Network20 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as the two above. It makes an excellent companion to the snowclone article.
Keep per above. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Eyu100 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowclone[edit]

Neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snowclones — NM Chico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The word gets a lot of G-hits (16,200 total; 322 of the first 1,000 unique), but I have to move for deletion 1) because the word (even as defined by the article) is a neologism coined 2.5 years ago, and 2) per WP:HOLE. -- Kicking222 02:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment citing WP:HOLE is a little unfortunate as "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground" is quite likely a snowclone of "I wouldn't know him from Adam" MeltBanana 03:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, nonsensical (or at the very least extremely hard to follow and basically without point. — NM Chico24 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's really just a statement that there are popular phrases out there that often get spun into new variations (duh), and it tries to be fancy about it by expressing it in neo-algebraic terms. wikipediatrix 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per above reasons. SynergeticMaggot 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems well sourced beyond anything otherwise unreasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. This seems well sourced. It is confusing, but most of the math articles on wikipedia are way more confusing than this (I teach college statistics and even I can't understand most of them). Definitely seems notable and verifiable. Irongargoyle 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologisms are not acceptable Wikipedia articles. But then, Badlydrawnjeff votes to keep everything. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, but this is more than some neologism article, it has plenty of reliable sourcing and is more than just the meaning of the word. WP:NEO is about as vague as you can get as a guideline, but this article seems to surpass what's expected for deletion there. As for my habits, I can point out hundreds of articles I don't "vote" keep on, so I'm not sure if that swipe is necessary or accurate. I only "vote" keep on what I believe should be kept, not "everything." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think that's precisely what WP:NEO says, Zoe. If neologisms are discussed as a phenomenon (and not merely used without discussion), they are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new term, but it's been discussed or at least defined in the New York Times, the Times of London, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as on NPR's Talk of the Nation and in a book reprinting essays from the linguistics blog in which the term first appeared. In Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms, the only two reasons given that articles on neologisms "may not be appropriate" are that they often lack reliable secondary sources, and are often no more than dictionary definitions. This goes beyond dictionary definition -- it's an article about the linguistic phenomenon the term was coined to describe -- and there are sources. Sounds like the article needs quite a bit of work to be clear to an encyclopedia audience, but that's not a reason to delete it. —Celithemis 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the research, I've come to the same conclusion as Celithemis. The problems with neologisms that are relevant here are that the concepts that they embody are unverifiable and original research. The concept embodied by this neologism is verifiable (There is quite a lot of discussion of it to be found.), not original research (The concept having spread far beyond its original creator.), and there is plenty of source material to work from. However, I do wonder whether this is simply a new word for the existing concept of a cliché. ("Snowclones are the new clichés, dahling!") That's a matter of merger, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I'd vastly prefer to see this article merged into cliché than to stand alone. wikipediatrix 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has already survived one (or was it two) AfD's and what went before AfDs already. I much agree with Celithemis. As for cliches, cliches don't change while snowclones do. Snowclones are relevant for translation-research as sometimes it is possible to translate it into a different snowclone in the target language, and if not possible the translation can't be direct and might even need a footnote. Kaleissin 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did those previous AfDs go? They didn't show up when I tagged the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, original research, non-notable. Try Urban Dictionary. Deltabeignet 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TJ Spyke 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis. The term may be an acknowledged neologism, but since its adoption by linguists at the Language Log in 2004, it has been widely used, with over 15,000 Google entries. This article has been referenced around the internet, including:

ScienceAdditiction.com
CacophonyAndCoffee.blogspot.com
Cuesta Library blog
Tlogmer's Wikipedia Blog
Media Resources for book Far from the Madding Gerund by linguists Mark Liberman & Geoffrey K. Pullum. --Leflyman^Talk 05:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Celithemis and Leflyman. hateless 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convcinced mere novelty is the same as non-notability. For obvious reasons neologisms are going to tend to be non-notable, but then their articles can be deleted on that basis. The article itself doesn't look like original research either, it looks like it's a description of what went on at Language Log. Surely we're not going to require that every article be copied and pasted from somewhere else to avoid running afoul of WP:NOR.--♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEO doesn't mean that newness alone is grounds for deletion, and if it does, then it needs to be considered a much more prominent Wikipedia policy. One of Wikipedia's natural advantages should be that it can document subjects more quickly than a top-down source could do. The suggestion that all newly coined terms belong in the Urban Dictionary is silly; this is a scholarly, non-humorous subject. Maybe a misunderstanding comes from the fact that some of the examples are irreverent, but these can be switched with more mainstream examples if somebody wants. Agree with the reasoning from Celithemis and Leflyman. IEdML 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Jxg 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it may be a neologism, but it describes a clearly defined linguistic concept which definitely has its place in modern culture, particularly on the Internet. The idea it describes ought to have a name, and 'snowclone' seems to be the accepted one. I agree that it could use a rewrite to make it simpler and easier to understand, though. Terraxos 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. —Aristotle 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kicking222. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see what the issue is. --Iustinus 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now frequently used among linguists. CRCulver 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is some better name for the concept then rename the article, but it's a real article on a real subject. It would not be proper to delete an article for want of a name.Barticus88 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis and Terraxos. Regarding WP:NEO, this is not a protologism, not a mere definition, and not original research, which are the reasons WP:NEO gives that a neologism-titled article may be undesirable. Rather, this is, per Barticus88, 'a real article on a real subject' that happens to have acquired a name only recently. Put it this way: Personal names may also be neologisms, but we don't exclude discussion of a person merely because said person has a name. Duh. eritain 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis. Ruakh 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis. — Jéioosh 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celithemis. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly valid topic, for which "snowclone" is the most noteworthy term. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:18, 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 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day Philadelphia[edit]

Non-notable Subwayguy 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news broadcast of little note outside its local area. — NM Chico24 02:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WTXF-TV per the above. —Whomp t/c 03:57, 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 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Homes[edit]

advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN real estate company. Fan-1967 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...is that Spam I taste? Akradecki 02:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Possible violation of WP:AUTO. — NM Chico24 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per the smell of spam. SynergeticMaggot 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss. I am going to write the use of internet technology in hong kong property market. And It is the first one who has won the Hong Kong Productivity Council award. Or how should we edit it so that it does not look like an advertisement?Frankycho 11:35, 19 August 2006 (HKT)

Comment Editing will not help. Wikipedia only has articles (not advertising, which clearly this is) on notable companies per Standards for notability of corporations. Clearly this company does not qualify. Fan-1967 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Delete it. The company gives no indication it passes WP:CORP, so no real grounds for an article. Ohconfucius 07:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--PremKudva^Talk 09:28, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Mall[edit]

The article has no discussion about the mall's notability. It's just a run of the mill mall. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or Weak Delete Not too sure how to go with this one. Many malls have articles, including some in my city which are I do not think could be considered unique or important (North Star Mall). I would delete, but there seems to be a precendent to include malls. will381796 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, unless comeone can come up with a good reason why this mall is so special. There are hundreds of malls in every town and city these days. Ohconfucius 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Malls do not come under the purview of CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Troy, Michigan. It's probably quite a significant place in that town but probably doesn't need a separate article based on the article's current contents. JYolkowski // talk 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or at least merge with Troy, Michigan. I think sizeable indoor shopping malls are borderline notable, given the important roles they play in their communities. Zagalejo 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be a fairly large mall in the Detroit area. Malls of significant size are notable enough as important community landmarks. Needs expansion desperately though. Kirjtc2 23:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mall is a significant place of employment and community activity. If a redirect was given from Oakland to Troy, Michigan, that may be okay. Nlsanand 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So is a Wal-Mart. Should we have an article on every one of those? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wal-Marts are all pretty much the same, but each indoor shopping mall has its own distinctive architecture and ambience. Also, the larger shopping malls often play host to mini-concerts, celebrity appearances, and assorted games and tournaments, so they tend to be more versatile than the standard big-box stores. Just my two cents. Zagalejo 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malls are businesses that rent space to retail stores, the way office towers rent space to companies needing an office. There is no evidence of this mall meeting the standards at WP:CORP. GRBerry
Keep. After looking at Category:Shopping malls in Michigan, I think this needs to stay. A project-wide consensus on all these articles needs to be reached, not the deletion of this one article. Rmhermen 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge but do not keep. There is nothing notable asserted in the article. Vegaswikian 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a very notable mall in the metro Detroit area that has been around since the 1960s. --musicpvm 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is notable in the detroit metro area we need project wide consensus first Yuckfoo 22:09, 28 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 (A1 & A7) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Intelligence Labo[edit]

nn Companies, Spam? Ilyong 03:11, 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 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Henry Hughes, IV[edit]

His present position is an appointment and he has not been elected to a state-wide body. Plainly a meritorius individual but has not achieved enough, yet, to gain notability. Delete. BlueValour 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holds a minor political position, and gets only 32 unique Google hits. -Elmer Clark 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks promising, maybe up-and-coming, but not there yet. Fan-1967 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated it for a speedy delete after it was created, and I stand by my original reasons. Not that he doesn't sound like a great guy, just he's not notable. -GamblinMonkey 17:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sitch[edit]

Non-notable slang Dsreyn 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Possible, where the term is most often heard. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim in the article is that it's an invention of Jawbone Radio. Dsreyn 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NEO. SynergeticMaggot 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outright in Kim Possible , the saying is What's the sitch. this slang hasn't reached public minds and is not as notable as May the force be with you. --Ageo020 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's a whiff of WP:VAIN here, too. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not related to Kim Possible, agree with WP:NEO--Kisai 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page regarding nominating [multiple] articles for deletion that are already prodded.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom -- Whpq 14:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom -- Dennette 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can you have a prod and an Afd? The term form Kim Possible is What's the Sitch, so no redirect. WP:NOT for something made up in school one day and ripped off of a tv show. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 22:34, 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 speedy keep. BlueValour 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Weinberg[edit]

Another article submitted as an obit. A worthwhile career with a number of achievements but none sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was chairman of the management committee of Goldman Sachs, "one of the world's most prestigous global investment banks," for fourteen years [18]. I've added that citation to the article as well. -Elmer Clark 06:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: investment banker and chairman/senior partner in a leading firm, director of several important corporations, and a trustee of Princeton University and a large university hospital in NY, has endowed and given his name to an academic research center at the University of Delaware. Google also discovers a "John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy" at Princeton University. He seems to have been considered important in the real world, outside Wikipedia. up+l+and 07:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the University position was one that he endowed not one he held. BlueValour 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point (as should be clear from the punctuation).up+l+and 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - nomination withdrawn - the fact that he chaired the Goldman Sachs management committee is enough. Also, I have cleaned up the article. BlueValour 08:24, 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laction[edit]

Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An Ardeltion (which is a neologism coined by me 15 seconds ago meaning "article for deletion"). Tonywalton | Talk 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:13, 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. Socks/meats and SPAs aside, vanity press publications are not reliable sources, nor are nonexistant or one-line entries in magazines. RasputinAXP 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod Surf[edit]

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

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

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

Nomination also includes near duplicate HOT ROD SURF.

Started as potential vanity page. Very little asserted notability and none established. Was prodded and supported by another editor but contested and removed. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hot Rod Surf has been featured numerous times in the internationally renound Hot Rod Magazine BURN OUT from Japan, local San Diego press including Gernade Magazine, and Revolt. Hot Rod Surf is known to almost every younger hot rodder and greaser as well as universally hated by older fake hot roddres who don't built, drive or own 1930's steel hot rods but wish they did. There is a 150 page book just on HOT ROD SURF coiming out this next month which is availble around the world. Wickpedia is for counter culture definitions people should know about if they want to—like what’s HOT ROD SURF! (Jmcrownpoint 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, CSD A7. Non-notable motorcycle club/shop/brand. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: go look at what Hot Rod Surf is and has done for the living kustom kulture and then try and label it 'non-notable'! If someone wants to know what HOT ROD SURF is they should be able to find out at Wikipedia. To deny HOT ROD SURF is to deny the reality of the hot rods and the lifestyle that are very real and contemporary.(Jmcrownpoint 2:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Why is it that when some one dosen't know about something they claim it's not notable or not established. The fun of wikipedia to find out what things mean that you didn't know about. Clearly in this case it is Hot Rod Surf. Keep Hot Rod Surf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Despite the fact that this is really original research and theory, Wikipedia operates on a burden of positive proof system. Not everything deserves inclusion. And the burden of proof is on the authors of the pages to show that it should be included. This is also why we have Articles for Deletion instead of Articles for Inclusion. As well as a speedy deletion criteria that says, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." We don't just go around yelling yee-haw while we nominate stuff for deletion. We take the time to investigate, using many resources. And, searches all say that it's just not notable. If you think it's notable, prove it. If something is notable, there will be plenty of independent verifiable proof out there that can be cited and presented. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, put another way: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this shop satisfies the criteria for inclusion laid out in WP:CORP. (The 150 page book that is being published "next month" does not count, by the way.) Please cite the newspaper feature articles that you claim exist. Uncle G 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The majority of User:Jmcrownpoint's edits have been to add external links to this Hot Rod Surf site to other articles, not all Hot Rod related. Google search shows that many of the hits for "Hot Rod Surf" do not refer to this particular commercial enterprise (for example, it seems to be the name of a music style). -- Infrogmation 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being a real counter-culture phenomenon Hot Rod Surf has not courted any mainstream news outlets. In many ways MWM believed that this was a waste of time of explaining instead of living. It’s time to bring the truth to light. The book HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine ISBN 0-9786756-0-6, and the second book by MWM about pinstriping is ISBN 0-9786756-1-4 who ever doubts the books should go and order them and can do hours of ‘verification’. The Blue Dream 1931 Ford roadster built by MWM and dripping with the HOT ROD SURF style is featured with a pin-up in “SDMUSIC MATTERS”reliable source ‘local music for local culture,’ June/July 2004 pages 22-24 (four full pages). Look at the rod in the magazine and on the official Hot Rod Surf website. HOT ROD SURF is featured in “Revolt In Style”reliable source magazine September 2002 (p.12), “Car Culture Deluxe”reliable source magazine, issue #9 year 2003, (page 71), one of the Hot Rod Surf parties is mentioned in “Revolt In Style,” November 2001. HOT ROD SURF was also featured in “Grenade Magazine”reliable source (since changed it’s name to Krown mag) Vol. 1 Issue 1, Spring 2003 with a ‘san diego Kustom Car Kulture’ full article (page4) featuring the Hot Rod Surf parties and the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and style. Hot Rod Surf has also been featured in BurnOut reliable sourcemagazine numerous times (check the news and events on www.hotrodsurf.com) there is a picture of the founder and publisher of Burnout. Contact legendary counter culture artists Marco Almera reliable source, or Nash’s BurnOut blog verify with them about HOT ROD SURF.(hotrodsurf 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- No books with those ISBNs are listed on any of the book sources that I checked. Please check that you gave the correct ISBNs. Uncle G 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ISBN 0978675606 - HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine (Published by HOT ROD SURF PUBLISHING)
  - ISBN 0978675614 - Basic Hot Rod Pinstriping Techniques with Hot Rod Surf (Published by ?, Written by Mark Whitney Mehran of Hot Rod Surf)
  - These DO NOT meet verifiability criteria of reliable and reputable sources. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GO CLICK ON YOUR OWN LINK to the books and you will find them! The books are are real as the original article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
- I did, and they weren't there. I notice that Amazon now has the book listed. Investigating this, I find that the listing is solely because a seller has put up the book for sale second-hand. Investigating who the seller is, I find that xyr Amazon name is "hotrodsurf", a new seller as of the 20th of August 2006, the day after I wrote the above. Uncle G 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The books are on the first edition and printing, it takes some time for them to show up in the data bases. The first edition is officially released for distributors and reviews September 1st. To further ‘verify’ try and contact 'Harley' the lead singer of the band Deadbolt . Deadbolt has played numerous shop parties and Harley owns and drives a genuine Hot Rod Surf hot rod built by MWM. Next we will hear Deadbolt and Voodoobilly doesn’t exist despite their 8 plus full length original albums and world tours?! Harley has seen an advanced copy of the HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine book, his band and hot rod are in it. (hotrodsurf 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete — A self-published book still is not a reliable source. None of the other articles that are mentioned above appear to discuss the shop, but just its cars, so HRS is not the subject of those articles. JChap2007 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles discuss the shop, the style, and fully support the definition of HOT ROD SURF as described in the original article. (hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: An importantpart of the Hot Rod Surf phenomenon is the true DIY spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: 'appear'! Go find the articles and contact the proper people and obtain the articles. All of the articles support the definition presented to Wikipedia. Go to BurnOut magazine or find a copy of the original Grenade magazine. Better talk to some one like Harley from Deadbolt or Marco Almera. Yes, the Hot Rod Surf hot rods and choppers are a very important part of Hot Rod Surf. The beauty of the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and choppers are that they are undeniably in physical REALITY and are driving all around the United Stated and the world. Unlike, text, articles, or comments which are just that text.(hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Note: All 3 of the above votes, in addition to an earlier one above, by User:Hotrodsurf. -- Infrogmation 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, they "appear" to be so per your summaries of them, mate. JChap2007 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is great all sorts of people are learning about what Hot Rod Surf really is! (hotrodsurf 1:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep: Non-notable?! In who's opinion? I and many others I've known have found the cars and motorcycles built by HOT ROD SURF and appearing for the last couple of years upon their web site, dvd's, and in various car culture magazines to be inspirational and an influence upon the lifestyle that I and others live. Non-notable? Hardly. By removing HOT ROD SURF, wikipedia displays it's arrogance, it's limited vision and thereby makes itself Non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Note: above vote is user's only edit. -- Infrogmation 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Hot Rod Surf has been featured in BurnOut Magazine on numerous occasions including issue #10, 2001 (pages 16-17), and issue #13, September 2002 (page 38). HOT ROD SURF has also been featured in the Japanese car culture magazine Cal Magazine in the 15th Anniversary edition, April 2002 #4 (page 87-88), as well as the German magazine Street Car & Bike issue Nov./Dec. 2005 pages (18-19). (Jmcrownpoint 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- The preceding comment was added by 72.130.148.120. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:To be more specific the #10 issue of BurnOut is also called the Makato Issue vol.3, no.4 and has HOT ROD SURF BBQ listed on the cover as a feature article. (Jmcrownpoint 2:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The preceding comment was added by 72.130.148.120. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hot Rod Surf is a lifestyle for me and my friends and it should be included in Wikipedia. It represents the contemporary beach and hot rod scene here in Southern CA. I’ve been to there parties and seen them featured in some mags and zines. (hotrodjohn 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Hotrodjohn (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Above vote is user's first edit. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article is a good start for something that means alot to myself and means alot to buddies of mine, and there's alot of us. Hot Rodding, Kustoms and Surfing are things that have been passed down to guys and gals alike for many of years now. These are all things that we hold close to our hearts, tradition is something that you dont throw to the waste side, and articles like this one are showing that we are out there and we do care about more than just the fashion show and fashion cars side of things, and hot rod surf is now part of that tradition for alot of us from so cal and beyond. I Thank you for your time. Jimmy Von Surf
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. --Satori Son 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a result of multiple consistencies of habits, voting, and usernames in this AfD, a complaint has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is clear that the 'User talk: JJJJust' has a pattern of selecting articles and marking then “unverifiable” and then when the verification comes 'User talk: JJJJustuses'uses more technical earmarkings like ‘sock puppets’ to try and disregard the verification of a Reality which he first complained and reported. Notice how 'User talk: JJJJust'never really talks about the articles he marks and files complaints against. Articles and text should be about the article and definition in question for Wikipedia not a technical game of ratting.(Jmcrownpoint11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: More technicalities... Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Read it. And you're right, I do have a pattern of selecting articles and marking them unverified. It's called New Page Patrol. But, the thing is that, when I do that, and bring articles such as this one to Articles for deletion, a large majority of independent users with no connections to the articles whatsoever agree with me and concur with my findings. Oh, and the second and third sentences on this page, are about the article(s) of which I complained and reported. Once I've said it once, I really don't say it again, unless something like this happens. And, yes, I don't have much to say about the text of the articles. Mainly because the articles I forward here do not have problems with the text, they may be factual and nicely written, but, have other policy problems. I'm not really a front line guy, I'm a back room worker. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources that discuss this seem reliable, but the article should be written with those in mind, not how it's currently written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you referring to, and how can you say they "seem reliable" without having read them? Or do you mean to say that you have actually read their self-published book or the articles from obscure magazines that allegedly mention them?? Also, their suggestion that personally asking the guy from Deadbolt for "verification" obviously fails WP:RS as well. wikipediatrix 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typically speaking, we'd use published sources as sources in articles without much question. This seems entirely reasonable in this case, and I think we're letting the sock parade blind our ability to objectively look at this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that you take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy a lot more seriously. A book that magically appears for sale on Amazon, by an Amazon seller named "hodrodsurf", the day after I mention that I couldn't find it listed, that is autobiographical according to the prior discussion (Please actually read the prior discussion.) and that hasn't been published yet (Please actually read the Barnes & Noble listing given above.) is nowhere near being a reliable source. It isn't even a source at all, because it hasn't been published yet. As for the magazines, I conclude that the answer that you didn't give to Wikipediatrix's question above is actually "No, I haven't actually read any of them.". I conclude this because I have made attempts to check these sources. The only magazine that I've been able to even find so far, Revolt In Style, doesn't have an accessible archive of back issues where I can check what was in the September 2002 edition. Uncle G 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I take it very seriously, actually. Whether the book "magically" appeared at Amazon during this discussion isn't really all that relevant. We're still talking about a published book that no one would ever question anywhere else. There are a number of sources we use in articles all over the place that I simply have not read, either. I'm not going to start removing books willy-nilly because I haven't read them, I'm going to assume good faith that the books are being sourced properly. Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that? Finally, I have a pile of books in the next room over that are technically "not published." While there are certainly some vanity issues we need to deal with on the editor side, his ability to have a prerelease version of something doesn't automatically eliminate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        With regard to the books and only the books, they both were written and published by the corporation in question. That makes them unusable as sources as they cannot be used to establish notability, which is what they were being used for and notability and verifiability are probably the largest sticking points here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        From where you linked: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following." It meets "the following," so they're fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Two operative words that you are repeatedly overlooking: "published" and "notability". The notability criteria in WP:CORP specifically exclude published works that are not independent of the subject. This non-published book is an autobiography, as was explained by User:Hotrodsurf above. Please pay closer attention to the discussion. Uncle G 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm more bothered that WP:CORP is being used to trump WP:V in this case. If it comes down to a disconnect between a notability guideline and a verifability policy, I'm going with the latter. This isn't me not paying attention, it's making a value judgement on the sources and the article's worth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The set of things that are notable is a subset of the things that are verifiable, so yes notability criteria are more restrictive than simple verifiability. (There is a patch of unremarkable grassland next to my house that is verifiable.) Your acceptance of an unpublished autobiography as a source is not a "value judgement". It is simply not applying any form of judgement at all, and not taking verifiability seriously. Uncle G 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "We're still talking about a published book" — No, we are not. This was stated right at the top of this discussion, is stated in the Barnes & Noble listing, and was stated by me in the very text that you are replying to. Please take our verifiability policy more seriously, and please pay closer attention to the discussion.
        "I'm going to assume good faith" — This is not a question of assuming good faith. This is a question of an application of our verifiability policy that is so lax that it includes books that haven't been published.
        "Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that?" — Once again: This book has not been published. It is not a published source. Uncle G 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, our disagreement on these issues is not me taking WP:V at a different level of seriousness - we disagree on the sourcing, and we disagree on the application. We're both longtime, reasonable people, and can disagree on this one. I hear what you're saying, I simply disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not taking verifiability seriously, because the fundamental point of verifiability is that readers can check articles for themselves. Clearly, a book that has not been published isn't a way for readers to do that. It is a simple rejection of the entire basis of the policy to argue that such a book is a source. It is a complete mischaracterization to state that this is a disagreement on how verifiability is applied. What it is is not applying verifiability at all, in any form. Uncle G 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, we disagree. Your continued assertions that I fail to take WP:V seriously are without merit, so please cease it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of nearly every "Keep" vote on this page is either a repeat, or an unestablished user; or, on the basis that the article is in such bad shape from a Wikipedia standpoint, it deserves another try at another time by an editor who understands NPOV and notability. -- MyWikiBiz 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn per WP:CORP. Self-published books don't count for notability. Moreover, the page content is not encyclopedic in style. Han-Kwang 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hot Rod Surf has proven they have valid sources outside of the books, Just two easy examples are Burnout Magazine and Krown magazine both can be found on their websites. The source are valid. These magazines are completely unrelated with each other or Hot Rod Surf. Hot Rod Surf is proven to be recognized by published media. Hot Rod Surf is a unique part of Hot Rod culture and should be include in wikipedia. Sources:
- http://www.krownmagazine.com/krownmagazine/past-issues.html
- http://www.detroitjunk.com/BURNOUT.html
- http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/custom-carshot-rods/hot-rod-surf-rat-rods-119872.php
User:HunterIrrigation 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: HunterIrrigation (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
- Actually, the purported articles cannot be found on their web sites. Krown magazine just has a gallery of its magazine covers on its web site, as does Burnout magazine. But at least you've told us where the magazines are to be found, now, which is better. Jalopnik has its article on its web site, but the amount of information in that article amounts to no more than 1 sentence: "Hot Rod Surf of San Diego builds old-skool hotrods.". This is Wikipedia, not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need more than "mostly harmless". Where are the sources for all of the other content of the article? Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Hello, I am new to Wikipedia but not to the Kustom Culture, Chopper and Hot Rod scene. I am here because the Kustom Culture scene is misrepresented and not understood by many people. It is a rising movement in American history and is recorded in many of today’s popular media. The modern era of Kustom Culture is changing rapidly with many independent press only covering accurate accounts. I am happy to see many other Kustom Culture stars on here such as Robert Williams, Juxtapoz, Jesse James, Von Dutch and so many more. This is an encyclopedia to stay onto of the current definitions. The outside sources of magazines, books and website clearly follow the WP:CORP definition for a company deserving inclusion. I would like to work on making the write up to standard and not deleting this company since this these type entits along with the above mentioned stars are what someone looking up hot rods, lowbrow art, rat rod, choppers or custom culture want to learn about. Give us critique on the description of Hot Rod Surf not trying to delete. Thanks to all the editors who care to contribute not delete this great site of important relevant information.(HunterIrrigation 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per badlydrawnjeff. It takes upwards of 3-4 weeks for Amazon to approve and list a book for sale on their website, and I say this as a self-published author. Silensor 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not accurate. Check out the link: [19]. It is not actually being sold by Amazon, but only listed by Amazon Marketplace as being for sale by hotrodsurf. This type of listing, and its Product Detail Page, can be completed immediately, and does not take the usual 3-4 weeks. Amazon.com says, "Once you submit the product information, Amazon will create the product page right away so that you can list your Marketplace copy on the newly created page." --Satori Son 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, having two books with and ISBN number is not an overnight activity and I find it extremely disturbing that an long time editor of Wiki would discount independent books or act as if books are created out of nowhere. The books are not the only sources you keep leaving out the other sources they have provided. Magazines and news sources provided they have clearly made an accurate case to be included according to the WP:CORP.(HunterIrrigation 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  - Please do not misstate my position. I do not "discount" these two vanity press publications, I just do not believe they qualify as "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V, and thus are not a valid reason for a "keep" opinion from Silensor as he/she states above. --Satori Son 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello once again the other third party sources are being ignored the magazines Burnout, Krown, Reviewer, Revolt in Style, Street Car & Bike and Jalpinx. There are three links above where you can find the magazines and you can find past issues at selected counter culture newstands. I personaly have mulitple BurnOut mag with Hot Rod Surf included from back in 2001, 2003 and in the current issue 2006. I am a long time subscriber of BurnOut mag publsihed in Japan and distributed world wide heavly in Europe and America. These thrid party mags completely follow inline with the WP:CORP. This is a noticalble company that people into Hot Rod, Choppers and Kustom Culture want to know about. They are well documented in Hot Rod magazines. Why is it people who don’t follow the major current builders in the Hot Rod scene are trying to delete Hot Rod Surf after third party evidence has been delivered? (HunterIrrigation 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    - They aren't being ignored, for the simple reason that you aren't actually citing them in the first place. We need more than just a laundry list of magazine names. How are editors and readers to find the articles that you claim exist from just that? See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the page can be cleaned up and a lot of the POV terms removed I might be tempted to change my mind, but for now delete. Wildthing61476 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHi all! I have gone over the page and worked on the writing to make it in encyclopedic style. I have also got rid of all POV. As suggested by Wildthing61476 and Han-KwangI would like to have a side picture of one of the radical hot rods included on this page but don’t wait to take their photos without permission. This page has now proven to be ready for inclusion, cited sources and no POV. It should now be taken off the articles for deletion. HunterIrrigation 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources cited in the article. What's the source for the information given in the article's third paragraph, for example? Neither this discussion nor the article gives any clue. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello User:Uncle G, Hi the cited source were in the talk section but a mister User:MER-C deleted them. I would like to understand why someone would delete vailid source instead of adding to disscusion. It looks like a personal attack on this page. I did put them back for you to see. Thanks for the input. HunterIrrigation 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources are in the Hot Rod Surf talk page not this discussion talk page. Since learning that I have added to this discussion talk page. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah. Thank you. I'll have a look. Uncle G 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources, no notability established and it's still an ad, even after the rewrite from this new, single-purpose account. JChap2007 12:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:JChap2007 please state why it is still an ad, if you gave me something to work with I would like gladly take your comment serious. Multiple 3rd party sources have been mention from magazine dating back 6 years ago, to website to book listed at Barnes and Nobles. At this point I think your are not paying attention to what has been mentioned before or adding any new contributions. HunterIrrigation 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems a bit crazy that there is all of this back and forth about Hot Rod Surf which should be a good, positive, fun and legitimate gateway article about the reality of the contemporary hot rod and kustom kulture scene. Each and every detractor and skeptic of the original posted article has not helped define, or add any original text to the expansion of the ‘hot rod’, ‘kustom kulture’, or ‘Hot Rod Surf’ articles? Let’s keep it positive with informative contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Hello Satori Son, I have added all my own contributions to this page signed. I have no control over the post above or what any other fan of hot rod surf does. Please ask me any question or contribute to this post. It seems as a personal attack to be call a stock puppet after working so hard to contribute and listen to other responses. Feel free to contact me or post a vaild wikipedia agrument.HunterIrrigation 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, please see my talk page for response and sockpuppet discussion. --Satori Son 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, and maybe even WP:OR. A self-published website is considered a primary source, and hence doesn't fill the V problem - visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline for this being precident, and then the Deletion Review reaffirming this judgement. The rest a results of this. Daniel.Bryant 13:33, 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. Yeah, I know... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down with the Clown[edit]

Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NEO. SynergeticMaggot 03:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has already been PRODed, no need to take it here. -Elmer Clark 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the prod tag - it is better to get a consensus for deletion through AfD. I have cautioned Dsreyn not to AfD uncontested prods in future. Kimchi.sg 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, the PROD and AfD policies seemed to suggest that this was an allowable course of action. Dsreyn 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod, which stated: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Notes left on nominator's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — neo JChap2007 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a whiff of WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 20:16, 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 merge to Marc Morrone, no reason not to mention it there. - Bobet 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pet Shop with Marc Morrone[edit]

More a trailer than an encyclopaedic article on a notable programme. Delete. BlueValour 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article definitely has the potential for a scholarly article. Alex 07:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see how Alex can say that with a straight-face. Rangek 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's an article Marc Morrone where the information could be posted - no need for a separate article. Camillus (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Marc Morrone. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of subject's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Waygood[edit]

stated purpose of the article is to be a profile of a business for purposes of his clients, also the page has been deleted once and recreated Bookgrrl 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said "page has been nominated for deletion once" and the author (who is also the subject of the article) removed the flag. --Bookgrrl 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no free web host. Gazpacho 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant misuse of Wikipedia -Elmer Clark 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the user is desperate to have his information out there, it can't hurt to have it on his userpage. BigHaz 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 03:49, 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 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Bresloff[edit]

This article provides insufficient context. The majority of the information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited to the article which leads to suspicion of being Original Research. -- 3:16 03:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low Google hittage, and he was only an event promoter. wikipediatrix 03:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a train wreck. Daniel Case 03:59, 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 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpoena Power, Save the Republic[edit]

nn game. The website has no alexa rank or information at all. There are zero google hits for "Subpoena Power, Save the Republic" and only 28 hits for 'Subpoena Power" "Save the Republic" game'. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a joke. Daniel Case 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, and possibly WP:HOAX doktorb _words^deeds 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Send to BJAODN. Ace of Sevens 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom.--Peephole 13:17, 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, it was templatefied by Reinoutr and is probably better served in that fashion. The article's text concentrated on the individual players, not the family itself. The history isn't necessary to keep since the only thing in the template is a family tree branch. - Bobet 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen family[edit]

The information is certainly noteworthy, but not in its own article. It's also rather improper (IMO) to title an article something as general as "Allen family" and be so specific, since there are clearly more Allen families than just the one that the article refers to. fuzzy510 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the info seems important (and I know how those football fans are!) then perhaps a rename to "Allen family footballers" or "Allens (Reading Football Club)" ? Or a merge with Reading Football League ? --Bookgrrl 04:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly back renaming it along the lines of Allen family footballers. I created the article and the reason for it was to include the family tree and to avoid replicating the information on each of the separate player pages. To my knowledge, no other family in English football comes close to having so many members play at a professional level, let alone represent thier country --Bedders 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Bedders 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither renaming nor merging requires listing this on AFD. Talk:Allen family is still a red link. May I suggest withdrawing the nomination and discussing this there? up+l+and 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Make a template and put it in all the biographies. Catchpole 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this suggestion. —Michael Hays 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why this can't simply be on the players pages. As Catchpole suggests, a template would be good. JPD (talk)
Delete and comment; I have created a template containing the family tree and added it to all family member articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 28 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 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch. BryanG^(talk) 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Diva[edit]

Contested prod. Author's only contrib. Author disputes claim that this is an advertisement, but even if it isn't, it's a neologism, it's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, it's largely original research and not verifiable, and it's also not neutral POV. Are these divas really invited to "everything, everywhere, all of the time?" How much money is "too much" to spend on shoes and clothes, and what constitutes a "fabulous" night out? Delete with extreme prejudice. VoiceOfReason 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo. Daniel Case 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speed deleted as blatant link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:02, 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aqueous Martini[edit]

Someone's cute joke AFAICT. Doesn't even cut it as a dicdef (I was hoping this would be a band, as it would be a cool name). Probable BJAODN. Daniel Case 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — or Merge to Non-alcoholic beverages so long as its verified. SynergeticMaggot 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think with some things you just know they're not going to be verified ... but there are about 866 hits out there; however most seem to be forum posts. Daniel Case 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping would be like us going to the article for water and saying that it is also known as an aqueous martini if you put an olive in it and serve it in a coctail glass. Obvious neologism or joke. will381796 05:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious joke -Elmer Clark 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Water, with Adam's ale as precedent. Tonywalton | Talk 11:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional beverages, where it should be pointed out that the Aqueous Martini is a joke in The Ersatz Elevator. Confusing Manifestation 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, therefore kept. - Bobet 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV networks that air The Amazing Race[edit]

There is no reason for this "article to even exist". The information should be part of the article about The Amazing Race and not an out of context list. I placed the information from this list in the main article where it belongs. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Displaced Brit 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the involved networks could be included in a subcategory of Category:The Amazing Race. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete if this were kept it would generate a horrible precedent to spawn thousands of nonsensical lists Anlace 05:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most american sitcoms or serial's articles do have the network in which it is aired in foreign countries.--Ageo020 05:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Amazing Race, purely for GFDL reasons as the list was merged into that article, where it probably belongs. BryanG^(talk) 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into The Amazing Race in prose form. (For example, it shouldn't take seven separate lines to list all the places where AXN airs this program.) --Metropolitan90 06:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to merge contents into the main article; its inclusion exceeds recommendations from Wikipedia:Article size. Note that other television shows and televised events also have a separate article on international broadcasters (Broadcasting of The Simpsons, List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases, Live 8 broadcasters, etc. --Madchester 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasoning. --CFIF ☎ 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed. Broadcasting of The Simpsons is a prose article, not a list. I'll be glad to nominate the Smallville list. Gazpacho 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that, merge into The Amazing Race. A list of foreign airings of a US TV show is enyclopedic. Kirjtc2 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright, no merge, no redirect. If someone wants to include the info in the main article, go crazy. If there's not enough room, then the article was too fracking big to begin with and should be trimmed. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main TV series article, which appears to be the general rule of thumb for this type of list. 23skidoo 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is separate from The Amazing Race for pure size reasons. Please look at the article you're proposing to merge it into - there's not much room! Radagast 15:59, 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 keep per A1. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of myNetworkTV affiliates[edit]

Yet another list article that has no reason to exist. The information should be part of the article about MyNetworkTV and not an out of context list. The information from this list belongs in the main MyNetworkTV article and the indivdual television stations belong article in a category. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Displaced Brit 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep useful and sourced. I'm not allowed to say anything else or this user will harrass and stalk me. --CFIF ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per CFIF. If you delete this, several more articles go with it. Though a category exists as well, this also includes ownership and digital subchannel items. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This list is highly useful and all sources are cited. This list is the work of a hundred editors who worked hard to compile a credible list of affiliates. Every item on this list has been confirmed by B&C magazine and other reputable sources, and contrary to user:Displaced Brit's earlier nominations, this list does not have a brief introduction; there is clear context. Additionally, D.B's claims that the items in this list belong in the main article make no sense, as the items in this list would cause the page to exceed the recommended page size. This nomination is a clear violation of WP:POINT, judging from nominator's background (check out user:Displaced Brit's talk page for details).--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignoring what appears to be an ongoing conflict, my gut says to merge this into the MyNetworkTV article, and I was going to suggest this as it seems to touch on some of the major points of why the network was created in the first place. I need to sleep on this to come up with a solution to suggest. This is really a tough call and needs some thought, despite what may or may not be a spiteful nomination. TV Newser 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If you deleted that you would have to delete List of CBS affiliates, List of NBC affiliates, List of FOX affiliates, List of ABC affiliates, etc. TJ Spyke 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a perfect example of where a list can do more than a category, and it's way too big to merge anywhere. BryanG^(talk) 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --Daniel Olsen 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep per above — SterlingNorth 06:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
further comment to my vote above -- I remember a quote from somewhere: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I also remember a rule that says to ignore all rules. There are 155 stations in this list. That means this list spans 9 pages on its own. Merging it into the MyNetworkTV article would make that article unwieldy. This page is handy for reference as the stations are listed by market, rather than by alphabet which is useless for seeking out stations where the letters may not mean anything at all (and every station begins with either a K, a W, or an X), which is how it would be listed if it was left to the category system. Furthermore, it has information which would be harder to find if the proposal to delete is approved. Many of these stations are either secondariry affiliated with MyNetTV or are placing it on a digital subchannel. This list easily gives that information -- the category doesn't. And lastly, it's actually easier to use this list to aide in checking the accuracy of the individual articles and categories, by fact it provides a brief description of each MyNetTV station (call letters, market, owner, type of affiliation, etc.) This table has helped me correct a number of mistakes in individual articles that may have gone uncorrected. SterlingNorth 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one additional comment -- from Displaced Brit's link on what Wikipedia is not contains this statement: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I believe this article constitutes a "reference table" which is allowed here. — SterlingNorth 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong & Speedy Keep - Sources are correct for all stations, list is comprehensive and #1 Google search under the term 'my network tv affiliates' (which will be very important come the week the network starts and thereafter), and would way be too unwieldy to merge within the main MyNet article. This article has been up for months and has strict quality control, and I think this and List of CW affiliates are great examples of what happens when multiple editors work to create a great list that many people will find of interest to them. Nate 09:59, 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. - Bobet 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests that have appeared on Martha (TV series)[edit]

Yet another blloody list related to American telvision! This one lists guests on Martha (TV series) and most likely should be merged in with the meagre article about the programme. As with the majority of these lists, it violates both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Displaced Brit 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this were around for a while, the list would go on. It is TVcruft. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Anlace 05:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Park3r 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I really don't see how this is a directory in any way. It's a list relating to a notable entry. If you don't believe this should be in its own article and should be merged, then AfD is not the right place. It seems you have a vendetta against lists (see User:Displaced Brit) and against those who oppose you (see User talk:CFIF). Lists are not all directories, if you have an issue with them then you should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Lists, and not just nominate lots and lots of lists for deletion. --Daniel Olsen 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Keep Would it be possible to use this list to create a article catagory? ex: "Person who has appeared on Martha (TV Series)" Alex 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a list would be better to link to from the Martha article. If concensus goes toward deletion however, someone should hurry and do what you suggested. --Daniel Olsen 08:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that would be considered crufty as well; we had Category:Celebrities who have starred in an episode of Tom Goes to the Mayor on CFD the other week. Guest appearances are a dime a dozen, and not really category-worthy IMO. -- nae'blis 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's one for Ellen (TV series), Category:Ellen (TV_series) guest stars Alex 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for finding that. Nominating on CFD now. -- nae'blis 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is crufty and would set a bad precedent for other similar articles. For my domain, Live with Regis and Kelly, a list of guest co-hosts is notable because viewers of the show usually expect Regis and Kelly to co-host the show, and a guest co-host can sometimes generate a lot of attention. If this article is kept, I could write an article called List of guests that have appeared on Live with Regis and Kelly, which I am not inclined to do at this point. Tinlinkin 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in case my comments above weren't clear enough. -- nae'blis 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well we just kept List of one-time characters from The Simpsons, so how could this (and others) be far behind. Either we put together a well-reasoned approach to these "minor characters" and "guest appearances" lists or we'll look like a popularity contest rather than the collective authors of an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Martha is a talk show. Many guests who appear on a talk show are part of a circuit that takes them to other talk shows to promote their latest project (at least in recent trends, I don't know the whole history of this). Therefore, many guests who appear on a talk show are not worth noting. Categories would also probably be inappropriate and unencyclopedic (imagine an actor, say Samuel L. Jackson, to have categories for appearing on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Live with Regis and Kelly, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, The Daily Show, etc.). However, mentioning the most frequent guests or guests that made a big impact in the talk show would be notable in the talk show's article.
- With game shows, people are not usually going to be notable if they haven't won big in the game show's history (at least in my view of the current consensus). For example, I have raised Craig Westphal for deletion because he's just not notable at this point in time.
- As for other TV series, if the minor characters or guest stars were integral to the series' storylines, I think that's a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. But that may be subjective to the popularity or the coverage of the series, which may be systemic bias. That's something I don't want to live with. Tinlinkin 07:19, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDocument technical specification[edit]

Borderline computercruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info, self-reference starts article. This is actually the second article I've nominated that starts with a self-reference: the other is Politics of Wallonia, and that has since been expanded. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The OpenDocument article lists some external sources, so the software is notable enough. Lists (or tables) about notable subject are also notable, in my opinion. --Daniel Olsen 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Daniel. Tonywalton | Talk 12:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - logical section split from OpenDocument - several other tags would be more constructive than AfD. Ace of Risk 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OpenDocument is one of a class of similar standards. While this article is never going to teach anyone how to read OpenDocument on it's own, it's useful for documenting the technology and heritage of the format. AlexHudson 22:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --Czj 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per AlexHudson's comments. It is also a good launching point for those that do wish to get more technical knowledge of the spec. --User:Minion_o'_Bill

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Doty[edit]

The article's subject is a non notable comic artist who miserably fails the google test.Delete. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and no sources Anlace 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Daniel Olsen 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — '"Aaron Doty" Pigeon Coup' gets only three unique Ghits, other than WP articles. "Aaron Doty" gets 1380, but many of these seem to be other people than him. JChap2007 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd say redirect to Pigeon Coup (comic), though the importance, if any, of the comic isn't made clear in its article. -- Dragonfiend 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect: Recommend redirect as per Dragonfiend, however google test is not WP:WEB guidelines nor WP:V policy.

--Kisai 08:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the comic page, as was done with Clone Manga's consolidation. Add the bio info to the comic page, as well. Xuanwu 09:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Fascist Movement[edit]

630 Google hits, most of which are forum derived or from wikipedia mirrors. From the website of the "movement": In early 2001, fed up with the decadent political system, two young American college students decided that a change was imperative to raise public consciousness in support of ideals for a greater America. To wit: WP:NFT & nn. Eusebeus 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Note that many or most of 156 google hits for "American Fascist Movement" refer generically to fascist movements in the pre-WWII period. bikeable (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Not for Fascism made up in school one day. Camillus (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no press coverage, apparently just a personal front. Gazpacho 22:04, 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 redirect to Panathinaikos, I don't see anything useful to merge. If someone disagrees, the history is still there. - Bobet 10:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gate 13[edit]

ok to delete since no notability or sources Anlace 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fanclub. --Daniel Olsen 06:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. Someone who reads greek may want to go over the links I added to the article, but they seem to be notable in a multi-national, regularly scheduled riots with lots of lovely property damage sort of way. I'm not sure I want to be on record voting against them. - Richfife 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you can provide independent, recognized news coverage of their participation in multi-national riots. Just linking to the groups homepage does not establish notability. Leuko 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you do a search of the name in Greek here: [20], you'll find they regularly do fan stadium demonstrations that involve the participation of hundreds, if not thousands of people. The "Articles" section of [21] contains hundreds of entries. - Richfife 03:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If all the sources of information are in Greek, perhaps the article should be moved to el.wiki? Leuko 03:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There's presumably a separate article there already. The English Wikipedia is striving to avoid an English centric viewpoint, even though it's written in English. - Richfife 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Granted, but it makes it hard to verify claims of notability if everything is in Greek. On the Google search, all I found were (what I assume to be) nn fan sites. I did not note any reputable news sources making mention of the group. Leuko 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to reliable sources, an article consisting of solely foreign language sources is allowed, but not preferred. ColourBurst 04:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable if they are up to the standards of WP:RS in terms of quality. I don't believe a few fan sites qualify. Leuko 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs more info. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization. Daniel's page ☎ 04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Panathinaikos. Fan clubs for sports teams should be discussed on Wikipedia, if at all, in the team's article. Since Gate 13 is a one-sentence article, it should be easy to merge. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Metropolitan90 --Huon 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above - the external links can be added to the main article as well. -- Roleplayer 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as above; if anybody wants to find this, that will get them there. JCScaliger 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A Google search for "Gate 13" shows this subject, but as far as I can see, no individual article is needed. I'm not sure what there is to merge. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in someone can expand. Otherwise I support tariq's redirect rationale. Williamborg (Bill) 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's so notable about it? It seems a bit local, and nothing to substantiate its claim, and even if it is substantiated, so what?? What has it done? The english site is down as I write. I see no point in redirecting. "Gate 13" is a pretty generic term, and probably exists in every airport and bus depot in every city.Ohconfucius 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. Doesn't even deserve a merge. 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Silver[edit]

Non-notable porn star with only about 41 films to her credit. Fails to meet WP:PORN BIO. I doubt that large breasts are notable enough. will381796 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I love Alexis, and she has some great breasts, but she doesn't seem to meet the requirements. Hopefully someone can find out if she's won some awards. TJ Spyke 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:31, 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 speedy keep

PopMatters[edit]

The article sounds like an ad for a website, and even assuming that all the claims in the article are true, it does not assert notability close to the level of WP:WEB, in my opinion. Wmahan . 05:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems that if what this article says is true, then it's notable enough to stay. If interpreted strictly, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." would lead one to assume this site is not notable, but having content and authors quoted by the many news agencies listed in the article should make this notable enough. --Daniel Olsen 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable website. 82 citations from Google Books [22]

136 citations in Google Scholar [23] and indexed by Google News. Capitalistroadster 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known website, Alexa ranking of 6,136 as of this morning. NawlinWiki 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable website. hateless 07:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 1ne 21:58, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbi Satin[edit]

Only claim of notability is an appearance in one porn film. Appears to exist pretty much just to advertise website. Only two sites link to her website. -Elmer Clark 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PORN BIO. --Daniel Olsen 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion, author's only WP contribution was this article. NawlinWiki 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. will381796 22:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This model is notable in the transsexual porn movie circuit. Unitedroad 11:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not meet our proposed WP:PORN BIO guidelines. If they are notable in a niche circuit, verifiable evidence needs to be presented. Yamaguchi先生 00:52, 24 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Paulsen[edit]

Normally I would PROD this, but this is a really bizarre situation. User:Jonotoes initially created this article at Kristina Paulsen ([24]), and it was about an entirely different person. He then slowly edited it and moved it, and now it is a geneological entry about someone completely different. Kristina Paulsen looked as if she may have been notable, but Christian certainly is not. I would just revert it back to Kristina, except the same user who created it altered and moved it. This is really confusing. Either way though, I think this ought to be deleted per WP:NN -Elmer Clark 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BIO. No claims of notability. --Daniel Olsen 06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Completely non notable. Was tempted to label this a hoax, given the metamorphasis of the article, but instead found that the text was lifted verbatim from here. Resolute 06:27, 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 all, after discounting single purpose-accounts. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTD Studios[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

Non-notable independent film company. Google search for ("MTD Studios" -wikipedia) returns 512 hits (mainly directory listings or self-referential). No 3rd party press mentions or reliable sources. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)

I also suspect that this article is a vanity article self-writen by the head of the company Michael Thomas Dunn, since both these articles along with those for his films were all written by the same user Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) or anonymous IPs. So in light of this evidence, I'm also nominating the following for deletion:

Alone and Restless - Google hits for ("Alone and Restless" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 168
Black Zone - ("Black Zone" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 81
Midnight Conflict - ("Midnight Conflict" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 174
Steel Legends ("Steel Legends" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) 64
The Standoff - ("Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 107
Vixen (film) - ("Vixen" "Michael Thomas Dunn" -wikipedia) = 51

Most of the returned links are either directory listings, or self-promotional (eg. YouTube trailers). Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (films) since none of these films have:

"been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers"
"has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"

Most importantly, Fails: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Thomas Dunn

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.

ResponseAll of these objections are wrong -- here are some 3rd Party Sources that prove most of these objections incorrect (Alone and Restless, Black Zone, Out of Time, etc.): -DodgeM4S [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

However, I do believe the "Vixen" title should be deleted. That film was supposed to start filming here in July and it never happened. It should be deleted and I tried unsuccessfully to do so. -DodgeM4S

Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per given reasons -Elmer Clark 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, nonnotable films/studio NawlinWiki 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Another wonderful Netsnipe collection. GBYork 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) has not contributed to Wikipedia since 19 May 2006, notice of this AFD has been emailed to <marketing at sinisterfilms.com> -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not Michael Dunn. I am DodgeM4S (John White) and the author of this content. I did copy images off the official sites and cited them. While MTD Studios is your judgement call (don't really know what defines non-notable), the feature films "Black Zone" and "Alone and Restless" are significant films shot in this area (Central Florida). I also believe that Dunn is a rising star. I submitted these articles to Wikipedia and the links to other Wikipedia pages (that seemed to annoy). Sorry if I ticked anyone off, but I still believe these articles are relavant... and I believe not a single article violates the wikipedia agreements: every submission was written in the most neutral, approriate, accurate manner that I was capable. I don't believe I violated any copyrights and the content is significant info for the regional film industry (Orlando, Florida). I will add additional content or edit my existing contributions to meet your criteria if neccessary. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

rm incorrect use of Template:db-author by Dodgem4s (talk • contribs)

Keep As a primary author of the content, I will make whatever changes to make the content appropriate for Wikipedia. But again, to reiterate -- there are already many links to third party sources that are listed within these nominated page for deletion that confirm the accuracy and significance (and violate no Wikipedia guidelines) of the respective submissions. All of these contested projects are currently listed on The Internet Movie Database (a third party source -- and the world's most comprehensive movie database). It was one of the main sources of my research and cite it throughout. The company also meets the Company Notability Guidelines (companies and corporations) -- it is currently among the most productive studios within the Southeast United States. And an objection was made to Michael Thomas Dunn being referenced as a notable alumni of the University of Central Florida wikipedia page. Well, Officially from the University of Central Florida Film Program web site (http://film.ucf.edu/links_webpages.php) he is listed as a notable alumni -- so I am going to once again add his name to notable alumni on the UCF page. Not only is it a third party source, but its from the official site of the College mentioned. I think this is all just a mistake or someone's personal agenda. But the content belongs on Wikipedia. I think I have proven every objective wrong or moot. He also fails to prove that it violates "Wiki is not a Soapbox" as there are no political slant listed in any of the documents.Dodgem4s

keep As a UCF student, I find it sad that the person who signed this AFD has contributed no content of his own. Instead he joined wikipedia to simply delete other contributions. If that doesn't raise warning bells, I don't know what else does. He's just a troll looking to flame people.¶

— Possible single purpose account: Jennyangel97 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Don't Delete I have added some content to the sites in the afd so its not just from one source. over time i contributed as anonymous...... since people are getting so upset about anonymous contributions i just registered sorry :(

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldenknight07 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: I am appalled by the use of single purpose accounts to remove the comments of other editors: Jennyangel97 (diff) and Goldenknight07 (diff). Do you honestly think you could get away with such underhanded tactics? You have been warned repeatedly not to remove comments. Consider this is your FINAL warning. Further removal of comments may lead to bans. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I talked about this AFD on the UCF talk forum and have also invited my friends to get involved -- but I have no control over what they choose to do. So let's debate -- still no responses from any of my rebuttals. reliable sources. PASSES: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) -- Orlando Business Journal, Arizona Republic Newspaper, New York Times, and the Hollywood Reporter all prove this accusation wrong. Passes: Wikipedia:Notability (films) since none of these films have: "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers" -- These films are listed on IMDB, AllMovie, MSN Movies, etc. etc. etc. Most importantly, PASSES: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Not once has any political slant been quoted from any of these pages mentioned in the AFD. Dodgem4s

Reply: Before I go on, please follow the established formatting. It's a pain having to clean up comments every time when you cut other people's comments in half and indent in random places. And use 4 '~' in a row to sign so your comments are timestamped. OK. Now to the meat of things, where are the links to "Orlando Business Journal, Arizona Republic Newspaper, New York Times, and the Hollywood Reporter" in the article for MTD Studios that explicitly mention the studio and not just your name? So far you haven't produced an article on "MTD Studios". All I've seen are syndicated listings and synopsises from the All Movie Guide which has a self-submission policy [32] and disqualifies it as a method for determining notability. As for WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising (note the bold part). -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Fair enough, the Arizona Republic Newspaper Article/Interview is no longer listed on their web site since it was published more than 90 days again. The Orlando Business Journal Interview is located here (you need to scroll down to the second page for the Michael Thomas Dunn interview entitled " Indie drama to feature multiple technologies" -- a story on Titan A.E. is on the first page) [[33]] The Hollywood Reporter Article is here (requires membership): [[34]]

The New York Times Brief/Review is here: [[35]]. Most newspapers seem to delete their articles after a couple of months so there aren't a lot -- and the mainstream media sources don't generally cover a lot of independent film. As for the "Soapbox" comment -- I don't see the listed films are advertisements/They are synopsis content pieces. DodgeM4S (talk

Delete per nom. Tsimshatsui 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please post a reason why -- since all your previous complaints have already been discredited. DodgeM4S 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to add that all these flagged articles were not written to stand by themselves. These are all supplemental articles written for the comprehensive history of the Florida Film Industry that I also authored. DodgeM4S 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I would like to make a very important point. The WP:CORP guidelines do not even apply to "MTD Studios." It is a place, not a company or corporation. Perhaps I didn't word that properly in these wiki pages or the IMDb listing has lead to some confusion -- but there is no company with that name. It is a shooting location much like the city of Orlando or Miami. I think it is a notable landmark in Lake County, Florida -- since it is the only film production site in the county. I'd also like to point out, 4 individual production companies have production offices located there -- including Gator animation and Velocity TV (none of the 4 companies are listed as individual pages on wiki -- so not a single instance that violates the WP:CORP guidelines). Again, I will make any corrections deemed necessary, just let me know what needs to be fixed. -DodgeM4S 06:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alone and Restless was the first feature film produced by MTD Studios in 2004. That implied to me that MTD Studios was more of independent film company than a facility. In my honest opinion, all the separate articles on the movies should be deleted since they have haven't received enough coverage or critical acclaim in the press to be considered notable. However, I would be willing to endorse keeping MTD Studios as part of a series of articles on the Florida Film Industry which to me would be a notable article. I suggest that you could probably merge all the above listed movies into a section on the production history of MTD Studios. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yeah, it was a little unclear -- it should have read: AAR was first feature produced at MTD Studios.

As for merging the articles: I think it is a great idea for most of the individual shorts/documentaries. I will begin the process of merging Steel Legends and The Standoff. However, I think the 2 feature films Alone and Restless and Black Zone may deserve individual coverage (these were large projects in the area). Although, I think the Midnight Conflict short might merit its own article (at least for UCF film program background) since its success prompted the program to allow Digitally Shot (DV) projects in their curriculum -- which had previously been excluded (the film school used 16mm film exclusively until 1998). Here is the updated MTD Studios with the merge. -DodgeM4S 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)<[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned up the merge a bit. So now, I believe these three pages should be deleted:

DELETE: Steel Legends - Redundant Content with MTD Studios
DELETE: The Standoff - Redundant Content with MTD Studios
DELETE: Vixen (film) - Film Has Gone Into 'Turnover' -- Future Production Info of a Cancelled Project

I think the other pages are satisfactory. Does anyone see any obvious problems with the other pages? -DodgeM4S 11:30, 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 no consensus. Petros471 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakization[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

Nomination on behalf of User Juro, who is unfamiliar with the AFD process in the English Wikipedia. Article lacks content and context, and appears to be a neologism. Borisblue 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--62.1.204.210 06:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The vote is from a sock of a permabanned User:Bonaparte abakharev 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a non-sense--81.30.98.18 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only three edits abakharev 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--218.38.13.111 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit of the IP abakharev 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete must be deteled 210.233.102.70 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other edit of this IP is vandalism abakharev 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Three quick votes from anonymous IPs seem to show that some sock/meatpuppetry is being used. --Daniel Olsen 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this crap--193.17.54.137 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Open proxy abakharev 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article --218.103.58.139 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit of the IP
delete why not delete? --212.85.152.222 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit of the IP
Abstain I'm just nominating this on behalf of Juyo. Borisblue 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, gets a bunch of Google hits, which proves that it's not a neologism. ~~The article actually lacks content because Juro deleted 90% of it.~~ (I see that Boris has now re-added most of it) If we have articles like Albanisation, Bulgarization, Hellenization, Kurdification, Turkification, etc. (see Category:Cultural assimilation for the full list), I see no reason to delete this one. It's definately a notable topic, used in relation to the Hungarians and Rusyns in Slovakia. See [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. —Khoikhoi 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the word appeared in about 71 books. [49] [50]. —Khoikhoi 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said on the talk page: if you look right on the first page of your first book search link, the texts are about deslovakization, reslovakization (explicitely or per content) or things like "Slovakization of Czech words" (in a purely linguistic sense) and one is about "natural" Slovakization (because Rusyn is very similar to Slovak). I still think this is one reason for moving this and similar words to the wictionary. Nobody denies that the word technically exists like for any other nationality or language. Juro 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It could use some expansion and some sources though. --Daniel Olsen 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's got one source so far. As I develop the article I'll make sure to add more. —Khoikhoi 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have explained my points on the talk page of the article, where I have also explained the problem with Khokhoi's google "hits" (and they should be at least several thousands, anyway). As a general short remark, I wonder how one can talk about "Slovakization" after WWII with respect to Hungarians, when the number of Hungarians in (Czecho-)Slovakia increased during that period, while it decreased in Hungary - their mother country - itself. (And Khoikhoi, given your permanent eagerness in Hungary-related issues, are you sure you are not a very carefully hidden sockpuppet of someone I know?) Juro 10:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Khoikhoi has two socks at least. Ungurul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Român (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vlachos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Moldavos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--222.124.24.117 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's only edit. Kimchi.sg 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete; the article is not even 24 hours old yet, so maybe good verifiable, reliable sources will be added to show that this isn't original research. If that's done by the time this AFD is over, I'll change my vote to keep. Otherwise, delete it. User:Angr 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Keep now; article has been expanded and is well-sourced. User:Angr 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article had a source but Juro keeps deleting it on the basis that he thinks it's wrong. —Khoikhoi 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I KNOW it is wrong, as wrong as 1+1 is not 3. Visit the region and ask anybody, if you do not believe me. I will cite some sources when it is necessary, but currently this article should be deleted. That's absolutely beyond any doubt. And you will find no sources on the internet or in a US library, because Slovakia is very scarcely represented there. Juro 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) And am still persuaded that you are a sockpuppet of a well-known user. Juro 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no relevant information in the article and existence of the phenomenon itself is doubtful. Tankred 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is now semi-protected because of an anon who refuses to let the article say anything at all. User:Angr 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Current version of article has sufficient reliable sources to write a verifiable article. JChap2007 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is factually wrong, the other sources contain the word in a general sense. Juro 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - every new article is of low quality and lacks information but that's not enough reason to automatically delete them. Slovakization exists as a phenomenon and also as a term. There is no reason to think that this stub won't grow to an ordinary article sooner or later. Zello 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is impossible to write the article under these circumstances. There is no need for a second Magyarization article. Zello 13:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read the article, there is only 1 sentence on Magyarisation and that sentence is very important. And yes, it is impossible to write anything here, because you have bothered to delete pure facts (statistics etc.). And the Magyarisation article will be extended. Juro 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is about Magyarization and the glorious minority policy of Slovakia. That's absurd. Zello 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying Zello, only one sentence is on Magyarisation. You have not read the text and simply started to vandalize. That is incredible hypocricy on your part. The truth is that you do cannot support what the article contains. And be sure that I will extend the Magyarisation article correspondingly, now that these questions have been opened by your and your nationalist co-editors.Juro 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you want I won't work under these circumstances. Zello 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying Juro, there is more than 1 sentence on Magyarisation. You have not read the title and simply started to vandalize. That is incredible hypocrisy on your part. The truth is that you cannot support the facts. And be sure that I will put a link to Slovakization into every Slovakia-related article, now that you and your nationalist co-editors have tried to own these topics... – Naturally, not half a word of this is serious, I'm just paraphrasing what you said above so that I can ask this: are you unable or unwilling to notice the disgusting personal attacks and unfair threats you are making? K issL 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you are not telling the truth: Only the introductory sentence was about Magyarisation. Irrespective of this, even if 10 paragraphs would be about Magyarisation: as long as the information is relevant, you will not delete it. This is pure ch.... (leaving out "personal" attack). Juro 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading what I said again. I've added some emphasis to make it clearer. :o) K issL 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No amount of trolling and vandalism should be reason enough to delete a valid article. If anyone insists on transforming the article into a second Magyarization, that person should be taken to RfC. It's as easy as that. K issL 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Valid stub with reliable citations. Any other concerns are not a matter for AfD but for cleanup. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The occurrence of a word in a text is a valid "citation" for a dictionary, not necessarily for an encyclopaedia. You have not read the citations. Incredible. Juro 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed by user:Juro. --Dudo2 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains citations from reliable sources establishing verifiability and notability. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinu, and block Juro if he continues to disrupt its growth/vandalize it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so like always one (Hungarian) vandal managed to manipulate the whole wikipedia. We will have the first article in the world titled Slovakization (original research by a sockpuppet user who has absolutely no idea about the topic and only knows that we have Kurdification so we have to have Slovakization too), In addition, in line with reality , however, the article will have to imply that no such organized process exists, rather the opposite. Neither the title nor the content will be correct, nevertheless we are going to keep it. Very interesting..Juro 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fill the article with hard-core historical evidence to maintain credibility and scientific exactness. Árpád 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since there is a magyarization page also, so it would be a racist double standard not to keep it. In fact in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries discussing Slovakization is more essential given the daily treatment of Hungarians in Slovakia (Jan Slota, who is part of the governing coalition, called for the "flattening of Budapest" by tanks). His inclusion in the Slovak parliament has made Slovak-Magyar coexistence considerably more difficult. Alphysikist 07:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has called for nothing, Arpad. He said that - if you read the whole quote - for the case Slovakia would be attacked by Hungary, and he said that when he was drunk. Also, he was "included" in the parlament also in the past. Next, it is completely irrelevant what an individual person thinks or says, I have told you this several times. Postcards and novels (cited by you) are also irrelevant, fascist and nationalist sources (cited by you) are also irrelevant. Next, if you have deleted such opinions from the Magyarisation article, you may not add them elsewhere. And I am leaving out "personal attacks", although you are an obvious fascist (which is a fact). And permament creation of sockpuppets is another form of deception. Juro 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zello. K issL 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence, but Joru's behavior and general attitude here prompts me to err on the inclusionary side. If it doesn't evolve into a better article, maybe it should be deleted later. Sxeptomaniac 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This really could be an interesting article. I don't see why it should be deleted. Peter O. (Talk) 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the Slovakization (or Czechization, etc) was real and adopted as either explicit or implicit state policy by the new national states of Central Europe this article is just a spotty and incoherent coverage of Slovakian history. The facts about Slovakization are few to none. IME this kind of articles tends to attract warriors and to expand with ultra detailed coverage of irrelevant events. Deleting it and keeping the heads cool for a month would be the most useful act to reach some quality of the text. Btw. User:Juro is very valuable, long term Slovak editor whose opinion does matter here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is crap Martye 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Neologism. There are facts behind this article, but they should be covered History of Czechoslovakia. Also concur with Pavel Vozenilek. --Pjacobi 21:07, 28 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 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Bodies (strip club)[edit]

non-notable business, fails WP:CORP, was prod'ed and removed by original author. Gogo Dodo 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Bodies (strip club) is meets wikipedia's criteria for being a notable entity since it has been the subject of numerous articles in the local media.

Rupa Shenoyr (February 2003). "Clubs Promise Path from Poverty". Chicago Reporter.
Frank Main (2005-04-09). "Cops accused of hiding strip club income". Chicago Sun-Times.
missingauthor. "missingtitle". ABC News.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Lipps
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/7th/943571.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhubbard (talk • contribs)

Keep per Nathanhubbard. --Daniel Olsen 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About the list of articles provides by Nathanhubbard, the first two are indeed valid articles. The third is a broken link, but the correct article is "Flames erupt at gentleman's club". ABC7. 2005-07-05., however, it is a four sentence article that says that there was a fire that broke out in 2005 at the club. The fourth link is a Wikipedia article. The fifth link is a list to a court case, so really isn't an article. That leaves three valid articles, does that make qualify it under WP:CORP? Maybe, maybe not. -- Gogo Dodo 07:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another article that discusses the arson angle of the 2005 fire Dan Rozek (2005-07-06). "Strip club fire looks like arson". Chicago Sun-Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhubbard (talk • contribs)
Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. None of the sources above is really about the club, they are about a fire, some tax evasion, etc that happen to mention the club in passing. The sources do not verify the information in the article. If the fire is notable (which it isn't) the articles would be The Elk Grove Township Fire of 2005, Michael G. Wellek (famous suspected tax fraudster), etc. Weregerbil 08:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read the articles weregerbil; the first two articles discusses the club very explicitly; you can possibly argue that the arson investigation at the club was notable if you like but $12 million in cash seized by the IRS is pretty notable IMO. user:nathanhubbard 04:29, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
- Ok, after re-reading I still can't see verification of what the Wikipedia article says. If a tax evasion investigation is notable (I don't think this one is) then there should be an article on that. Weregerbil 10:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about tax evasion investigation of Wellek clearly verifies the tax evasion investigation and is the topic of the article. Whether the IRS seizing $12 million is "notable" or not, I guess is a matter of opinion! user:nathanhubbard 08:37, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
- One of the Wikipeidia criteria of whether a company or corporation is notable is whether thatcompany or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. Clearly, there are multiple, independents articles about the subject. I guess it comes down to whether those articles are "non-trivial" or not. user:nathanhubbard 08:38, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
Delete per Weregerbil. Nathan, your sources don't actually describe the "business"; they describe tax evasion and a fire. Additionally, your sources are largely local newspapers; this "business" has not received national or even regional attention. Neither have the fire or the case of tax evasion. Srose (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some sources that describe the business a little better but I don't agree that something should be excluded from wikipedia just because its a "local" interest. Wikipedia is filled with articles about people and events that are notable but local. user:nathanhubbard 10:35, 19 August 2006 (CDT}
Delete — Per weregerbil, the club itself is not notable. The description could just as easily be of the Bada Bing. JChap2007 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the author of this article - I also concur with the posts suggesting deleting this article and the valid points that they make. user:nathanhubbard
Delete, fails WP:CORP, WP:NOT a business directory, no multiple non-trivial WP:RS indicating any sort of notability. Possible speedy as a stub which essentially just restates the title. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there article were about the arson investigation for the club, and if that even were deemed notable, I could see keeping it. But right now, verifiability and notability are both lacking. No citations. Can this article now be speedy deleted due to the agreement of the author of the page, nathanhubbard? will381796 22:50, 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 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Streets Mafia[edit]

Non-notable variant of Mafia (game), Google search doesn't even indicate that it would be worth much of a redirect. Article creator CrU did many edits to it back in March, and I persuaded them to move them over to the MafiaScum wiki, but there's some subarticles here that need cleaned up. In addition, the creator hasn't been back to either wiki since April, so I think it's abandonware to boot. -- nae'blis 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subarticles

Doctor Livingstone MSM (now a redirect to MSM)
Drevru Perez MSM
Hento Kodjia MSM
Trent Talor MSM
Ricardo Perez MSM
Jeffrey Almont MSM
Richard Daumer MSM
Lawrence Burkely MSM

Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to assert notability -Elmer Clark 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, articles essentially about a group of friends playing a game. NawlinWiki 11:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Far too often these type of circular articles go undetected. GBYork 17:42, 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 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy autonomy[edit]

Unsourced, signed personal essay that admits the term "energy autonomy" has no specific definition. Opabinia regalis 06:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook violation of WP:OR -Elmer Clark 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elmer Clark. --Daniel Olsen 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:OR JChap2007 17:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. will381796 22:53, 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 redirect to Alex Jones (radio), nothing to merge, no reason not to redirect. - Bobet 10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoWars[edit]

Non-notable public access television show. Morton devonshire 06:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge. I missed the Alex Jones article. --Daniel Olsen 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Alex Jones article. Dionyseus 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Morton is on a frikkin deletion rampage. Anything that doesn't blow sunshine up Uncle Sam's butt is on it's way out as far as he is concerned. This is Alex Jones TV show. It doesn't matter what anybody's political opinion is. It's just notable, that's all. Maybe just merge unless some substantial information can be added that isn't already in one of all the other Alex Jones related articles. SkeenaR 07:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, you crack me up. Friggin. Morton devonshire 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep InfoWars is quite notable. Whether a person agrees with it or not is irrelevant. It is still notable. Whiskey Rebellion 07:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is an opinion, so what you think is notable may not be agreed on by other. See WP:N (an essay that I don't agree with, but is often used nonetheless). --Daniel Olsen 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compare to any of the articles in Category:United States television program stubs --Striver 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alex Jones unless/until this article is expanded. Gamaliel 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alex Jones. Seems logical to merge it. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — to Alex Jones. The picture of him with Charlie Sheen is priceless, btw. JChap2007 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. How shamelessly POV to propose its deletion. PizzaMargherita 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — To Alex Jones (radio) or merge to infowars.com - the Alex Jones article already reads "Jones still broadcasts his show, InfoWars on public access television in Austin." which is all this stub says - so no merge is necessary. - GIen 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: Serial Afd nominations, particularly the current batch targeting articles that evidence noteworthy skepticism of mainstream pov, should be treated with great suspicion. Ombudsman 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: per Ombudsman. --Striver 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into Alex Jones (radio). We don't need so many stub articles for every marginally/non-notable Alex Jones video or show. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- your comment made me curious, so I rounded up the Alex Jones forks. Here's the list: Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, America Destroyed By Design, TerrorStorm, Information Clearing House, Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Police State 3. This guy's bigger than Oprah! Morton devonshire 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Than how, pray tell, is this non-notable? ;) SkeenaR 08:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alex Jones.--Tbeatty 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alex Jones.--MONGO 05:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Pretty sure this Jones fellow doesn't need this many stub articles. Rmt2m 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alex Jones. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's mention of it in Alex Jones. -- Samir धर्म 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Samir. It's already mentioned on Alex Jones, and there's nothing else in the article. If the content grows to be worthy of an article, it can be split then. Sandy 05:59, 29 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 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs about sex[edit]

It's funny how shortly after I say "Might as well make a list of songs about love" in this AfD, this article crops up in my sights. Unmaintainable list that violates WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 07:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated under this AfD:

List of songs about sex

Would you mind explaining how this violates WP:NOT? If this violates somehow, then so does Songs about animals, Songs about places, Songs about Elvis, List of songs about homosexuality, and many many more. --Daniel Olsen 07:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiscriminate collection of information. You can't convince me that the topic "songs about sex" has a very specific focus. Danny Lilithborne 08:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The title alone shows the focus, "songs about sex". It's self-explanatory. Lists fall under nothing in WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Not all lists are indiscriminate sources of information. WP:LISTS, a guideline for wikipedia, governs the use of lists and justifies their existance. Your objections to lists in general should be voiced at the talk page there. --Daniel Olsen 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The guideline page you cite contains references to WP:V which this page cannot meet; many lists have been deleted under the criteria I previously cited as well. Danny Lilithborne 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I see your point, but what do you expect for sources? "The New York Times has determined that the song Bad Touch is about sex. Groundbreaking." For all of the List of songs about _____ articles, you're not going to find sources that say "This song is about _____". What should be done about things that are so obvious they're not written anywhere? --Daniel Olsen 08:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's amazing what people write about, sometimes. Before asserting that there are "things that are so obvious they're not written anywhere", do the research. You might find that there are copious sources on the subject, which you can use to entirely refute the argument that this is unverifiable. Please do research and attempt to find sources, rather than trying to argue that we should make exceptions to our sourcing policies. You should be working from sources in the first place, anyway. Uncle G 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Here's a hint: There are 8 pages of sleeve notes that you could cite, for starters, which you will find when you do the research. Uncle G 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Which might be relevant for articles about the songs or the albums they're on. It doesn't begin to justify this list's existence. Danny Lilithborne 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The sleeve notes that I'm alluding to are on the subject of a collection that is specifically entitled "songs about sex". I've exhorted those who want the article kept to do the research. I exhort those who want the article deleted to do the research, also. Uncle G 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely unmanagable. The lists of songs about animals and places also look a little iffy and might be worth looking into as well, now that you mention it. -Elmer Clark 08:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Merge to List of songs about sex. See my arguments above. --Daniel Olsen 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Adding that page to this AfD since it's basically the same thing. (The talk page contains a rather poignant comment from NawlinWiki.) Danny Lilithborne 08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge It with List of songs about sex like Daniel Olsen said. Outside Center 08:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) note edit was because I spelt wrong.[reply]
DeleteFocus of this list is too broad to be of any meaning, IMHO. Over half of the songs in the top 40 in every western country for the last 20 years would have been about sex in some way? It would almost make more sense to have a list of "Songs not about sex"...Tompee 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say the same thing about List of songs about criminals or List of songs about money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outside Center (talk • contribs)
  - No, you couldn't. Really, you couldn't. Probably the only thing there are more songs about than sex is love. And arguably they're not that different. Danny Lilithborne 08:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How can you claim that? Many songs contain both, especially rap which can contain all three. The List of songs about money is just as broad. I don't particularly care for this list or any other list of songs about something, but if your going to have them you might as well have the most popular ones. Outside Center 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - List of songs about money is maintainable given that it is focused on songs specifically about money, and doesn't just mention every rap song where the rapper happens to mention his bank account. Personally, however, I'm against any list of songs on Wikipedia without a focused verifiable subject; I just don't have the werewithal to nominate them all. Danny Lilithborne 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete waaaaaaaaaay too many songs fitting this description, as I said to someone who suggested this at WP:AFC. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unmanageable. See comments I made for List of Songs about Jesus. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that its completely unmanageable. And the majority of songs in popular culture today reference sex - imo, this is just a random collection of information that doesn't serve any real purpose. See: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Rimmers 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Way too many list of songs about ____. We should consider deleting criminals and money too. JChap2007 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sex is a human desire and thousands of songs have been written, or could be interpreted to be, pertaining to sex. Unmanagable and unverifiable. will381796 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as all songs are basically about sex, even "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". Well-known fact. Hornplease 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tuluvas2 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I am saying delete because this is such a subjective topic in a way. First of all different cultures would probably consider different things to consist of "sex". Would everyone world wide accept oral sex as being sex? (Obviously not just look at the JAMA from when Clinton was president). Also some songs may indirectly refer to sex but they do not directly refer to sex. Someone can talk about sex indirectly in a song and never mention the word sex or anything related to sex. What subjective stand-point do we base the meaning of the songs from? Do we include songs that we perceive as being related to sex that others will not perceive as being related to sex? From the perceptions of some people songs which talk about things not related to sex may be subliminally refering to sex, and to other people songs which subliminally refer to sex with out mentioning it may not appear to be about sex. Wikipedia should be for objective information and NPOV and I see that this list is going to automatically be at least partially point of view. (Someones point of veiw may be that the candy shop is actually a candy shop, even though my point of veiw is that the song is obviously refering to sex). But does my point of veiw automatically over rule someone elses perception? I guess we could ask the artist who makes the song what the song was actually about? Or we could make a list of songs that have the potential to be perceived as about sex? It is just a mess really, and what I have just said may not make any sense, but I vote for delete.[reply]
- So the list "Songs about Drugs" is ok, but a similar list of "songs" is not? Drugs are just as taboo, illicit, and controversial as sex, but the "Songs about Drugs" list isn't being considered for deletion. Also, as far as I can tell, the two lists have the same format. So I ask- why the double standard?
Tuluvas2 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I agree with the above poster that we should hold the standard to all lists similar to this one. The topic of the list had no reason in my desicion to vote for deletion. Are there any standards on how the Wikipedia community has dealt with lists such as this one? I don't want to go against the standards with my vote and if someone could give me a link to an article/rule about lists that could be interpreted to say this list should stay I would quickly change my vote based on the new evidence. However if nobody can, I will keep my vote delete for this list and advocate that we delete all similar lists. We must be equal and fair and if one list is removed for a reason all other lists that meet that reason should be removed. But like I mentioned before, if someone gives a link to a standard/rule about lists such as these on wikipedia that can be interpreted to say this list should stay, then I will change my vote to keep and advocate that we keep all other lists like this.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribunal Church[edit]

Confusing article bordering on patent nonsense. Google search for "The Tribunal Church" Joliet returns zero results. Creator removed PROD tag without explanation. Either a hoax, or entirely non-notable -Elmer Clark 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a clear example of WP:NFT. --Daniel Olsen 08:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and daniel olsen and as per WP:V, WP:NN, WP:HOAX, WP:PN, and WP:NFT ST47 12:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says "little is known about this religeon" [sic], so it's probably unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unverifiable, possible hoax. JChap2007 19:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator's only contributions are to this article. I smell a hoax. AgentPeppermint 22:11, 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 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Takes a Policy[edit]

Currently List of Medium episodes is being improoved, at the present the medium "project" does not need a rogue episode page as all info can be summed up in the list. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 08:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:33, 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 speedy redirect to Alex Jones (radio). Kimchi.sg 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Expose The Government Terrorists[edit]

No evidence this is a real or notable operation of any kind. No reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. The article cites a source which in fact does not mention the operation. Article's talk mentions another source which is Alex Jones talking about Alex Jones on the radio. Weregerbil 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Weregerbil. My god, we have to draw the line somewhere don't we. SkeenaR 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know, more than a few people a sick of "Strivercruft". But pray tell us what CSD criteria this falls under. I trow it doesn't qualify for CSD - it has context and a source(?). Kimchi.sg 09:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know Striver isn't trying to create cruft. He's created some decent articles, and done some really good work on some things. But I think this one needs to be gaffed. What is CSD? SkeenaR 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of content -- there's no description of what this "operation" supposedly is, other than maybe PR for the radio host's radio program. NawlinWiki 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the talk page, its not suppposed to, since it is not article.--Striver 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom and as per WP:V and WP:HOAX ST47 12:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Lack of verifiability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G 12:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment bad faith nom, article talk page with nom clearly states that he should turn it into a full redirect if he objected to the contents. This is not a article, its a soft redirect. Im not even going to bother trying to justify it. page is now a FULL redirect--Striver 12:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a bad faith nomination. Non-notable unverifiable articles are subject to deletion. Weregerbil 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how was this an article? Your entire nom is about this not being an article. --Striver 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this AfD nomination is not about "not being an article". Please read the nomination, it's ^ up there: no reliable sources, no notability established. Weregerbil 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those things are the very basis of an article. There is verifiable sources. You have the operation being doubt by Jones together with a explanation of what it is from a verfiable first hand source. Besides a verfiable first hand source, you have the essence of the operation being given coverage in Fox News and Colmes talk show. Aside from that, you have the huge Internet phenomena of people talking about the subject. But of course, none of that is included in the page, SINCE IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AN ARTICLE in the first place. Did you read the talk page were i said that i might turn it into a real article if even more sources did show up? I wanted to wait for a maintream source to mention both the name and contents of the operation, even though it is a notable internet phenomena by now. Did you see me sugest that you turn it into a full redirect if this bothers you`? If yes, then why did'nt you just redirect it instead of starting this, and forcing me to justify my actions? --Striver 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I "started all this" because of the concept of consensus. It is my opinion that the redirect shouldn't exist either because I don't think some phrase that someone blurts out should become a redirect. Others may disagree, so maybe discuss it? Instead of you listing allowed choices and me picking one of them. Weregerbil 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it appropriate to turn an article in AfD into a redirect? The AfD notice forbids removal of AfD notice and redirecting quite effectively removes the notice. Weregerbil 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Requesting close This all seems to be moot, since article author Striver agreed to a redirect (see talk page of pre-redirect article), and the article has already been redirected (not by me). NawlinWiki 13:56, 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 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technosocialism[edit]

No assertion of notability. Only 34 Google hits. Appears to be a violation of WP:NOR. -Elmer Clark 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4004/is_200307/ai_n9242150

Technosocialism is used by an author, who is not me (the original poster of this wiki), to describe Karl Capek's early 20th Century drama Rossum's Universal Robots(R.U.R). I point to this work specifically as a refutation of the term's notability.

Delete. Appears to be original research as the nominator cited. I do not understand the above appeal to the article on Capek. Certainly Capek is very notable and we have an article on him here as well as on R.U.R.. However, the fact that the author of an article about him was playful with language and coined a portmanteau does not mean that the word itself can piggyback onto the fame of the subject of the article it was used in. To claim notability for this word, you would have to show that the word itself is notable by its usage. A one-off usage does not render it so.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fuhghettaboutit. NawlinWiki 11:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fukghettaboutit and as per WP:OR ST47 12:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes technosocialism is a portmanteau. Technosocialism is a concatenation of the words (technology and socialism). Simply being a portmanteau is no grounds for exclusion, though. Smog is a portmanteau and their is an entry for that. It can also be spelled techno-socialism, by the way. I believe it most accurately describes the world at the beginning of the Capek play. Capek's play is ultimately a dsytopia, however, because the robots rise up and slay the humans. I don't think I invented this word or this idea but if you guys are saying that I did, well then I will be more than happy to take credit for it. I guess it just means I'll be famous someday.

Furthermore, the etymology of the word could stem directly from Technophilia.

Please also see technocracy.

Comment The difference is that that is a notable term frequently used by many people. This term appears to only have been used by you, and coincidentally by some other guy one time. Understand the distinction? See WP:NOTABILITY. -Elmer Clark 20:35, 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 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rik copley[edit]

Little known producer. The Google search turns up 92 hits, 26 unique [51] but most of them are signed comments on blogs or relate to other of Rik Copley's activities as a football pundit... Fails WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO by quite a bit. Pascal.Tesson 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as per WP:BIO ST47 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Han-Kwang 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. JChap2007 22:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Nil[edit]

It's not a notable song, it has two words! A football chant surely does not deserve its own article. Lurker ^oi! 10:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although I'd say that some football chants can become notable. Something this generic, however, isn't notable. BigHaz 10:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 11:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears not to be about the football chant any more, following a complete replacement by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. Speedy Keep as re-written article is not in the least related to the one nominated, and kudos to Jonathan for replacing garbage with a good stub. Tonywalton | Talk 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewritten version. --Ezeu 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony, in whose commendation of Jonathan I join. Joe 04:39, 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 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lothar[edit]

Non-notable WP:BIO. Vanity. Was up for speedy deletion, but I get the feeling it might have been contested so taking to afd to get a more concrete result. Delete. Petros471 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 15 adult films is way below the benchmark in this "field". NawlinWiki 11:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NN ST47 11:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also, fails to meet WP:PORN BIO will381796 22:57, 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 keep. - Bobet 10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Durand[edit]

Non notable (Halbared 10:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep fairly long IMDB tv-acting resume, though none of the parts look that big. NawlinWiki 11:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not only does he have a very long entry at IMDb but *pictures!* They don't post pictures of people who aren't notable. Anytime you get pictures on IMDb you know they are asserting a notability claim. Wjhonson 18:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense, but that's completely wrong. In reality, people listed on IMDb can (for a fee) place their own pictures on the site. As a matter of fact, of his five photos, one is a screencap from a movie, but the other four are photos Durand (or his agency) placed on IMDb themselves. -- Kicking222 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB mentions under trivia that he was named as one of Canada's funniest new comedians. If true, and this is verifiable via notable sources, would this confer notability to this actor? Otherwise, the parts he played, although in many shows, do not seem to be major. will381796 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TV.com confirms this statement Wjhonson 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how much that can be trusted, since it looks as though anyone can just go in and edit his entry and add any kind of trivia that they want. will381796 18:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you try it, you might find that you can't. Wjhonson 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quoted from when I tried: "You must be (at least) a Level 2 user to make submissions to TV.com. All registered users earn points toward their level for browsing the site, writing reviews, posting on the boards and posting in their blog. Levels are calculated nightly." So, if I browse the site enough, write enough reviews, and post on boards, then I can earn enough points to get Level 2 access and then I'd be able to edit his entry. I have no idea whether TV.com edits or verifies any information that is submitted by users. In addition, the trivia on TV.com is almost identical to IMDB. Are there any Canadian news references to this claim? I have not found any on google. will381796 22:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The thing is you have to look at the age of the claim. This claim was from about a decade ago. The internet then was not the insidiously invasive tool it is today. Many newspapers weren't online, and people in general, don't go back and OCR old papers and stuff. Some have online indexes that are growing, but most don't. So I'm not surprised you can't find this online. Maybe tag it with a {{fact}} and see if someone else can come up with a citation. Wjhonson 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original question that I asked was whether this would even be a claim of notability, if it is true. Do any other people have an opinion as to whether it would make him notable, if true? According to WP:BIO he would be notable if he considered one of the "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers", or if he is a "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." He has appeared in many big-name TV productions, but in small roles, and I don't think that he meets any of the listed notability "tests". But we need to get the opinion of more users. will381796 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's more notable than most people, and I'd rather err on the side of keeping "unnotable" people than ending up deleting notable ones. It's subjective enough that if it's there, someone thinks it's notable. - MSTCrow 07:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcedor Week[edit]

Competition at one summer camp; nonnotable and unverifiable. Author removed prod tag stating that competition was "notable within the camp." NawlinWiki 11:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as per WP:NN and WP:V ST47 11:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Han-Kwang 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Campcruft. AgentPeppermint 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid "notable within the camp" doesn't quite cut it :) -Elmer Clark 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (move it if you want to). - Bobet 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guards of Australia[edit]

An article existing only to bemoan the lack of an Australian counterpart to the United States Coast Guard.--cj | talk 11:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Hogwarts doesn't exist. Nor does phlogiston. I see what you mean though, this seems to be an article describing an organisation, which article is only there to say "there is no such organisation". I can see an argument for keeping this one but renaming it something which wouldn't imply that it was the name of an extant organisation. Something along the lines of Australian coastguard services (lowerrcase on "coastguard" to emphasise that it's not an organisation per se) or Coastguards in Australia. Keep and rename. Tonywalton | Talk 11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel it was clear what my original rationale meant, even if it was semantically ambigious. Nevertheless, I've refactored it. Coast protection in Australia is undertaken by the Australian Defence Force.--cj | talk 12:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as per WP:NFT ST47 11:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see where that comes from. The article states (in paraphrase) that "there is no Coast Guard service in Australia which is analogous to the US Coast Guard", and gives apparently-verifiable refernces about what bodies fulfil the services that the US Coast Guard performs. Which bit of this was made up in school? Tonywalton | Talk 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an essay about something that just does not exist in australia - 202.6.138.34 12:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a sub-article of coast guard that covers the various coast guards in Australia, just as do the various other sub-articles for other countries, in a single article. It's currently not much more than a stub. It's definitely expandible, and its verifiable. Keep. Uncle G 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the other articles for other countries are actually for individual institutions. This article, while it could be turned into something not completely useless, currently has sections about two organisations and one suggested organisation. The two organisations are linked by having similar purposes, but really could have separate articles. The ALP proposed Coast Guard (which is not a current proposal) is only linked to the others by the fact that uses the name Coast Guard, following the US usage of the term, rather than that established by the AVCG in Australia. I don't see any need for a page linking the three sections (and/or info about the Coastwatch division of the Customs service) together in one page. JPD (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move/merge somewhere, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per suggestion above. Park3r 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expand and cleanup. Important topic as this issue has been discussed at the past two Australian elections including in leaders debates and it is odds on to receive mention in the next one. Needs reference to volunteer organisations. Capitalistroadster 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- definitely needs cleanup. I even know a (volunteer) Australian coast guard. Refer http://www.coastguard.com.au/- Longhair 11:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and cleanup for the same reasons as Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but expand and clean up. (JROBBO 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep -- but move to one of the above suggested names (Coastguards in Australia?) Ga rr ie 00:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 04:53, 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 - The 8 day AfD is not a problem as it was likely left there by passing admins due to a lack of conviction in the debate after 5 days. There is a consensus to keep now.'Blnguyen | rant-line 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Arthurs[edit]

Non-notable persona, should be merged with James Bulger I elliot 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created due to a (now disproven) rumour. Actual subject of article has no inherent notability, other than his association to the rumour. Hence this should be merged with the James Bulger article. Arthurs does not deserve his own article.I elliot 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the rumor stuff into the Bulger article, Bulger's killers don't even have their own article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of this article - if published in Australia, its probably illegal as its prejudicial; its too much information about a disproven rumour. This guy, guilty or not, is a "no body". Domestic, non-notorious, unconvicted persons merely accused of murder have no place on wiki. There is no point having a wiki article which has only one justiication: a widely circulated disproven email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.207.165 (talk • contribs) .
Strong Keep If the basis of your argument to remove the article is non notable persona and Arthurs actions have "no inherent notability(??!!), it is countered by the fact that he is an Australian prisoner on remand and has received enough media attention to warrant the Australian government at both state and federal level and the British ambassador defending against a "rumour" that originated BEFORE the alleged severely brutal, inhumane murder of Sofia Rodriguez.Elpocoloco 03:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to remind any administrators making judgements on this article that it is Wikipedia policy to ignore the comments of users whose only contributions are to the article to be deleted.I elliot 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like yourself, elliot? Joined 30 June, 2006? Coincidence? Elpocoloco 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I joined on the 17th of April and I have contributed to articles other than this one.I elliot 09:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination. Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete. Are you going to continue advocating deletion, elliot? What reason will you put forward third time around? Elpocoloco 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, let's keep the discussion about the subject, not about the various editors involved. He is a suspect in a notorious crime, which is borderline notable; the Thompson rumors, even though false, were widely circulated and push this over the line to notability IMO. Readers interested in the case should be able to come to Wikipedia to find the truth as best we can verify it. NawlinWiki 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NawlinWiki. And chaps, less of this "Yah Boo" stuff please, Let's keep it civil, eh? Tonywalton | Talk 12:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Suspect in case that has been widely covered both because of the age of the vic and because it has become a bit of a political football. Also, a rumor/hoax can be covered here if identiified as such, regardless of the original reason for the creation of the article. JChap2007 17:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. There are reliable sources cited in the article such as the Age, Guardian and West Australian newspapers. The crime received national coverage on the day that it occurred. It shouldn't be merged with James Bulger given that the connection is that he was falsely believed to be one of his killers.Capitalistroadster 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his fame is transient and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article which will be around indefinitely. -- Kjkolb 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Nawlinkwiki. (JROBBO 13:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - I claim to be the principal author of the article. I also think that he is an inherently noteworthy person. Everything that I said about him is absolutely true. You can verify it yourself. - Richardcavell 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note that most votes here (including mine) are keep, but were delivered after the closing time. Please consider the late surge in support. - Richardcavell 01:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kea audio[edit]

Contested speedy. Version I originally deleted was undoubtedly had no assertion of notability; this one at least asserts some, so taking it here. Petros471 11:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable company, 94 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 11:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki and as per WP:NN ST47 11:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:CORP per lack of independent, non-trivial sources. JChap2007 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm concerned that the major claim to fame "polyepicell" returns on hits from google. Does anybody know how to search patents? If this did seem like a real innovation, then it would be greater grounds for notability.--Limegreen 03:24, 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. Looks pretty much like a speedy a3 to me. - Bobet 11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites blocked by authorities in Pakistan[edit]

WP:NOT a mere collection of external links. This article, on the other hand, is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ST47 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rimmers 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Elmer Clark 00:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think deleting this list because it is a bunch of links is to follow the letter and not the spirit of the policy. I don't think this is a directory, the purpose of this page is not to direct other people to websites of a certain topic or use, but to show what kind of content is censored by Pakistan—which is very relevant to the topic of Internet censorship in Pakistan. It's a weak keep however because its ~~unsourced and~~ rather useless as a list without some sort of short description for each site. hateless 07:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually is sourced, albeit not to WP's standards. hateless 07:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite, esle delete if rewritten with references explaining why certian websites might have been blocked, it would be an interesting list. not strictly a directory, as stated above. However without said work, it may as well vanish. LinaMishima 13:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not task of WP to serve as link directory, especially for such fluid topic. Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 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 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanet Sunday Football League[edit]

Nonnotable amateur football league; way below the level for notability established here. NawlinWiki 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per English_football_league_system, Sunday league football teams aren't necessarily part of the league "pyramid", so that guideline isn't necessarily applicable. If anything makes this league notable, the author needs to state it - for instance are any notable retired players involved with its formation or operation, were there any notable issues with setting up the league - "notable issues" being things like "were there widely-reported petitions and news stories, perferably national, when the evil local council refused them permission to play on such-and-such pitches" (note that that's a madey-up example, I am not saying there were), etc. If not this just looks like a non-notable pub football league. Best of luck lads, but Speedy delete as A7 {{nn-club}} if nothing notable is established. Tonywalton | Talk 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as a former resident of Thanet, I don't know of anything especially notable about thise league. It's just another Sunday league like dozens, maybe even hundreds, of others up and down the country..... ChrisTheDude 12:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the least no WP:RS indicating any notability per WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, non-notable amateur football league, reads like an advert. Qwghlm 12:13, 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 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micropointillism, Macropointillism[edit]

A term which was, according to the article, made up in school one day. 94 unique Googles indicates a lack of any widespread acceptance of this term. Mainly the work of Esteban (talk · contribs) whose edits are almost exclusively to the person and work of Stephen Goodfellow, including adding links to Goodfellow's website. Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, apparent vanity. -- Infrogmation 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT ST47 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, — per nom M a rtinp23 22:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Gazpacho 22:12, 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 Keep, Bad-faith nom strongly suspected. --§hanel 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit_Fadia[edit]

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

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

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

Ankit Fadia is a self-proclaimed hacker. None of his claims have ever been verified from reliable sources Silina 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Silina (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Ankit Fadia's biography must be deleted since he is a self proclaimed hacker and none of his claims have been verified. Some of his claims have been published by various media but never the less they aren't sufficient evidence.
  A hacker is acknowledged as a hacker if and only if his name figures in various high-standard technology sites or technology books. On the contrary most real hackers consider Ankit Fadia as a script-kiddie.
  Silina 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The question here is not whether most of the other hackers in the world call him a script kiddie or something worse, but whether he passes WP:BIO. He is the most notable "hacker" in India and is accepted by the media as such. A search for "ankit fadia" gives 30000+ ghits. The article cites BBC which says the same thing. His first book "The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking" was a best-seller. A look at the history of the article sill show that this user has a strong bias against Ankit Fadia [52], (assuming that all the IPs belong to the same person). The first version of the article was written by a fan, but I managed to do a major cleanup of the article to what it was. This particular user has also cleaned-up a bit more removing some more unsourced facts [53]. But lately he has started removing the citations too [54]. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Has verifiable publications, appears to meet the WP:BIO criteria The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field and The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. The fact that "some people consider him XYZ" is irrelevant (though could, if verifiable, be added to the article). Some people consider Nicholas Serota "furthers worthless careers", which alters his notability not one jot. Tonywalton | Talk 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the contents of those articles. Most of those articles refuse to acknowledge Ankit Fadia as a hacker.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.176.51 (talk • contribs) .
  - That's not the point. Many newspaper articles refuse to acknowledge Lutefisk as a delicious foodstuff. You are missing the point (I feel deliberately); this AfD is not about your opinion on whether or not Ankit Fadia is a hacker, a script kiddy or a hyperintellgent shade of the colour blue. It's about whether or not he meets WP:BIO. And please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. Tonywalton | Talk 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His work has been recognized by the media only. Not by any notable security organization.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.179.4 (talk • contribs) .
- I have a strong feeling that this "vote" is by the nominator. See both the history of User:Silina and [55]. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Deleted - I feel Ankit Fadia should be deleted. If deletion is out of question, at least he should be removed from the category of 'Indian Hackers'. He is not acknowledged as a hacker by the "Hackers Community". There are various reasons of this. He has never submitted a bugtraq or exploit. He is not a good programmer since the world has never seen an exploit or a hack written by Ankit himself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.176.51 (talk • contribs) .
Comment - To the closing admin. The nominator, and the above 2 IPs who have voted to delete are likely the same person. See [56], [57], [58] and [59]. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Aski great and Tonywalton. Irongargoyle 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above. And the person initiating this AfD seems to be on some sort of personal vendetta, and not reason. See this (Orkut account required). --220.225.53.35 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Best-selling author. JChap2007 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ankit Fadia is not recognised by any Notable Hacker or Security organisation, other than as a fraud. As Per the hacker how-to (a hacker document by ESR, one of the first, and well reputed hackers) there are 3 things one must do to call himself a hacker
- Do you speak code, fluently?
- Do you identify with the goals and values of the hacker community?
- Has a well-established member of the hacker community ever called you a hacker?
Ankit Fadia cannot code, or at least, has never done so in public. The Second Question cannot be verified or not. However, Fadia does not qualify on the last count. No one has called him a hacker, but himself, and the media. ESR adds a note in the howto on people such as Ankit Fadia
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
-- Tejas Dinkar (http://www.gja.in) [I'm sorry, I'm not a regular Wikipedia Contributor, just posting website to prove that I'm a real person :p] 59.92.133.167 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the people out here that Ankit Fadia is a self proclaimed hacker. There is no proof that he has really worked in security field. Rather he uses tools developed by other eminent hackers without giving proper credits to them, which is against the hacker ethics. He also uses the tools which damage not only the security, but also the integrity of the computer system, which is also against the hacker ethics.About his books, he just provides tips and tricks to tweak a computer which are already documented and calls them hacks. - 203.129.199.148 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC) contribution moved to chronologically-appropriate place. Was placed before deletion nomination[reply]
None of the above has any bearing whatsoever upon whether someone should have a Wikipedia article. Our criteria are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If you want to make an argument, please base it upon those criteria, and our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I suspect bad faith nomination.--Andeh 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the argument above that everyone *knows* about him, but think he's a fraud, is *in itself* sufficient argument to keep the article. Whether he's a fraud or not, the fact that he is known — passes. Wjhonson 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. Compare Fake Sheikh, who is notable even though verifiably not being a genuine sheikh, in fact because he isn't. I make no claim to know whether Ankit Fadia is genuine or not, and have no idea what "script kiddy" means. Tonywalton | Talk 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of IPs are coming here to vote delete. As mentioned by a user above, a message is being spread on Orkut to delete this. I have a screenshot, but am not uploading it on wikipedia due to copyright problems. Anybody who wishes to see the shot can leave a message on my talk page. Here is the text of the message - Delete Ankit Fadia. I got this scrap from another community. Posting it here:- "The wikipedia article on Ankit Fadia has been marked for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankit_Fadia has been marked for deletion. If you want his article to be deleted. Please express your views here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankit_Fadia. Please help in the great community effort to delete him. Please provide valid reasons in the above link. Because the wikipedia admins would delete it only if the reasons are valid, not if the number of headcount is more. Why I am particularly concerned about this is because we have better hackers than Ankit Fadia in this community. If there is a biography on Ankit Fadia, then we must put up biographies in Wikipedia on some really good hackers who are present in this community. Moderator, may be I have violated some rule of the community. If so, I would request you to delete this thread. This only a request to all the members here because I thought this is a place where I can share this." - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ankit fadia is not acting professional security persion also. Leave the pint of he becomming a hacker. First of all I would like to add that i have read his book ethical hacking. Which is just copy paste from the web sites. He has pasted even hundres of pages as virus code. His book is not increasing knowledge and the things specified in his book are very old none of them is uptodate. He has also started a course with the named CEH by Ankit Fadia. Lots of ppl have fooled by the name CEH considering CEH form EC council and doing his certification but his certification dont have value in india also leave the rest of the world. So he is just fooling the newbies. He dont have any achivements in hacking field. Just media has created fame for him. So I recommend that this artical should be deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stubbleboy 09:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Syndicate[edit]

[This is a copy and paste job from the subject's web page. I probably should have just speedied the thing. The subject seemed notable, so I gave the creator the opportunity to fix it. Creator followed my advice on changing to the third person, but there has been no substantial rewrite. It is either a copyvio or self-promoting spam. :) Dlohcierekim 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ST47 13:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio and/or self-promoting spam. --Ezeu 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep as the article has been rewritten to remove the copyvio problem. They are certainly notable as they even turn up some recent google news articles. --Ezeu 06:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. I will abstain as the article is no longer a copyvio, however it still will need a cleanup. Stubbleboy 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't a copyvio any longer. I added external links. I think the article is better now. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good job on the rewrite. It is too good for a speedy. No longer a copyvio. Does it meet inclusion criteria? :) Dlohcierekim 09:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. http://www.voltairenet.org/article135044.html offers some third-party coverage of Project Syndicate, as do the other references. Google News carries a number of Project Syndicate articles at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Project+Syndicate%22 , and so does http://news.yahoo.com TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ezeu. wikipediatrix 16:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ezeu. with thanks to User:TruthbringerToronto for the rewrite. :) Dlohcierekim 22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, I don't see anyone arguing for the deletion after the rewrite (and it's not OR anymore). If someone disagrees, feel free to renominate it, with reasons specific to the rewritten article. - Bobet 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truths[edit]

Article is OR, see Talk:Truth#Half-truth.3B_Truths_Paradox Jim62sch 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- Given the work that user:Dmoss has put into making this article a real article, devoid of POV, I'd like to withdraw this AfD. Of course, I'm not sure what needs to happen to delist it, etc., but I'll work on it. Jim62sch 13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The see also section is truly bizarre, (apparently, you should also see Devil, Garden of Eden, Lie, Lucifer, Original Sin, and Truth™) and indicative that perhaps this is a rather confused little page. And if you remove those, you're left with very little. So I say merge back into deception and leave it at that unless appropriate content can be added. — Dunc|☺ 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt's actually simple OR. squitti left his web page on a few articles [60], and this diff proved it to be OR [61] Jim62sch 15:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually it's no original research when there's no research there, it's just original. — Dunc|☺ 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And as it's now been originally researched, it could stay. — Dunc|☺ 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR -- Whpq 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and lack of content, not to mention the dubious external (and internal) links. IronC hris | (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Noticed this via editors recent additions to logic, now reverted, thankfully.--CSTAR 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This belongs in the Wiktionary, not the Wikipedia. ... Kenosis 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on newly presented, verified content in article. I hadn't known there was verifiable content on this subject. Nice work Dave. ... Kenosis 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsThe expanded concept of half-truths, esp truths that lie, has been accepted by Oxford University.

The research has been accepted by listed on the following sites: University of Kansas Link List and has been recorded by Lakehead University Magazine.
The concept of 'half-truths' ie especially truths that lie, is a missing link that may explain the 'original sin' from the 'garden of Eden', this has logical implications for several concepts such as truth, and lie, and deception.
The concept of truths that lie is an unrecognized logical error in human philosophy that has implications to most all concepts dealing with forms of logic and philosophy.
Thank you. --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I've been trying to avoid using "-cruft" in xfD summaries lately, but what the hell--conversioncruft the sole purpose of which is to insert linkspam to the author's website. The article itself contains an interesting example of its subject: the "publication of research findings in Lakehead University Magazine concerning half-truths" is a brief paragraph "class note" (i.e., personal update) in an alumni magazine. JChap2007 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per well-sourced rewrite. However, I do question whether the thesis of the politics section, "Half-truths are an integral part of politics in representative democracies," needs to be attributed. It seems like an opinion to me. That I happen to agree is beside the point. JChap2007 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole paragraph in the Politics section used ideas from the single reference at the end, ^ Crystal, David (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, p. 378. You should be able to find it on Google Books by typing in the keywords 'half-truth cambridge encyclopedia'. A direct quote, from which I drew the idea for the introductory sentence, is "Politics is the world of the half-truth. It is evidently part of the price we have to pay for democracy". --Dave 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To publish:

"To publish is to make publicly known, and in reference to text and images, it can mean distributing paper copies to the public, or putting the content on a website."
Here is the publication, a free to view site, the book will be out in the next few years...for a fee of course.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm sure we'll all be scouring Amazon.com Jim62sch 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all delete recommendations above; suspected WP:OR or some sort of weird WP:VSCA. No reliable sources and the "see also" links make this even more bizarre... --Kinu ^t/_c 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)See below.[reply]
Comment Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories.

The half-truth concept has been published previously in various media forms.
Would this not be a form of censorship and contrary to the purpose of this dictionary ?
Thanks again.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis ain't no disco, this ain't no party, this ain't no dictionary...it's an encyclopedia. Additionally, you really need to read the following, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Jim62sch 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says in AfD that deleting an article would be censorship, that article is almost always deleted. JChap2007 19:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One type of half-truth is changing the punctuation to suggest something that is not. The original quote was a question not a statment....Would this not be a form of censorship and contrary to the purpose of this dictionary ?

It was a question, not a statement of fact, was it not ?
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, it was a rhetorical device formed as a question. Jim62sch 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The english philosopher Alfred Whitehead is quoted in 1953 in a famous quote: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".

So Alfred Whitehead did make the connect betweeen half-truths and the devil. For some unfortunate reason we did not appreciate his message.
Thanks
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gazpacho 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article is certainly badly written at present, but the very purpose of Wikipedia is to continually improve articles. Half-truths is currently referenced from the deception article. There is no doubt the article has itsd own place in Wikipedia. Those who believe the article is too POV should direct their attention to correcting the problem rather than trying to have the article deleted because it does not accord with their own POV. If every badly written article was deleted rather than improved Wikipedia would probably fit on a floppy disk. --Dave 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. And Dave, please note that the only reason it is linked from deception is because the author of Half-truths linked it. JoshuaZ 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep new version written by Dave. JoshuaZ 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The english philosopher Alfred Whitehead is quoted in 1953 in a famous quote: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".

Until recently I had not heard of Alfred Whitehead, so tell me if Alfred Whitehead a teacher of philosohpy at Harvard in sthe 50's knew of this, why was it not revealed to the general public ? Was it used against society by some ? of did make the connect betweeen half-truths and the devil.

I doubt Whitehead was speaking of the devil in a religious context, he was more likely using a general expression meaning "leads to making invalid assumptions that undermine a person's ability to properly interpret subsequent information". --Dave 03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have attempted to retrieve this article by eliminating religious POV content that detracts from the description of half-truth as a philosophical concept, and introduced hard references to supporting texts to improve credibility. I still believe the article is salvageable regardless of how people may feel about the original author's views. Can I suggest people who have voted to delete the article return for another look, and reconsider whether the article should be deleted or improved. --Dave 03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the heavily edited, non-POV, non-OR-pushing version by Dave. Now this is what an article on "half-truths" should be. Good work. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is padded with original research and incidental uses of a phrase. Gazpacho 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons above. Jim62sch 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gazpacho, feel free to comment on the article talk page. Jim62sch 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work by Dave and others to find and post relavent material....!!

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:56, 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 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCP001[edit]

Non-notable unverifiable CD-ROMs a band once burned. Nominating all seven for deletion:

SCP002
SCP003
SCP004
SCP005
SCP006
SCP007

The first two were {{prod}}ed and deprodded.Weregerbil 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alll Self releases and demo's!? If Allmusic applies to a Swedish band, then they are not listed there. ~~These should probably be speedied under db-band with no assertion of notability.~~ :) Dlohcierekim 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article about band claims international tours. :) Dlohcierekim 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band lived long of its "Non-notable unverifiable CD-ROMs a band once burned" and made tours of these long before they settled down and released their debut-album. An important part of the band history released in many hundred units. Friherren
Delete all; demos don't need their own articles. A mention in the band's article is more than sufficient and would do better in making that article stronger. Alternatively, merge the concent in these articles there. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete demo recordings. Gazpacho 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, demos are not notable. GregorB 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - and AUTO does not get an automatic delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randall James Bayer[edit]

Originally speedied (not by me) and contested, but appears to assert notability (100 papers published), so I'm moving it here. My vote is weak delete, doesn't appear any more notable than many other botanists (weak because I'm not an expert in this field); also created by User:Rjbayer, so violates WP:Vanity. NawlinWiki 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of publications Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22RJ Bayer%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=bio&hl=en&lr=&safe=off. Seems to meet WP:PROF. Dlyons493 Talk 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - even if he is notable, the entire article is a huge WP:AUTO violation. If he is not notable, then it is WP:VAIN. So either way, it gets deleted. If he's notable (possible WP:PROF as noted above), then without prejudice against recreation (but not by User:Rjbayer). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Auto is a guideline not a policy, and it itself does not *forbid* creating articles about yourself. For his notability see List of publications on an independent Gov AU site Wjhonson 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. I added the publications list cited by Wjhonson to the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't add long lists of journal publications, all productive sceintists produce tens or hundreds of papers.--Peta 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The long list of articles is necessary to establish notability as some people assumed he was not. When this deletion is closed, then I would have no problem removing or limiting them to say ten of the best articles. Wjhonson 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Scholar search for Randall Bayer comes up with 69 references may of which appear to have been cited by other botanists see [62] Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable. Stilgar135 04:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the creation by the subject, it appears fine. --Alf ^melmac 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good initiative. Berton 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many other botanists as notable (including a number of his co-authors) who would never consider creating their own Wikipedia articles, and thus will never be included. Part of being notable is having it occur to someone that they should create an article about you.--Curtis Clark 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the Prof bit of WP:BIO with flying colours. Peripitus (Talk) 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but having to make your own article is not usually a good marker of notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep impressively NPOV autobio about a notable botanist. Our academic bio articles would be in much better shape if more academics made similar contributions.--Peta 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, there's the rub. Most academics of similar or greater stature take WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, and WP:BIO seriously and would never write articles about themselves, either through embarassment or for fear that it would affect their reputations negatively. If Randy's autobio stands, it will certainly serve as a precedent, though, and maybe additional notable academics can be persuaded to write articles about themselves.--Curtis Clark 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you really think most people are even aware of the policies of wikipedia. I would guess not.--Peta 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster and Petaholmes, article satisfies our Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:51, 24 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 Japanese typographic symbols, since it's now mentioned there and the content here looks like original research. - Bobet 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onpu[edit]

As for this page, "Its use is in actuallity shrouded in mystery."♪ The onpu is mostly used by females, but also by males... and foreigners...? This is nonsense. Dekimasu 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I think this needs to be looked at by an expert in the field. I found this listing of Onpu and Image:Onpu-no-bui-no-namae001.png at the commons as parts of a musical note. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It does indeed mean musical notes in Japanese, but the article is confusing. It will be interesting to see whether this can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to be significant to Japanese culture. Must be cleaned up. Themindset 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Japanese typographic symbols and add the symbol to that article. Just say it's a musical note symbol. Fg2 10:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the AfD tag was removed by a vandal and I have replaced it. Dekimasu 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (which I placed on the article's talk page days ago): "Yes, if you type "onpu" into your cell phone, it will give you a musical note. However, the actual meaning includes the dakuten, long mark, small つ, etc. It is crazy to make this an article about cell phones. If I type だな into my cell phone in hiragana, it will give me DKNY as the first choice; this doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about the meaning of "dana" in mass communications in Japan." Dekimasu 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the AfD tag was removed by the same vandal for a second time and I have replaced it. Dekimasu 14:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: has now been removed four times by the same vandal using two IP addresses. Dekimasu 01:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. There are a grand total of zero sources cited in the article or this AfD, so it's off to Wiki-nirvana by virtue of WP:RS/WP:NOR alone. Sandstein 19:41, 16 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, Petros471 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sandstein. The article has been around long enough that if it were going to be cleaned up, it would have been by now. User:Angr 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per Sandstein. I can't tell if this is a legitimate topic; if it is, then there can certainly be a well-sourced and well-written article about it. This is not it though. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added onpu to Japanese typographic symbols as I suggested earlier. Fg2 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Japanese typographic symbols per Fg2. That's what this is. The listing there now contains as much information as this article. — Haeleth Talk 10:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Japanese typographic symbols per Fg2. --Satori Son 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:22, 24 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. - Bobet 11:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mason (jewel thief)[edit]

Self-proclaimed "master" thief, writing his autobiography without proving/substantiating his claims (see CNN link in article). Moreover, despite his autobio, still non-notable. Delete as per WP:NN. -- P199 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all should realize that writing your own bio and getting a bit of publicity doesn't make one notable (that's just marketing). Anyone can write their own bio and make all kinds of wonderful claims. WP should not be the medium to propagate such unsubstantiated works. -- P199 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on the contrary. We are not here to prove what others say, only to *state* what they say. If he is a notable loon who claims to have stolen millions, that is notable in and of itself, for his being a notable loon. So your argument fails. If he is a non-notable loon then he fails notability, but this guy doesn't. Wjhonson 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn-bio. --TheM62Manchester 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has thousands of articles about various action figures. I think an article for a guy who claims to be a master jewel thief, whether true or not, deserves his own page. The fact that he is an author and released this book is more than enough reason to have his own page. Did you write a book?

Do Not Delete, nn-bio. --jamesishere 6:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep, published author interviewed by CNN. Kappa 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, Also, throughout the autobiography are scans of various newpaper clippings that back up what he says (including himself on the front page with his socialite girlfriend) --jamesishere 2:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Double-up. Daniel.Bryant 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Thieving $35 million worth of jewels sounds pretty damn notable to me. RFerreira 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per primary sources policy, intertwined with WP:V. Daniel.Bryant 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CNN is not a primary source. Kappa 05:23, 19 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, Petros471 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a CNN interview does not confer notability. User:Angr 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - his book "Confessions of a Master Jewel Thief" gets twelve.... thousand... hits on google. That's pretty notable. Wjhonson 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being interviewed by mainstream media, and being the subject of a lot of media attention for a commited crime indicates or creates notability. Han-Kwang 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As noted by Wjhonson, the book seems notable enough at least, so even if the article is short and ends up basically referring to the book, there's no shame in short articles. SnowFire 22:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Han-Kwang, we have articles on lots of suspected criminals, $35 million in jewels is a sufficiently notable haul. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Han-Kwang and, RFerreira, Wjhonson, et cetera. Yamaguchi先生 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. --Myles Long 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this seems more than the average burglar - this guy's book has made him pretty noteable. - Blood red sandman 13:08, 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 keep. - Bobet 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fraser Pirie[edit]

This appears to be a not particulary noteworthy journalist, listing here for community consensus. No Vote exolon 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also check George Pirie as it appears to be in a similar vein. exolon 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mr. Pirie is not well known today, he was a well known newspaperman throughout Toronto during the 1870s and 1880s. His 1903 death was covered in every major paper across Canada. He was nominated by his peers as the President of the Canadian Press Association in 1893. This article is not intended to rank his importance as a journalist, rather, it is an article detailing one part of the history of the Canadian newspaper industry. This type of information is not readily available anywhere else and would be unique to Wikipedia.--Mpirie 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "This type of information is not readily available anywhere else and would be unique to Wikipedia" is a clear violation of WP:V. --Satori Son 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your coments. Then I retract that statement since you have pointed out something I was unaware of. My other comments stand.--Mpirie 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notwithstanding your retraction, the article still does not yet pass WP:V and WP:BIO. --Satori Son 20:36, 15 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, Petros471 13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider George Pirie. Petros471 13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable sources can be provided. User:Angr 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — For Alexander. Much of the article is unsourced and the author's statement indicates it is unverifiable. However, the fact that he was elected president of the Canadian Press Association (which does have a source) makes him borderline notable. Delete George, who should not be confused with the probably notable George Pirie from Glasgow [63]. JChap2007 16:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Both articles now have references which confirm the family member's recollections. And both seem notable, since Alexander Fraser Pirie was a newspaper editor and George a newspaper publisher, given the influence that Canadian newspapers had on politics and society generally in the 19th century. Alexander Fraser Pirie does not have an article in the ~~Directory of Canadian Biography~~Dictionary of Canadian Biography, but he is mentioned as an editor in the ~~Directory of Canadian Biography~~Dictionary of Canadian Biography's article on John Ross Robertson. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per entry in DCB above, obviously notable. Wjhonson 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improve article. DCB probably indicates notability, but notability should also be clear from the article itself. Han-Kwang 19:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-instating. I am the author of the article and the great granddaughter of A. F. Pirie. I can improve the article per your welcome comments. I do have verifiable sources for my statements - I hold all his original correspondence, newspaper clippings from 1870s to 1903, Press badge, Chicago Press conference speeches, letter from Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, and genealogical info (funeral card), photos, etc. Part of the biography can be backed up with his entry in Canada's "Who's Who" of 1898 by Morgan[64] which I can add as further reading. I wrote from my overall research, rather than utilizing the work of others, but naturally, I can go back and source everything. His obituary provides further info and appeared in the Toronto Star, Toronto Evening Telegram, the Globe, Regina Leader, Hamilton Times, and nearly every newspaper in Canada. Yes, he is unknown today, but in terms of 1880s Toronto - he was well known and respected. In terms of Mr. George Pirie, I hold his correspondence from the 1840s to 1860s, his obituaries, financial papers, and photographs. Mr. Pirie faced greater obstacles than his son as he was establishing himself in Canada, but his contributions to Guelph were significant in his day. That being said, I respect the input of others. Once again thank you for your consideration. Mpirie 00:47, 28 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 - stronger views put across by those in favour of deletion, most of the keep votes are from one IP anyway. — FireFox ^(talk) _{12:37, 29 August 2006}

The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall[edit]

PROD tag removed without comment or improvement. Advertising for nonnotable book. User:Angr 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved in accordance with user comment. 19 August 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.120.150 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 August 2006.
- Not true. This comparison of the page between the time I listed it on AFD and now shows that all that's happened is the deletion of an image, the addition of a reference (but no information based on that reference), and the addition of a stub template. User:Angr 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In context of other similar political book stubs. 19 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.120.150 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 August 2006.
Neutral I'm really waffling on this one. The author seems notablish, the book seems to have a highish profile. The article is pretty clearly vanity, but that doesn't necessarily mean it must be deleted. Needs to be cut down and rewritten in neutral language at the very least. - Richfife 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - leave the NPOV tags on it, but it's not like Simon & Schuster is a vanity press - passes my unofficial Amazon test. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ I was the one who initially protested the style and language of the article. Some improvement has been done; more is needed. But as for notability, I'm in line with User:Revragnarok. Medico80 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go neutral. Don't know what precedens is for unpublished books... Medico80 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The book is currently unreleased. So this article is nothing more than self-promotion having been written up by a press agent and the article's statements can not possibly be peer reviewed in its current state. Google hits for ("The J Curve" "Ian Bremmer" -wikipedia) = 507. I agree the author is notable, but the book has yet to establish itself to via third parties. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it is published and reviewed properly. An uninvolved party should do the rewrite as well, though we can't mandate that of course. -- nae'blis 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with user Netsnipe Angelbo 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Still Keep~~ (one vote per user): All fair points, but a number of reviews are already posted on the book's website, some lengthy and from established journals. I presume they are from review copies, which appear to be selling on Ebay. 67.86.120.150 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable author and publisher, no discernable bias in text. Too early to tell notability of work. 216.204.50.6 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's too early to determine the notability of the work. It's not even published yet and, per NetSnipe's google test, obviously doesn't have a preemptive cult following like, for instance, the seventh book in the Harry Potter series or Snakes on a Plane. It could turn out to be a complete flop. Srose (talk) 15:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy relativity[edit]

Orginal research and vanity. Opening sentance appears to have problems with facts and grammer. It doesn't get much better.Geni 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Opening sentence is citation, did you care to check the book? --Quasarq 20:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet the definition of Patent Nonsense of the Second Kind in that it is: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.. Speedy delete as such (CSD:G1). Tonywalton | Talk 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave Maybe you don't know your way around relativity --Liseusa 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment User has only edited this page (twice) and their user page (once). Anville 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like orginally researched nonsense. :) Dlohcierekim 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although homeopathy itself is patent nonsense in the ordinary sense, it can be written about intelligibly. Check to see if the article's author included relativity in Template:Homoeopathy, or whether the subject itself is "valid." - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the edit history, that was the author of this article. Tonywalton | Talk 20:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - mostly a note to myself to check when I had more time, but thanks. The article is off the template now. Did want to make sure that this wasn't a confusing attempt to write about something that homeopaths take seriously. With stuff like this it's hard to tell. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though it attempts to baffle with (pseudo)science, clearly original research. Camillus (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant WP:OR, WP:NOT a place for rejected review articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and patent nonsense. A hoax. GBYork 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No delete, so far no one cares to comment on contents. The word nonsense is used without notion of the sense of it. The references show this is no original research.--Quasarq 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - User has alreaded voted. Jefffire 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I notice that you don't care to comment on the contents either. Most intelligent people can spot pseudo-scientific sophistry/codswallop when they see it. Just because there are references makes no difference - references have to be to peer-reviewed, reputable sources - which this article sorely lacks. I could create an article stating that the Earth was flat, and find any number of references to back it up - it'd still be crap. Camillus (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commend Sorry, if you know better than Einstein, the citation (opening sentance): every co-ordinate system "can be used as reference body with equal rights and equal succes in the formulation of the general laws in nature" came from his book. Like the first editor no one did care to look it up. --Quasarq 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The problem might not be with the citation from Einstein, but how the article attempts to use quotations taken out of context to try to give a "scientific gloss" to this sophistry/codswallop. In the first paragraph we have "Einstein does not claim that systems are equal, no they have equal rights or they are similar in certain aspects." Examine this even for a moment and it's revealed as patent nonsense - who in the world would say that "all systems are equal"? What on earth does "equal" mean in this context? What on earth does "equal rights" mean in this context? Who in the world would question that "systems...are similar in certain aspects"? Just because you stick Einstein in front does not turn garbage into gold.

Taking another "reference" from Department of Physics of Washington University in St. Louis - Black holes, Hawking radiation, entropy, and information loss in a thin film of 3He-A - how come the authors of that paper make no mention of "Homeopathy" whatever? Because the two subjects are totally unrelated?

I could create an article called "Mesmerism and Relativity" or "Phrenology and Relativity" and throw in a few quotations from Einstein and Hawking - nobody's going to start taking Franz Mesmer seriously or start looking for black (or even "white") holes on people's noggins. Camillus (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commend Einstein doesn't say: "all systems are equal", he said: "they have equal rights"; in the context this point is proven. The authors of "that paper" don't speak about homeopathy, they speak about quantum black hole analogies or white hole analogies; this is what homeopaths were writing all along. The editor does not say science has proved the point, he claims this is a POV among homeopathic circles

Reply You miss my point. My point was why say "Einstein does not claim that all systems are equal?". Nobody would say that all systems are equal. Like saying "Einstein would not say that 2+2=5". The context of all systems having "equal rights" is not in the slightest "proven", neither can it be as it is patently a nonsensical statement. What do "rights" mean in this context?

If this article is to exist at all, it needs to face similar criteria as any other article about a "theory" - for example, Who proposed the theory, When was it proposed, How has it developed, What do others in the field say about the theory, What does the scientific community say about the theory? All with references. The article at the moment fulfills none of these criteria, probably because it is just a "POV among homeopathic circles", and the rest of the scientific community don't care to give it any credence at all. Camillus (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The central point of general relativity is that all systems relate (or have equal rights). And indeed, it is just POV. --Homy 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall The article could have some difficuties, but has right to exist because the relation between homeopathy and relativity evidently exists, the "problems" should be discussed on the discussion of the article. --Quasarq 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity has a relation with homeopthy? So you are saying this footnote in the article [65] has a relation to homeopathy, for example? The words "relation" and "relativity" are just general dictionary words. GBYork 10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It means what it says: "The consequences of special relativity. According to special relativity there exists dilutions of momentum, space, charge, any particle (reference)" The article: "means a corresponding dilution." (of particles) What about homeopathy ? --Quasarq 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: the article here cited is itself pretty ruttin' far from the scientific mainstream. In essence, its author tries to reconcile relativity with the ether, thus doing away with four-dimensional spacetime. The entire website http://www.ag-physics.de/ looks like an infestation of crankdom. It's no good. Anville 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete, on the grounds of WP:NOR Note that original research includes "any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", which appears to fit this article perfectly. Quotes from Einstein do not make this article any less original research, as the interpretation of Einstein's words is novel, to say the least Pervect 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Exactly! The article is total nonsense. GBYork 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the grounds of WP:NOR. Very, very sad and just a little scary. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stream of unsalvageable confusion that transcends being complete bollocks to become sheer, patent nonsense. Yip, Michael, I'm scared too. Byrgenwulf 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also WP:RULES WP:POL WP:PAG to write an article. Just using populistic WP policies to block an article is common habit for just skeptic editors SCARED of revealing news. There is still strong BIAS on policies and no contents. Again: DISCUSSION on the page is the proper method to discuss policies. The definition of intellectualization is here fit: Cutting off affective charge from hurtful situations or seperating incompatible attittutes by logic-tight compartments --Quasarq 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the fact that no-one thinks this is worth taking to the talk page tell you something? Let me guess, it says there's a conspiracy, right? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Are you familiar with the old robot saying, does not compute?" WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:POV and WP:BOLLOCKS all apply. The only good news is that this verges so far into the patent nonsense realm that I doubt people could base healthcare decisions upon it (but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me). Conspiratorially yours, Anville 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. --Pjacobi 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say delete strongly enough. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - what patent nonsense this article is - sheesh! I think this article should be used as an example to let Wikipedians (and especially newbies) know just how dangerous WP can get. MP (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly OR, nonsensical, and a POV fork. Jefffire 10:04, 24 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) 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Cielene[edit]

Only 11 Hits on Google (And none even match up with this exact name), and no sources to prove this person even exists. Plus not to mention no sources to prove information is even real. Skarlotte 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Skarlotte's assessment I checked google and Natasha Cielene doesn't even come up unless you change the search to Natasha Cylene and the results don't speak of anything this person has supposedly done. Jaedza 15:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with no google hits, no evidence this name exists. If someone is truly this famous "third highest selling author in Melborne" or whatever, they should appear somewhere. Wjhonson 18:53, 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 speedy keep. «ct» (tk|e) 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dialga[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to upload information about a minor character in a non-notable videogame. Skarlotte 15:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-non-notable? It's Pokemon. Pokemon is very notable. -Sukecchi 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep notable fictional character, nomination is from new editor who also nominated Pokémon Diamond and Pearl for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Yikes, as far as I know the Pokemon franchise is one of the most major and notable videogame-based full media franchises in the history of the industry, and Diamond and Pearl are currently the games in much of that industry's spotlights. Add to that that when the game is released in Japan in a little over a month, Diaruga and Parukia would easily be among the most notable characters especially since they will be on the covers to the game (and being on the cover and representative of the game actually gives them more point than all the other Pokemon creatures), so I think you might not be fully aware of the situation. :( Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sorry but if you nominate one pokemon you might as well nominate all of them. Unless there's something considerably non-notable about this particular one then there isn't really any grounds for deletion.--Andeh 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Starblind and precedent. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All of the characters in the Pokémon series are noteable, and though the article is at this point a stub, it will expand as new information becomes available. Pokémon games and their characters are definitely noteable. This personal vendetta you have is quite bluntly idiotic. Consider that both Bulbasaur and Torchic are featured articles. Coltonblue 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Erik. H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per above. What next, are you going to nominate all of the Pokemon related articles? How about the Pokemon portal? --Robaato 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Diaruga is nominated for deletion, why not delete every other Diamond and Pearl pokemon while your at it. This is nonsense to nominate a confirmed, and very notable pokemon (Its a lengendary) for deletion. From the information I've seen of Diargua, Diaruga isn't a minor character in the upcoming Pokemon games. It's one of the two main lengendary's along with Parukia, like Groudon and Kyogre of the Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald games. 0-172 19:54, 19 August (UTC)
Speedy Keep It's on the box art of one of the two DP games. It's a legendary. Even Serebii has it. This seems to be a bad faith nom. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 20:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is actually at Dialga now. I am moving some stuff around to compensate. Please stand by. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Horrendously bad faith, this stuff is going to be new every month. Toastypk 20:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to precedent, and dare I say it, passes the Pokemon test. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per logic and Wikipedia policy. DanPMK 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the fact that the user also tried to delete Pokémon Diamond and Pearl as well makes me question that this is nomination is in good faith. --Edgelord 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Like I wrote on the Palkia nomination: This article may not have much to it now, but that is because it is an article about a future release character. Within about a month, I'm sure that this article will expand and be just as relevent as every other Pokémon article. --SaturnYoshi 17:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bad-faith nom. Ace of Sevens 18:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on every subject, and as long as the article is not nonsensical or about something not notable, it should be kept. -- 67.184.171.198 00:17, 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) 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dingmans Campground[edit]

Not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, advertising/spam. See also first nom, where it was speedied for copyvio. Delete. –Ch acor 15:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not advertising. Dont people wanna know about a campground?Mitchazenia 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, I edit my vote as I just did a search and we have sources of it's existence. Some more can be found here. There are literally thousands of articles about other campsites, and all of them have sources proving their existence, even if the campsite is only around small town it still exists. There are probably 200 or so articles about campsites in the Adirondack Mountains and the Green Mountains -Skarlotte 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) User's 21st edit. All edits have been to AFDs and articles up for AFDs. Highly suspected sock. –Ch acor 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - *(changed)* ~HJ ^[talk] [@½ -HurricaneJeanne 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Delete — It's a private campground, not a park. Fails WP:CORP pretty miserably. The whole thing is an ad for people who want to go there, rather than discussing its historical importance, etc But my hat is off to whoever created a table for all 138 campsites, describing each one in excruciating detail. I couldn't give you that much information about my apartment. JChap2007 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I made the chart. Its part of the Delaware Water Gap NRA.Mitchazenia 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speed not notable info, no interlink.--K4zem 18:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per JChap2007. I really can't see a detailed listing of every campsite in a private campground as being encyclopedic. Choess 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP. If anything, its existence is worth a passing mention at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, but not with this excruciating detail. WP:NOT a camping site's brochure. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not that notable at all. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 03:59, 24 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. «ct» (tk|e) 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parukia[edit]

Again another pointless character in a minor and non-notable videogame. This page seems to be the target of more vandalism too, so it's deletion will assist in the prevention of vandalism on Wikipedia as well. Skarlotte 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Same response from Diaruga. It's Pokemon. Pokemon is very notable. -Sukecchi 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep notable character, likely bad-faith nomination. See nominator's other contributions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Yikes, as far as I know the Pokemon franchise is one of the most major and notable videogame-based full media franchises in the history of the industry, and Diamond and Pearl are currently the games in much of that industry's spotlights. Add to that that when the game is released in Japan in a little over a month, Diaruga and Parukia would easily be among the most notable characters especially since they will be on the covers to the game (and being on the cover and representative of the game actually gives them more point than all the other Pokemon creatures), so I think you might not be fully aware of the situation. :( Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sorry but if you nominate one pokemon you might as well nominate all of them. Unless there's something considerably non-notable about this particular one then there isn't really any grounds for deletion.--Andeh 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: To claim that an article should be deleted simply because its a target of vandalism is not how Wikipedia works, and regardless of my opinion on the Pokemoncruft here, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending anything but a speedy keep based on that aspect of the nominator's rationale. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You seem to have something against all Pokemon; a great deal of your (few) contributions have been to nominate several Pokemon-related articles for deletion. Suffice it to say that despite your assertions, Pokemon is indeed a notable series of games, in part due to it's extreme popularity worldwide. --Robaato 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per same rationale on Dialga nomination. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Like Diaruga, he is going to be getting more and more information. Toastypk 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per logic and Wikipedia policy. DanPMK 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - you're making an effort to stop vandalism in articles by nominating them for deletion? That logic is basically flawed in that articles only occasionally get vandalised in the idea that the person who vandalised the article had the clear intent. Also, why nominate Palkia for vandalism when it, when there could be many other articles that suffer, have more vandalism? The article in question has very little "vandalism". --T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just like the discussion over the deletion of Diaruga. It is unecessary. Parukia and Diaruga are the main advertising pokemon of Diamond and Pearl, and they are the two lengendary pokemon of Diamond and Pearl. I would like to raise the point, If you propose deletion of Parukia and Diaruga, why not propose deletion of all other pokemon related to Diamond and Pearl? It doesn't make senseThey are highly notable pokemon in a highly notable game. This deletion nomination is rediculous. 0-172 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the fact that the user also tried to delete Pokémon Diamond and Pearl as well makes me question that this is nomination is in good faith. Also vandalism is not a reason to delete. --Edgelord 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This article may not have much to it now, but that is because it is an article about a future release character. Within about a month, I'm sure that this article will expand and be just as relevent as every other Pokémon article. --SaturnYoshi 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Once this game is out in English, I'm sure it will be as thorough as the other Pokemon articles. Since the nominator is claiming main-series Pokemon games are non-notable, this must be bad faith. Ace of Sevens 18:32, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Mountain Chicken Sandwich[edit]

Non-notable...sandwich? A limited time sandwich does not deserve it's own aticle on Wiki. Prod removed without reason Wildthing61476 15:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millions await it's (sic) return. Oh, per-lease. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - if it were cleaned up and linked to from Wendy's etc. Sounds yummy. And because I'm not just voting with stomach, there's precedent in McRib. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Well, the McRib article (which is a bit speculative and OR itself) notes it was mentioned on the Simpsons. This has some blog entries, but that's about it. JChap2007 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly original research. Gazpacho 22:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability stated, implied, or attempted. Precedent isn't binding since each article is judged on its own merits, and I see no reason to invent new policy when old ones serve well when applied. Tychocat 14:31, 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 per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culter Primary School[edit]

Un-notable primary school in Scotland. No articles for similar schools in Wikipedia. No links other than to Peterculter where all the information in this article already exists Catchpole 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Even if high schools are notable, small town primary schools certainly are not. JChap2007 17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Articles for similar schools continue to survive AFD. Also it's more than 100 years old, and has been a secondary school for part of that time. And since all the information in this article except for the reference already exist in Peterculter, why are we going through this brutal process? Kappa 18:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate information is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy as a problem that does not require deletion. The solution would be to merge and redirect to Peterculter. Alternately, if the article expands, keep. JYolkowski // talk 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. A hundred year old school should be notable enough to stay. --Daniel Olsen 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and all centenarians are notable, too, right? Carlossuarez46 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable school, but a one-sentence article is about as stubby as you can get. AgentPeppermint 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; provides no claims to notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The very day it was created it was prodded. Then the next day it was nominated for afd. GBYork 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Yes I believe that there is a schools watch page that searches for all school articles and lists them by date. Presumably somebody is watching that page with a wooden stake in their hand, ready to impale any new nn articles that appear. ;-) — RJH (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it was created on the 18th April, and then sat for 4 months with no further activity. Catchpole 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Sorry! I was mistaken -- my bad eyes. GBYork 20:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains no assertion of notability. GRBerry 15:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa, meets the criteria established by the currently proposed guideline for schools. RFerreira 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons described at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, the school is verifiably notable. Silensor 00:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per the current (proposed} guidelines, pls allow for organic expansion. -- Librarianofages 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect a few words does not merit an article. Vegaswikian 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evolving WP:SCHOOL guideline; hopefully this article will continue to evolve as well. Yamaguchi先生 00:49, 24 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) 06:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D3football.com[edit]

Contested prod, non-notable website, fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank 693,090 VoiceOfReason 15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~HJ ^[talk] [@½ -HurricaneJeanne 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete — per nom. JChap2007 17:08, 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 speedy keep. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl[edit]

A non-notable videogame that is also a hot-spot for vandalism. The deletion of this article as well as with it's sister pages of minor and non-notable characters will help prevent further vandalism on Wikipedia. Please understand that I'm aware the game is large in popularity in Japan. But this is why we have a Wiki in Japanese, is it not? An article already exists in J-Wiki, however it's lacking the length of information the english article has. Possibly the article could be translated back to Japanese, merged with the Japanese article and then the english one could be deleted? Thanks for understanding. Skarlotte 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that articles in one Wikipedia should not be duplicated in another language? Or that only Japanese people are interested in Pokemon? --Robaato 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Pokemon is quite popular everywhere, not just Japan. And also: The article was already nominated for deletion, and the result was keep. -Sukecchi 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion to prevent vandalism? No, thanks, try WP:RPP. This game is notable and there is no reason for deletion. Yank sox 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sukecchi & Yanksox. ~HJ ^[talk] [@½ -HurricaneJeanne 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Speedy Keep per above. JQF 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep propose semi-Protection for vandalism. Pokémon Diamond and Pearl is notable videogame. The Pokemon articles non-notable are: Mukkuru, Korobooshi, Cherimu, Pachirisu and Dorapion. --K4zem 16:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I have difficulty believing this is a good-faith nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaruga. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, while we're at it it, lets delete other "non-notable" unreleased Japanese games, like Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII, and Mega Man ZX. Ace ofspade 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, uhh, Pokemon games have been the biggest selling games on the gameboy. Childrens games are obviously going to be targets for vandalism, doesn't mean it should be deleted.--Andeh 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep... it's a real video game. What else is there? Being a target for vandalism is not a legitimate reason to recommend deletion if the topic is by itself worthy of being on Wikipedia. Request page protection or more careful monitoring of the content instead. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real video game, Pokemon is popular nearly all around the world, and I've not noticed a lot of vandilism. Besides, this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is simply a compendium of knowledge, not just of notable knowledge. ~~Smileyman457
Speedy Keep as per above, and also, if the reasons cited are enough to delete this article, they are enough to delete pretty much all of the video game articles. --Robaato 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; a very notable game, in both the Japanese and English speaking worlds. Seems like this nomination for deletion is itself pointless vandalism. DanPMK 18:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Are you freaking kidding me? How is any Pokémon game "non-notable"? Please do everyone a favor and stop parading about adding deletion tags to anything related to Pokémon. Ruby and Sapphire were the some of the best-selling games for the GBA. This nomination is absolutely ludicrous.Coltonblue 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand why one would vote to delete this page. This nomination to delete is completely unreasonable. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl is a notable game. Diamond and Pearl are big. The will be one of the biggest releases for the DS. Why anyone would nominate Diamond and Pearl for deletion is beyond me.

0-172 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no reason whatsoever to delete. Also by the nominators logic all games released in Japan that have not yet been released in the US should be deleted and I personaly believe that is a really bad idea. --Edgelord 20:27, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regnus Agnus Mundi[edit]

Possibly ficticious religious order from the book The_Pilgrimage. Pseudo-Latin name would mean "King, the lamb of the world". Google hits seem to return to the book or the author or to a branch of Free Masonry. Looks like something the author made up. Please see the article talk page for more details. Not sure what to do with this. Probably delete. Not enough to merge back to the book. Doubt verifiability, only reference seems to be in the book. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - possible WP:HOAX, and others as stated. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, "regnus" doesn't mean "king", it's just not a word at all. Adam Bishop 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is it a name, after all? The talk page conversation indicated it should be "king". Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Regnus" does not mean "king", that would be "rex". The only way to make "regnus agnus mundi" grammatical is to read "Regnus" as a proper name, i.e. as the name of a person, country, or the like. Nevertheless, no reputable source I am aware of (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica) knows either this "R.A.M." or a person called "Regnus". There is the word "regnuM" (with M) meaning "kingdom", but Coelho consistently writes "regnuS". Furthermore, even "Kingdom, the lamb of the world" would not make too much sense, would it? And yes, I do think that this is a case of WP:HOAX. --GottschallCh 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Apparently fictitious; no sources outside Coelho. JChap2007 22:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found this [66] and this [67] from Coelho's page. Anyone who can read spanish or Portugues or whatever it is? Pictureuploader 06:39, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former WWE Teams[edit]

As with the AFD's on Current Wrestling Roster, Historic Wrestling Roster and Historical Tag Team List. This is violation of WP:LC. The list is incomplete, it is redundant to other lists already on Wikipedia and most importantly, this list is unencyclopedic. And I've taken this chance to warn the user creating these lists, to stop. — Moe Epsilon 15:47 August 19 '06

Delete - totally NN. WP is not a collection of lists. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same person is creating all these lists, all of which are dedundant. TJ Spyke 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although nothing can violate WP:LC because it's a simple definition essay, not policy or guideline. You must mean it's a violation of WP:NOT. hateless 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, per WP:CSD A3. Article consists entirely of a rephrasing of the title, and a link elsewhere. The editors below who want various different things to exist here (including, bizarrely, a "Soft redirect using {{w}} to wiktionary" - {{w}} is a navigation template for articles relating to a Japanese girl band who wear silly dresses) are, of course, free to do so as AfD does not make binding decisions on what content a page should contain.

Note, however, that an article consisting solely of a soft redirect to Wiktionary would also be speediable under the same criterion (link elsewhere). WP:DICK and other projectspace soft redirects, which the editors supporting that may have been thinking of, are not covered by that CSD, which is for articles only. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Okay, bit of an unusual AfD here. This article has been getting created, deleted, altered, moved and so on for about 2 months. Basically some people want it to be a cross-namespace redirect, others don't, some want it now to define notability in a non-Wikipedia-centric way... which seems like a dicdef to me. Anyway, no vote on my part yet, I'd just like to see a more definitive resolution reached through consensus. Thanks. --W.marsh 16:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've created this article to avoid more people creating it as a cross-name space redirect. Voortle 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands now, the article is two sentences: one is a dicdef and the other is POV. This should be replaced with soft redirect ({{selfref|In Wikipedia...}}) and protected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ???. I am torn. Something just cries out to me about this term needing as page. I realize we need to avoid dictionary definitions (and I must also point out that using the term you are the defining in the definition is a major thing to avoid). I definitely see the point of avoiding cross-space redirects in this case. But there may be a same-space redirect that could be used. As in verifiability redirecting to formal verification. Irongargoyle 16:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect using {{w}} to wiktionary & semi-protect (note: the same has to happen to notable I suppose). --Francis Schonken 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Francis. This might deter people from making more XNR's to Wikipedia:Notability. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that might not work. People will just replace the Soft redirect to Wiktionary with a cross-name space redirect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protologism&action=history where this exact thing has happened. It was a soft redirect, and then was changed by someone to a cross-name space redirect to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Voortle 17:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a confession that you were Gaming the system on the Notability & Notable articles earlier today? I don't know what else to make of that... Note that I proposed semi-protection of the page too. Which holds off newbies, *draws the attention* of more experienced editors not to go too rash on the page, and kind of *draws the attention* of sysops too, to not to be too lenient towards long-time editors that suddenly turn vandal on that page. --Francis Schonken 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Celebrity. Yes, I know it's not a complete and total synonym, but it's as close as we're going to get. Fame leads there too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would work for me too (in that case I'd full protect the page). --Francis Schonken 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make a disambig for Wikipedia:Notability and get rid of the current "dicdef" / bush reference. I think that using celebrity as a redirect is too misleading as the majority of notable things/people have no "celebrity" at all. Bwithh 17:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if it is recreated, then create a soft redirect. Soft redirects are quite "ugly", and as such should be avoideds unless there is a pressing need. At the moment, there is not that need. Batmanand | Talk 21:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "if it is recreated": the article was re-created after each of the 10 deletions in the last year. 4 of these re-creations took place in the last week [68] - that's why W.marsh initiated this vote I suppose. So the "if recreated" is definitely a yes, and mere "deletion" has proven to be ineffective. --Francis Schonken 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - really should check the logs. *sigh* I hate to say it, but soft redirect. Batmanand | Talk 08:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate to Wiktionary and the project page. Gazpacho 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to Wiktionary and the project page, per Gazpacho. Irongargoyle 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Francis Schonken. -- ADNghiem501 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Reinyday, 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"Disambiguate" doesn't make any sense - It doesn't make sense to disambiguate between Wiktionary and the project page because none of them in their own right is a valid target. When there is a valid target it's okay to put a little self-ref hatnote at the top or a link to Wiktionary box, but when there are no valid encyclopedic targets the redirect/disambig page shouldn't exist at all. "Disambiguating" between two non-encyclopedic targets, a sister project and project space on Wikipedia, is unacceptable. Cyde Weys 07:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IGNORE. Rules don't exist for their own sake. Disambiguating this would help people find what they're apparently looking for. Gazpacho 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said. Irongargoyle 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I should ignore all rules. I'm going to go delete it right now. --Cyde Weys 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course you would have to find a valid reason why someone would search the encyclopedia for Notability expecting to find the original research essay or the dictionary definition, neither of which are enough for you to justify your "ignoring the rules". Ansell 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Soft redirect and protect per Francis Schonken. --Zoz (t) 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep link to Wikipedia:Notability, link to Wiktionary, and delete George Bush statement--Ed^{talk c E} 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a self-reference about an essay on Wikipedia, it isn't even a policy, and as such does not attract outside information needed for the article to be verifiable or Neutral. Other than that it is only a dictionary definition and does not have the context to be extended. Ansell 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep or Delete and Fully Protect, at least to prevent redirect creation. Work and try to find at least some material to make it a stub. What not to do is redirecting it to our ~~guideline~~ essay - it's exactly a kind of misleading and particularly harmful redirect. Notability != Wikipedia notability. And article space should never lead to essays, because it, practically, ~~allows to create~~ creates articles ~~allowed to violate~~ violating all policies. Completely unsourced, non-verifiable, not neutral, fully original research essay. And this redirect practically places this essay in the article namespace, misleading readers. Either keep even a dicdef or make a fully protected deleted page. --CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to notability page... that's what it is, right? Toastypk 05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And a general reader, after typing a common word, will read some essay about what some people consider good to include in Wikipedia. XNR from mainspace are very restricted, and XNR mainspace->userspace are strictly forbidden. Essay, effectively, is the same as userspace. What would you say if I added a link to my userpage from CP/M article? And here we make it a redirect, so reader gets it straight. Namespaces are here for a good reason, and XNR require really both compelling reasons to exist, and no objections, specifically no or negligible chance that a reader seeks for that term in the real life, usually when it doesn't exist outside wiki (ex.:Wikiproject). Even "Recent Changes" or "No Personal Attacks" redirects have been deleted. This one is clearly misleading. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Send to Wiktionary, and protect. Not only is it a dicdef, it's a rather poor (and highly recursive) one, even without the reference to Shrub. If that doesn't work, then delete and deleteprotect. --EngineerScotty 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictdef. By the by, it strikes me as ironic that there is a company called Notability that is far from notable. Karol 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Bring it to a little article. Include links to wiktionary and WP:Notability. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What content would the article have so that it wasn't original research based on the Wikipedia essay? Ansell 04:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  - not all what one writes about meets original research. Notability concept is also discussed outside the essay. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef. --Edcolins 10:03, 28 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: due to unanimous consensus that this does not merit a separate page, and the A Cappella Choir is already mentioned in Austin College, redirected there, and anyone who believes they merit more text can follow the redirect back and look in the history of this page in order to merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin College A Cappella Choir[edit]

Just another non-notable college choir; unless sources can be produced, it should be deleted or merged with Austin College. Crystallina 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom JChap2007 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per nom. Han-Kwang 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Austin College. will381796 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Austin College. —Michael Hays 16:52, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmoi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bascon[edit]

Fails the proposed guidelines at WP:ORG and per lack of sources - see WP:RS. Crystallina 16:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to its website, "Our final count for attending members was 120" Like I said in the Muds Fest AfD, we must be very careful not to set too low an attendence point for events, as 120 people attending would include nearly everything (little league sports games, pep rallies, church services, school plays, house parties, yard sales...) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some sources. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of the sources added, only one appears to be close to reliable while the others are blogs with passing mentions of the convention. Metros232 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 12:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. feydey 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Crossmr 18:32, 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 per A7 while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Mould[edit]

I realize that historical subjects are difficult (WP:N), but this man, per the information given in the article, does not seem to have done anything that established notability per WP:BIO. The external link given is a run-of-the-mill lineage site. Crystallina 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Mould is a direct descendant of Sir Richard Pargitor of Greatworth, Northamptonshire England mentioned in the 1564 Visitations of Northamptonshire.

John's family also ties into the line of Sir Francis Willoughby of Wollaton, England - Knight

John Mould's wife Mary Ann Beeman is a documented, proven and accepted descendant of William White - Pilgrim of the Mayflower.

Delete - very few incoming links, WP is not a genealogy site. I don't see anything that makes this person in particular notable. No categories also. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You can see by my user page that I am a genealogist. And I am certainly an inclusionist. However other then his umpteenth ancestors, this guy is not notable. I am also a descendent of the Willoughby's that doesn't make me notable in itself. Wjhonson 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Presidents & British royalty should not be the only individuals history included on Wikipedia in my opinion. I have been working on adding color to this article, in addition to categories and additional relevant links. Please notice that there are significant notes, maps, and historical information and documentation on the main site dedicated to this individual. There is nothing trivial about the amount of research and organization spent regarding this individual. Thanks in advance for your reconsideration in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvBohemian (talk • contribs)

Delete — WP:NOT a geneology site. JChap2007 18:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Nothing in the article even indicates what the subject's occupation was. Being an immigrant, a father, a Freemason, a member of a church, or the brother of a Civil War veteran are not claims to notability under the biographical criteria. Nor is being a descendant of other people who themselves are really not that well-known. In fact, as the article currently stands, it could be speedily deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically criterion A7. I would urge the supporters of this article to look at other biographical articles for guidance and restructure the article accordingly to explain Mr. Mould's claim to notability beginning in the first sentence, because I don't know what it is. --Metropolitan90 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Don.27t_delete_historical_persons_based_on_modern_tests Do not delete based on modern tests] Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests Persons who were of note in their time and place are marked based on the modern test of "I can't find information about them online". Most historical persons of note, in their time, do not have information online, because Google is not the repository of all knowledge. An online search, for historical persons of note, is biased toward modern persons, therefore should not be the criteria for determination of notability.

Existing rules are sufficient The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied.

Comment - I am well aware of that rule, since *I* wrote it. But what has THIS man done, in his OWN life that makes him notable? Was he the first sheep farmer in Manitoba? Did he revolutionize the printing of phamplets on contraception? Was he the first black lesbian elected official in Paraguay? So far your article is basically an article that could be writen about any person who lived in the 19th century. I'm not seeing anything that makes him stand out from his neighbors. Wjhonson 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Another question might be whether he owned land that was subsequently used for some notable purpose. To be fair, the article does identify him as a mason (someone who builds structures with stone and brick, rather than a Freemason, which he was as well) by occupation, but only in the second-last paragraph. This is what journalists call "burying your lede". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability concerns. I'm sure a lot of effort went into this research, but there's no (stated) reason this person deserves an encyclopedia article. · rodii · 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Mould and his brother Thomas were the first individuals of their particular surname in the entire state of New York to be naturalized as U.S. Citizens. John Mould was a well-known and respected Pioneer of Ballston Spa, Saratoga County, New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.153.157 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete. Being one of the first persons of one's surname to be naturalized as a citizen in a particular state is not a claim to notability. Consider that there must be at least 1 million different surnames in the United States [69], and then multiply that by 50 states. Nor is being a stonemason a claim to notability. Also, he could not have been a pioneer of a town incorporated more than 30 years before he arrived in the United States. --Metropolitan90 20:34, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithms in Sam76[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article. Possibly appropriate for Wikibooks, but not for wikipedia. --Gavia immer 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: If you delete this, redirect -Algorithms in Sam76 should be deleted as well --Gavia immer 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. By the way, the SAM76 article seems to be mostly a copy/paste from the manual which I don't consider appropriate either. The SAM76 article could highlight a few points from the algorithms page, but Wikipedia is indeed not a textbook. Han-Kwang 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and in view of Wikipedia's not being an instruction manual. Joe 20:50, 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) 06:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrueDater[edit]

WP:WEB adSPAMcruftVERTISEMENT Rklawton 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB, non-notable website. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 468,161. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam.--Andeh 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Han-Kwang 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does even pretend to satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 19:20, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of abandoned buildings in the United States[edit]

WP is not an arbitrary list of items. This would be much better served as a category. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am willing to AWB into a new category before deletion. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unmaintainable UE listcruft, but I would support conversion to a category as above. Choess 19:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent - As the recent primary contributor, I could care less what happens to it. I had found it after someone else began it, added a photo that was requested, moved it, fixed to format as anonymous contributions were made, etc. I often wondered how this list would have been maintainable. It is very incomplete and difficult to find authoritative sources. So my vote would be indifferent leaning toward delete and apply information to a category. Rkitko 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "list" could eventually become a small phone directory, of which pretty much every entry would be nn. Batmanand | Talk 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LC -Doc 23:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way way way too broad a subject. There are probably tens of thousands of abandoned buildings in the US. 23skidoo 02:15, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls discography[edit]

The Spice Girls discography is an un-needed article that contains a lot of inaccurate and inappropriate information. The group released only three albums and 10 singles - so that information can easily be merged with the main Spice Girls article. The rest of the information in the article relates to the solo releases made by each member of the group; a Melanie C album release, for example, shouldn't be included on a article detailing information relating to the group that she used to be in. Also, the solo information already exists in the Victoria Beckham, Emma Bunton, Melanie B, Geri Halliwell and Melanie C articles - so it is simply repeating already existing information.

So I propose that the Spice Girls discography be deleted and the information relating to Spice Girls' release be merged with Spice Girls article. Rimmers 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I wouldn't advocate keeping an article like this for a garage band or obscure local group, but with 50+ million wordwide record sales and at one time being the biggest band in the world, I'd say some level of discographical information is appropriate. I also like that it includes the solo work all in one article, it makes it easier to compare the girls' solo careers than flipping between 5 different articles. Definitely a keeper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is a spice girls category; this is what categories are meant to be used for. Han-Kwang 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Han-Kwang. Tonywalton | Talk 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if the solo information is removed, I think there is too much information for it to be merged into the already large Spice Girls article. Hundreds of musicians have separate discography articles (as can be seen in Category:Discographies). --musicpvm 06:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly an appropriate article given their enormous commercial success and too big to be merged. Much better than having to navigate 5-6 different pages. Ac@osr 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with what Musicpvm says. Evil Eye 15:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for several reasons: there are other similar discography articles out there, there's a lot of information here, and the group was extremely popular. I don't see a problem with this and I think we'll probably see more of these discography style articles in the future. 23skidoo 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is a lot of information, and the Spice Girls were big in their heyday, but delete solo info per nom. Just because they were once a Spice Girl doesn't mean that they must be stuck with that label forever.... SKS2K6 04:35, 24 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. An unusual lack of participation in this AfD considering the number of single-purpose accounts, but Andrew's coherent argument speaks louder than any number of 'delete per nom' votes, and after discounting single-purpose accounts (and their arguments which consist largely of personal attacks and handwaving) I believe we have a consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Mastering[edit]

~~Vanity/~~Non-notability. ~~Article is almost for sure created by the company founder, given the page history and the other contributions of Voy7 (a.k.a. R.Watts) and 66.214.253.155 (inserting links to website).~~ The author claims that the company mastered a hit song/cd and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. A search on Google for "Art mastering" gives the company webpage and a few mentionings on forums and the competing company audioplexus (links to which the author has vigorously replaced by own links in Audio mastering). Han-Kwang 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Han-Kwang himself removed links pertinent to Audioplexus so it is funny that he lists this as a justification for deletion.R. Watts
The replaced links were those pertinent to this article and not the author's.R. Watts
The author of this article is a recording artist not associated with the company.R. Watts
The Audioplexus was a commercial advert marked for speedy deletion and was removed from wiki, edits pertinent to Audioplexus were justified.
- R.Watt's preceding 4 bullet points were added on Aug 23, 3:30 UTC.
Delete As someone who creates music, this article makes very little sense to me. For example, it says that someone doing "artmastering" might change the "order of movements or instrumental parts". Maybe, but if so they're not mastering, they're arranging, which is a whole different step in the recording process. Also, I don't recall ever reading about "artmastering" in any professional musicians' magazine, not even when they have whole articles about the mastering process. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The text states that changing the "..order of movements or instrumental parts.." is done only in some extreme cases. I think you will agree, that changing the order of tracks, or cutting off and fading out a section of a radio mix to fit it into a prescribed time slot, are tasks commonly performed in mastering studios. So I see no issue, if in some extreme cases, the artist wishes to change an order of movements. As far as calling it "arranging", you are right, it definitely goes beyond the regualar mastering, that is probably why they called it "armastering" because it involves artistic decisions. R. Watts

Keep Do a websearch under "artmastering" see what you will find. "Maniac" and its subsequent remixes were big hits in the US. Another article on one of the leading music sites MusicBizAcademy.com features Art Sayecki and Artmastering and mentions Michael Sembello and "Maniac" http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm . I also found a testimonial of Michael Sembello, the author of "Maniac", on www.artmastering.com website. So start listening to music, Hankwang , and start reading about it before you attempt to edit anything associated with Audio Mastering. R. Watts
- If I do a search for "artmastering" as you suggest, I get 19 unique Google hits, most of which seem to be links to the same site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Search under "art mastering" (two words). This link comes up www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm dated Jan 2004. It's an editorial article featuring several top mastering studios. Then the same article was re-printed by 8 different music websites for last 3 years.

http://www.allmusicproject.com/GMan/Mastering_GMan.html

http://thabocks.com/music/arcorner/masteringyourmusic.html

http://www.goodnightkiss.com/mastering.html

http://www.indieguitarists.com/gmanarticlemastering.htm

http://www.digidogs.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=15372

http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4035

http://robertneary.phorumz.com/robertneary-ptopic16.html

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm

This is not a fluke but a well received editorial and deserves to be in wikipedia and artmastering should be in wiki as well. R. Watts

I don't think these websites meet the notability guidelines in WP:CORP, in particular "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". The editorial (with 8 copies) is written by the G-Man Marketing Company, that specicializes in advertising. ~~Quote from the G-Man website: "I once ghostwrote an article for a coalition of companies [...] So I was paid three thousand dollars to state their case." [70]~~ Han-Kwang 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a cheap shot Hankwang, you took a sentence out of context from an article in which G-man is speaking against advertising industry. Not even mentioning that the article which you try to diminish is an editorial and features several competing studios so there is no question about credibility http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm

Also G-man (Scott-G) writes for National Association of Record Industry Professionals, http://www.narip.com/index.php?page=aboutus .

Additionally, the Musicbizacademy which was the first to published this article meets with ease the criteria of WP:CORP . It is one of the most popular and best established online music publications out there. Do a websearch search for: musicbizacademy . Sorry but sounds like you have no clue on the subject of music.

I apologize for apparently misunderstanding G-Man's intentions. But we are talking about an AfD proposal, not about how much I know about music. Han-Kwang 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and sorry for my outburst. You are right, the matter should be discussed and you have evry right to question the subject and voice your point of view.R. Watts

Mild Delete I find Andrew's point above very valid. It would also seem that the article would encourage spam which is not needed. Finally unsigned keep statements make me very suspicious --Nigel ^(Talk) 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have reverted out two KEEP votes from brand new editors, both editing through broken proxies. --pgk^(talk) 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (here and here)[reply]
- Clarification: this refers to the restored contributions by MagnusSound and JWilman below. I suspect from the contribution history of users JWilman (talk · contribs), MagnusSound (talk · contribs), and biggyP (talk · contribs) that they might be sock puppets or meatpuppets of Voy7. Han-Kwang 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY WHO HAS A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN YOU Han-KwangIS YOUR ENEMY. WHY DO YOU DO THIS, CAN YOU PRESENT YOUR POINT OF VIEW WITHOUT ATTACKING OTHER PEOPLE?--Biggy P 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The users JWilman (talk · contribs), MagnusSound (talk · contribs), and biggyP (talk · contribs) are not my puppets. I have no association with them. Baseless accusations.R. Watts

Possible. But it is not likely that they are genuine Wikipedians, given that their accounts were created after this AFD came up, that two of them used a proxy, and that JWilman cannot even spell his own last name consistently. Their votes will not count. Han-Kwang 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care when their accounts were created and if they can spell or not. I'm not associated with them. A request for sockpuppet check was initiated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Outstanding_Requests.

And stop smearing my name Hankwang. R. Watts

Keep - It is a good article and is supported by references. Should be kept in wikipedia. What is this discrimination against new users I'm a new user too, do you want to ban me as well. Let people speak. This is unamerican. Have those users been banned? I don't think so, otherwise they couldn't post comments. I'm putting their comments back into the discussion.--Biggy P 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC) formerly: biggyP[reply]

Keep - The source article from musicbiz academy is legit, The writer (G-Man) is legit, The website that published it is legit. That is already enough. But also there is a testimonial by Michael Sembello on artmastering.com website specifically mentioning thanking for work on "Maniac" and there is a picture of Sembello and Sayecki together in the studio. Most internet articles vanish after 6 months, while this article is kept on many websites for almost 3 years, so it is obviously meaningful and people read it and therefore is Notable. I have no time to browse through way-back-machine but I'm sure that if the article stayed for so lon on so many websites, it was much more popular right after it was published.

I checked Hankwang edit history and it looks like he removed some critical information from compact disk CD article. He removed ABBA, Claudio Arrau, and Chopin and other info! His edit was fortunately reverted but I'm wondering why is he so vigorously atacking articles that seem legit and particularily those related to CD and CD mastering ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusSound (talk • contribs)

Keeper, Definitely. A one of my demo tracks was mastered with artmastering, so I have had a first hand experience with the process. I live in Oxnarxd and visit LA often. I had a limited budget and I couldn't go to back to the recording studio but I was not happy with a guitar part in my song, so we cut it out and changed the pitch of the first bar in the bridge to match the spliced parts. It was fun. Sayecki is well known here in a LA and obviously in the world, after all those articles appeared. I see no problem with the article is a Definite Keeper.--Jonathan Wilman

Before we continue this discussion any further please look at this: http://www.artmastering.com/p_sembello_sayecki.html

I'd say this is Very Notable R. Watts

Comment The article is mostly about Art Mastering (the technique), but all arguments for keeping only support Art Mastering (the company). Han-Kwang 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I'm not associated with wikipedia. I'm an artist with three CDs in my discography. Several of my tracks were mastered with artmastering. The process is real and it works great. If you have questions please contact me through my CD-baby website since I don't have wikipedia account. Fran lucci. http://cdbaby.com/cd/lucci3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.105.41.1 (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 17:29 UTC

Keep. My name is Scott G of G-Man Marketing. I'm also the recording artist known as The G-Man, and write the "Communication Nation" column for the Advertising Industry Newswire. I have written more than 200 articles for Web sites and print publications and I stand behind each of them, including the one referenced here. During an interview conducted with Art Sayecki in Dec 2003, I learned about the process of armastering and heard several examples of it. I chose to have two of my albums, "Sonic Tonic" and "Motion Potion," mastered by Art using his process of artmastering. As far as I can see, the text is correct other than the date of artmastering of "Maniac" (re-release) which I believe took place in early 2003, but this can be easily corrected by simply contacting Michael Sembello or Art himself. If you have any questions about my articles or this comment, just go to http://www.gmanmusic.com and you can reach me via e-mail from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgthegman (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 19:37 UTC

Comment - I don't doubt that Sayecki is running a legitimate business and has happy customers such as Fran Lucci, Scott G, and Sembello. Neither do I doubt that he has an original view of the mastering process. But that doesn't qualify either the company or Sayecki's philosophy as being notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Being associated with a notable person is not a valid criterion for notability in itself, just like the staff of the US president is not notable unless there was a lot of publicity around them in the mainstream media. If Sembello ever mentioned in public that he specifically chose the company Art Mastering to master his cds, then that would warrant a paragraph in the article about Sembello and/or the cd in question (provided that these are notable for a Wikipedia article). Han-Kwang 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Please read the article thoroughly. Sembello in fact did mention it in public or for the public. Here is a quotation from the aforesaid article by G-Man: "There can be tremendous loyalty toward mastering engineers on the part of artists and producers. Michel Sembello, composer/performer of songs from hit albums and the huge film "Flashdance," told Art Sayecki "After hearing what you did with 'Maniac,' you are the only person I will let master my stuff." Please notice that G-Man is directly quoting Sembello. I doubt that he would write this if he didn't have supporting evidence. If you scout the web for his articles you will find that they all are supported by an extensive, almost obsessive (no offense intended), research. I think that if an artist such as Sembello makes this kind of public statement then it is definitely notable by wikipedia guidelines. R. Watts

Additionally, in the entire article about Audio_Mastering, this is the only section Artmastering that actually has some support in the press as well as publically accessible pictures and references. Everything else has been contributed by various members based on their opinion rather than on notable facts or evidence and is placed there without any supporting evidence or references.

If we follow your reasoning, then the entire Audio Mastering section should be deleted as "not notable", which would be a terrible waste!

R. Watts

Art Mastering article updated - The new references and date correction resulting from this discussion have been added to the Art_Masteringarticle.--R. Watts 06:03, 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, after discounting 'votes' from anonymous IPs (who could be from numerous people or one), and with regard to the good research done on the nature of the external links.

It would be nice if 'vote tampering' was simply reverted on sight (watchlist AfDs, please). Alerting me of it at the end does not help much, because there's no way I can find out everything that was changed and repair the damage at this late stage. Some random diff-clicking made me notice that Dlyons' withdrawal of his 'keep' argument was reverted by an IP [71], and this was never reverted. I note that purely as an example for those reviewing this discussion, as I repeat that I can't be expected to find every instance where this might have happened. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Albrecht[edit]

Note to closing editor - there has been vote tampering by anons below - please check History. Dlyons493 Talk 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion Vanity page of low quality and no notability. If you look more closely, the cited "publications" are mainly his blog and links to essay mills. A notable academic should have lots of peer-reviewed publications, but I can't see any. The links to this page are also vanity, check out Talk:Lewis A. Coser. Leibniz 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people can read. Some cannot. Those wo can will realize that all of that three links placed on scholarly texts in English Dr Richard Albrecht published within the last fifteen years (1991; 2001; 2006)

The Utopian Paradigm abridged version
Short piece of Richard Albrechts scholarly writing - on technology
"Executive summary" of Dr. Richard Albrecht's book on Völkermord(en) (2006) - Murder(ing) People. On genocidal policy within 20th century

are definetely neither academic junk nor scholarly mill, but the very contrary, and that is why that bizarre policy Mr. Leibniz is running at en.wikipedia.org - not as a long-distance runner but as a runners amok - should be ended. Subito. M. Eser, Aug. 22, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.121.85 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Addition: I've also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz for quality reasons. There seem to be some funny issues with repeated copyvio of Albrecht's essays from an essay mill by anonymous editors on that page. Leibniz 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Richard Albrecht author gets a thousand googles and Richard Albrecht psychologist gets another 500. That's enough for me on an academic, they usually don't generate a ton of fan site refs. And he's cited from other sources. Wjhonson 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Google gives links to the WP article first, and then lots to other people with similar names. Leibniz 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I see it. What I see is "Richard Albrecht" psychologist giving 500 hits on this particular guy, not someone else. Wjhonson 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you use quotation marks, those links that are actually relevant to the guy come to a large extent from essays by him at places like grin.com. In case it is not obvious, that is not a refereed publication at all, but one of those places where students can sell essays and term papers to other students. Leibniz 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. At least, on the current article version, there is nothing that indicates notability. Han-Kwang 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Vanityfest; some but not all of the google refs are him; article contains no assertions of notability from reliable sources (reviews, etc.) of the significance/notability of his work. JChap2007 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The link to the German National Library seems pretty conclusive to me. Dlyons493 Talk 12:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusive? Have you even looked at them? It is print-on-demand and stuff like that. Leibniz 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course I haven't looked at them - why would I do that when I could could just make a random comment :-) Which ones specifically do you feel are print-on-demand ? Dlyons493 Talk 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: [72]. Says "Print-on-demand-Version des unabhängigen Online-Magazins für Menschen- und Bürgerrechte, rechtskultur.de", so it is basically a print-out of his blog. Leibniz 18:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - Verl. für Zukunftsforschung is also. Aachen : Shaker and Carl-Zuckmayer-Geslooked OK. Also Der Kreisauer Kreis, Der militante Sozialdemokrat etc Dlyons493 Talk 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought you were the scourge of the vanity presses... Shaker is the least dodgy one, and it specializes in cheaply printing theses. Leibniz 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. I see no evidence that the subject passes WP:PROF Pathlessdesert 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I should have mentioned the criteria in WP:PROF. I forgot to do so, as he is not a "Prof": never got tenure anywhere, no present academic affiliation. No cigar for this guy, anon sock- and meatpuppetry notwithstanding. Leibniz 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Leibniz-spoors, Aug. 19, 2006, show a personal annihilation policy of Mr. Leibniz against these three entries: Wolfgang Abendroth, Richard Albrecht, and Reinhard Opitz - all of them German social scientist & left-wing scholars. M. Falke, Aug. 20, 2006
Comment - This is definately not a vanity page. This page was created by a dozen editors over a period of time. So that argument doesn't hold any power. Wjhonson 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: :Dr Albrecht is a serious German scholar, author, and editor see also German section, which shows publication of books, — Possible single purpose account: 158.38.51.111 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment. The German section, so helpfully pointed out by the anon vote-tampering meatpuppet above, will tell you that Albrecht was fined 450 Euros for libel on his "independent on-line journal", ie blog. They might well sue Wikipedia for linking to that stuff as endorsement. Leibniz 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That argument is specious. A link as "endorsement" of a crime, is no more a valid argument, then linking to a prisoner's blog. It's a news article, pure and simple. You don't get sued for reporting the news. Wjhonson 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case someone still wants to write something (but it's not a sock count), the criteria for academic notability from WP:PROF (failing any prestigious appointments or notable student) are:

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.

The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.

The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

Please note that it does not say: has written a book, has a blog, or anything like that. Nothing that has been mentioned in the discussion comes even close to establishing any of these criteria. Leibniz 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To closing editor, it appears to me that Leibniz has some particular axe to grind on some of these deletions. The article states this man has published eighteen books (although not naming them all). That is sufficient notability. I think this deletion is in bad faith. I just don't have the time to investigate what's really going on here, but my gut tells me something peculiar. Wjhonson 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Whom It May Concern, including The Closing Editors, about the truth, the only truth, and nothing but the very truth. The facts can be verified by everybody, he or she, wikipedian, ordinary people or whosoever: Leibniz manipulated in a way which verifies me first posting: “The Leibniz-spoors, Aug. 19, 2006, show a personal annihilation policy of Mr. Leibniz against these three entries: Wolfgang Abendroth, Richard Albrecht, and Reinhard Opitz - all of them German social scientist & left-wing scholars. M. Falke, Aug. 20, 2006”.

– I had a look on the “history” of the very method Leibniz systematically did apply in the “case” of Dr Richard Albrecht the last three days since he nominated Dr A. for deletion (Aug. 19, 207, 18:32)[1]: for example Leibniz not only neglected the wikipedia principle according to “Living People” like Dr. A. (who, as far as I know, is still alive): “potentially libellous material must be removed immediately”, but also any rational rule of any “open debate” run publicly and expressed in another wikipedia-principle according to the deletion process. Moreover, whenever read thoroughly, the Leibnitz-“history” from Aug, 19, 2006, to Aug, 22, 2006, clearly and without any doubt demonstrates that this man is manipulating as his best: what Leibnitz stigmatized as essay mill when characterizing scholarly texts of Dr A. on Aug. 20, 2006, 14:23, the next days got what sociologists name "self-fulfilling prophecy” (Robert K. Merton): prominent en.wikipedia-member Leibniz himself - and nobody else - defined what he had proclaimed as such (Aug. 22, 2006). Finally, for detecting Leibniz´ numerous manipulations needs some time, Leibniz declared, for reasons, Dr. A.s “nomination” for deletion as an urgent case, thinking that after Dr. A´s entry will be wiped out nobody will be interested in this individual “case”, and what he, Leibniz, really did will be hidden forever. - M. Falke, Aug. 23, 2006

[1] 15:18, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (tag) (top) 14:52, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Essay mill (top) 14:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Essay mill 13:49, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Essay mill 13:44, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Essay mill (top) 12:30, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (2 tags) (top) 20:11, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz 18:36, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellgauth (?Hellgauth) 18:06, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TruthbringerToronto (?TruthbringerToronto) 18:00, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomophobia (?Tomophobia) 17:54, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomophobia (?Tomophobia) 17:03, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim 16:07, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring of darkness (?Ring of darkness) 16:00, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wessner star (?Wessner star) 15:08, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffi Meneshian (?Raffi Meneshian) 14:43, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim (?Walter Keim) 13:57, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli (?Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli) 11:54, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Bad Münstereifel (rm another of his self-promotions) (top) 11:50, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Friedrich Engels (rm ridiculous self-promotion and spam link to essay mill) 11:12, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht 10:44, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim (?Walter Keim) 10:41, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 21 10:40, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim (First deletion reason) 10:32, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Walter Keim (nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) 10:08, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 22:56, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht - I'm for speedy) 21:20, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepless night (?Sleepless night) 20:50, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Leibniz (top) 18:55, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 18:51, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz - change to total rewrite) 18:34, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:29, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite Roleplay (?Elite Roleplay) 18:19, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:08, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tower Demon Claw (book) (?The Tower Demon Claw (book)) (top) 18:05, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Bastian (?Josef Bastian) 18:00, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 17:44, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 15:36, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 15:14, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 14:36, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 14:28, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht 12:45, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Tiamat (?Tiamet as a Planet - Wrong page, see disambiguation) (top) 12:37, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:39, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:35, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wolfgang Abendroth (AfD) 01:24, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:19, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:17, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20 01:15, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz 01:24, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:19, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:17, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20 01:15, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz 01:09, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Reinhard Opitz (nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) 23:30, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 20:38, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht - pubs?) 19:15, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 19:07, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:46, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:40, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 19 (Richard Albrecht) 18:38, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht 18:32, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Richard Albrecht (nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.83.183 (talk • contribs)

Commentary - Keep Albrecht. Delete Leibniz

Somebody self-naming after the German philosopher Leibniz was at work 11:50, 21 August 2006. Under the label "ridiculous self-promotion and spam link to essay mill" this man deleted a passage in the Friedrich Engels entry on "The General & His Shadow". The passage Leibniz deleted runs as follows:

"In remembrance of the historical democratic and socialist movements in Germany in 1848/1849, the German social psychologist Richard Albrecht read a public lecture in Cologne (Rhineland), 150 years later in 1988, on the specific role Frederick Engels played as an anti-Prussian partisan and counterpart of the Prussian police agent Dr. Wilhelm Stieber (alias Schmidt). This scholarly piece first appeared in print in 2000 (Almanach der Varnhagen-Gesellschaft, ed. Dr. Nikolaus Gatter, vol. 1 (2000), 197-208, Berlin: Verlag Arno Spitz ISBN 3-8305-0025-4; but it became available online free of charge in 2004. It gives insights into the personality of Frederick Engels (nicknamed "the general") before, during and after his emigration (first to Basel in Switzerland, then to Manchester): see Richard Albrecht, "Gegenspieler - Der General und sein Schatten: Engels, Stieber & die preußische Reaktion 1851/52. Historischer Bericht zum ersten Kommunistenprozeß zu Köln" [Counterparts - The General and His Shadow: Engels, Stieber & the Prussian Reactionary Forces, 1851/52. Another look at the first "Colonial Communist Trial"] [[73]]."

Who so ever will read this documentary essay written by an experienced German author, e.g. the online-version (I did, and gave the actual link), will, as a matter of fact, ascertain that this piece, originally a public lecture, in 1998, published in 2000 (printed, in an anthology which appeared at Arno Spitz, Berlin), and 2004 (as published online by GRIN Verlag für akademische Texte, Munich) is by no means any "essay mill" in the definition Leibnitz coined out when, yesterday, posting five times (starting 13:39, and ending top 20:25): "a business, usually online, which dishonestly sells essays and other forms of homework assignments to students who are incapable or unwilling to do it themselves"), but is a legitime scholarly publication completely free of charge.

Friedrich Engels himself once stated: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", and that´s why I do hope that relevant en.wikipedia.org-admins will, as soon as possible, stop future vandal acts of Mr. Leibniz as a chap who indeed, the last days, was running amok when executing his personal policy of annihilating Richard Albrecht and other still living German left-wing scholars and civil right figures. -M. Falke, Aug. 23, 2006

Beware of pickpockets, tricksters, and academic swindlers, whether they may have got a Ph.D. or not, name themselves today Leibniz or Keks [[74]]], tomorrow Nietzsche or Bahlsen. Moreover, please, look at [[75]], [[76]], and tell me whether this man should be a representative of the en-wikipedia-community any longer, or not; su, ma.beauty1atgmx.net 80.136.127.41 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Personally don't think that the the article needsw to be deleted, but it should be re-written as a more neutral article, since the current one seems to just be pro-Albrecht.-GDJC

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty of Grace[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Choess 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystalballsim. DrunkenSmurf 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stopped reading at "rumored". Danny Lilithborne 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball article. —Michael Hays 16:57, 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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGGS on Meat[edit]

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

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

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

Originally prod tagged by Anthony.bradbury with the concern: Evangelical text; not encyclopedic. Prod2a added by me: Additionally the author is not in a position to decide what edits may or may not be made; this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page. Author then attempted to dispute the prod both on the article's talk page and on User_talk:Anthony.bradbury's but did not remove the prod tag. Following discussion on the article's talk page author proceeded to accuse Anthony.bradbury of bias against Sikhism, and continued by refactoring discussions on both my and AB's talk pages. Author has now removed prrod tag, so I am taking this article to AfD to give the opportunity for wider debate, and am nominating it for deletion on the grounds that as it stands it is a POV article, probably OR, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Tonywalton | Talk 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Following the posting of the 2 tags, the author, Hari Singh posted a message on both the talk pages of Users - Anthony.bradbury and Tonywalton highlighting other articles where quotations from their holy text appear.
1). Anthony.bradbury marked the article for deletion because of: " Evangelical text; not encyclopaedic" If we look at Parable of the Wedding Feast it contains various holy quotes and says: "Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready." If this text can be allowed with many 1000's of other quotes, then why ban text from the Sikh Holy Book?
2). Both these users have failed to directly address this matter when raised on their Talk pages. Why? No reply has been given to the key question – If quotes from the holy Bible can be allowed, then why can't one quote from the SGGS, which is the Sikh Holy Book?
3). Tonywalton said: "...this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page" He has failed to see that this article SGGS on Meat does not contain any POV by the author but lists various quotes from the Holy Book of the Sikhs called the SGGS for short on this subject. These quotation are not POVs – They are facts on which a Sikh has to base his or her life! They are matters of serious importance to anyone interested in Sikhism and reading this article. As the fifth largest organised religion, the text in this article is notable and important to the 23million Sikhs in the world. Further, the article clearly say: This page is strictly for the purposes of recording the message of the Sikh holy scripture and Sikh Guru, Guru Granth Sahib regarding the matter of Meat and its consumption. Please only add text from SGGS or Varan Bhai Gurdas on this page - All personal and other views should be stated on the page: Sikh Diet This statement is not banning anyone but issuing guidance so that the Holy Quotes and the Interpretations can be maintained in an orderly and organised fashion.
4). There are 5 rules governing article that have to be deleted: Not encyclopedic quality, not verifiable, original research, not NPOV and copyright material. This article avoid all five of these factors and hence should be allowed to be kept.
5). Some users have shown a clear bias towards similar articles on Christianity. Look at these similar articles here: Parables In both these cases we have verbatim quotes from holy text based on a central theme. Why keep one (ie Christianity) and delete the other (ie: Sikhism) - This shows clear bias and is against Wikipedia policy and the law of the land (UK) --Hari Singh

Comment - HariSingh, I have to say that I do agree with *some* of the concerns raised by Anthony.bradbury and Tonywalton. However, I do not agree that the use of quotations is inappropriate. Although this might border on original research, I'm of the opinion that extracting quotes from the Sikh holy book showing differing points of view is akin to referring to other third-party sources. In this sense, it's not original research.
However, the article in its current form has serious neutrality issues. It starts by saying what can and cannot appear on the page (which is not appropriate on Wikipedia). Statements like "here is no reason to rely on advice by any other third party." are not appropriate. The tone of the article seems more akin to a "guideline for Sikhs" as opposed to presenting the differing views on meat eating present amongst Sikhs. The views of scriptural sources are the most important for Sikhs, but they are not the only views or opinions.
The topic discussed is important, so my opinion is NPOV and merge with Sikh Diet. Sikh Diet might be best moved to Sikh dietary restrictions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You say: "…. the article in its current form has serious neutrality issues."
  The article is primarily quotations from the SGGS – As a Sikh, are you saying that the SGGS is not neutral? The quotes are verbatim text from the holy scripture just like make hundreds of quotes in any encyclopaedia. I fail to see how this poses an issue with neutrality??
  You also said "It starts by saying what can and cannot appear on the page (which is not appropriate on Wikipedia)."
  1). This article is entitled – SGGS on Meat which means that the article is informing the readers about the exact message of the holy Sikh Scriptures (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib or SGGS) to the world in connection with meat. This title in itself restricts what can be put in this article – I believe that this means that only text from the SGGS can be put here.
  2). Many articles on Wikipedia are restricted in various ways– The main page is restricted (full protected), various articles are restricted eg Gibraltar (semi-protected), etc for various reasons. The fact that the statement "Please only add text from SGGS or Varan Bhai Gurdas on this page" does not mean that a user cannot add other important text to the page – The statement is there to focus the attention of the Users to the preferred segmentation of the subject matter – It is not a complete block – Is it? It would be preferred if all the holy text was to appears on the page: SGGS on Meat and subjective matter to appears at Sikh Diet. This is just a logical arrangement which makes the patrolling of the articles easier.
  Finally, you say "Statements like 'here is no reason to rely on advice by any other third party.' are not appropriate." Surely that's no reason to delete an article which is what we are deciding here! – That sentence can be changed if you feel that other people can give better advice to a Sikh than their Guru!! --Hari Singh 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry about the late reply. I'm not active on Wikipedia at the moment. Yes, as a Sikh, I'm saying the SGGS in not neutral (it teaches against many things and advocates other things, hence it's not neutral). But that was not what I was referring to. I was talking about the way the article was worded, not the quotes. Your other points:
    - 1.That's fair enough. But you shouldn't put that in the article. An article should not contain disclaimers of what should or should not be on a page.
    - 2.See above. This is not similar to protecting pages. Protecting pages is done to combat vandalism.
    - Wikipedia is *not* a site to give advice to Sikhs on how to live their life based on their religious teachings. It's designed to *document* Sikh religious teachings, alternative interpretations and critiscm of the religion. Either way, I feel that this should be merged with Sikh Diet, where a full look at the issues with meat eating are discussed. Thoughts by prominent scholars on SIkhism must be looked at just as you look at quotes from the SGGS. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You say: I do not agree that the use of quotations is inappropriate. Although this might border on original research, I'm of the opinion that extracting quotes from the Sikh holy book showing differing points of view is akin to referring to other third-party sources. In this sense, it's not original research. and I quite agree. I would point out that I made the author aware of this on the article's talk page where I said : If you would like to reword the article, removing attempts at advocacy of your point of view and reporting on what the Guru said the article may survive; note that as well as neutrality verifiability is an absolute criterion for an article to be incuded. with no attempt by the author to do so. Tonywalton | Talk 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is like many other such articles on religion which use quotations from their holy texts: Just a few examples of article on Christianity that use quotations from their holy texts are:
- Parable of the Leaven four quotation from the holy text
- Parable of the Weeds 3 quotes
- Parable of the Pearl 2 quotes
- Parable of the Hidden Treasure
- Parable of Drawing in the Net
- The Fall of Man one long quote plus small ones?
- Parable of the Faithful Servant 1 quote
So, if you think quoting from holy text is wrong then all the above articles are also wrong and should be deleted as well! I suggest you read the Talk page on the Article to see the original reasons given for the deletion of this article. It makes comical reading. --Hari Singh 20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- For all the Parables and SGGS on Meat article - The point of all these quotations is to inform the reader of what the Holy texts have to say – that I hope you will agree is an important point; an important issue and a mechanism that needs to be preserved. The job of Encyclopaedias is to correctly inform its readers!! Without quotations you get to a situation when wrong messages of what is in the holy text can be conveyed as is happening with some aspects of Islam. So it is very important that we are allowed to quote these text verbatim so that the message is not tampered with - Discussion can be NPOV or POV, etc and these can be added to these articles if required. The quotations in themselves do not have a POV or NPOV – They are of a factual nature. The quote from the holy Bible is a FACT which has existed for 2000 years. Whether you believe it or not is another matter – Many billions believe in these facts. The writings of the Bible, Koran, SGGS, etc are all FACTS – They are NOT NPOV or POV. If I write that the SGGS says "There is one God" – That is a factual statement. If you go and look in the SGGS, then you will find that statement there. Whether you want to believe the statement or not – is another matter. Verbatim quotations are facts not subject to the POV or NPOV criterion. When we start making our own comments and have discussions on these texts, it becomes POV or NPOV. I urge all participants here to vote and argue to keep the SGGS on Meat and all Parables article as well as they convey important historic messages. --Hari Singh 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I will make no further comment except to say that I would like to see views of contributors other than the author, Tony Walton or myself.--Anthony.bradbury 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Keep article has merit and as a Khalsa Sikh agree with most of the points (conforms to orthodox teaching not sect based) but needs clean-up and more depth, more quotes (maybe 2 to 3 fold increase) from Guru Granth Sahib--Sikh 1 04:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, it needs peer review and other Sikh editors' quotes from Guru Granth Sahib to make it more scholarly--Sikh 1 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User changed vote to merge to Sikh diet below. -Elmer Clark 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: It doesn't matter if it "corresponds with orthodox teachings," no sermon-type material such as this is allowed here. This is a blatant example of WP:OR - someone wrote their personal interpretation of Sikh teachings with quotes that support it. It of course also violates WP:NPOV about as much as is possible - it blows my mind that there is even any debate here! People, this an encyclopedia, not a forum for the dissemination of religious interpretations. Good grief. -Elmer Clark 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I hope you have looked at the various Parables and 1000's of pages using the Quotation template – All these articles use quotations and are referring to some POV. So do all these articles need to be deleted? WP:OR – These quotes have existed for 2000 years in the holy Bible – It no original research. My Friend, What are you trying to say? --Hari Singh 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I justed entered into discussion on one of those parables up for its own AfD. I suggested deletion on the grounds that there is nothing in the article other than quotes from a holy text. In the name of consistency, I'm making the same suggestion here. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I don't think the situations are analogous. The Bible articles deal with specific passages, this, as far as I can tell, is just all the passages relating to a central theme that the author was able to find. -Elmer Clark 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Disencouraging Sikhs from reading their holy text would be the same as deterring Christians from the Holy Bible.--Pssoor 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Pssoor (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- That argument has no relevance to the discussion at hand. We're discussing the existence of an encyclopaedia article here. Uncle G 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An encyclopedia should contain information of all different religions and the different aspects of the religions. Why should the teachings of the Sikh holy book not be contained, an encyclopedia should not be biased or false. All quotations from different holy texts should be regarded as divine, and should be handled with complete respect. A man can not be called peaceful, if he disregards other religions. Where is the justice of deleting an article which contains holy text? There is no text which offends anyone. It is true and only true.
When one's religion is questioned, it is their duty to defend it, therefore it was necessary for me to make an account in Wikipedia, although I have browsed through it many times before, for a long period.--Pssoor 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose this article should not be deleted as it is important to sikhs to learn about what their holy text tells them. It is important to convey this message to sikhs.--Kaur62 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Kaur62 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a soapbox for proselytizing any religion, or any one person's interpretation of that religion. Our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable. Uncle G 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment If you real mean what you say that "Wikipedia is not for proselytizing any religion - then goto Parables and make the same comment and ask for the thousands of articles to be deleted!! MxM Peace 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell (the page is pretty difficult to understand), it's essentially a sermon with quotations tacked on - quotations can go to Wikiquote; sermons are best left out of the project altogether. Ridiculously POV page whose subject matter is already covered at Sikh Diet. -Elmer Clark 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The page lists quotations from the Sikh Holy Book called the Sri Guru Granth Sahib or SGGS for short. This page is very similar to the Parables pages which are also being discussed as candidates for deletion.
  1). It surprises me that at the parables site you voted: [Strong keep- Quality of articles should not dictate whether they are kept. Subjects are clearly notable. -Elmer Clark 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)] but here you have voted to delete? I would love to know why?[reply]
  2). You say this is " Ridiculously POV" – The page consists of quotation from the Sikh holy book – How does is differ from the quotations from the holy Bible? If this is " Ridiculously POV" than isn't the parables also the same?
  3). You say "subject matter is already covered at Sikh Diet" – where in the Sikh Diet article does it narrate the sayings of the Guru which form the basis of the Sikh Diet article? Where in the Sikh Diet page do find what the Guru has said about eating meat? Hari Singh

Comment This is not similar to the parable pages at all. Read my longer comment down below, I addressed that. It was the intro that I felt was POV, not the quotes. It pretty much says "Sikhs are to base their decisions on diet on these quotes." I'm sure not all Sikhs agree, just as not every Jew stays kosher. And if the Sikh diet article doesn't have a section on what the SGGS says about diet, add it! It belongs there, not in its own article, and not in this form. -Elmer Clark 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks for your latest comments on the SGGS deletion page. I am beginning to see why you have made some of the comments that you did.
The main definition of a Sikh is someone who believes in the SGGS. So if you do not believe in these quotes, then I believe that you cannot be a Sikh. See Sikhiwiki (please note I have links with this site) also see Sikh.
So this brings me to the other reason why I have kept these quotes separate from the discussion page. It highlights the importance given to the issue under discussion (ie: eating meat) and the sacred text, which for a Sikh is like a living Guru - see article on SGGS to see the reverence given to the Guru Granth Sahib. I appreciate your time and effort in making your stand. This conveys to me your objectivity and at least a commitment to impartiality – which is refreshing and a scarce commodity these days. Many thanks again, --Hari Singh 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, specifically the NPOV concerns. We have an article already on the Sikh Diet, as noted above. My greatest concern about the article is that it is constructed to only advocate certain positions. Quoting the article: "This page is strictly for the purposes of recording the message of the Sikh holy scripture." I think an appropriate solution is to summarize the salient points of these quotes at the Sikh diet page and to present them there within the context of an encyclopedic article discussing all verifiable aspects of the issue. If the quotes are necessary verbatim, Wikiquote can handle that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care should be taken to close this AfD similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise and the Foolish Builders to avoid Christian bias. If I'm to express a preference, it would be merge to Sikh Diet. A quick review of linked pages would suggest that the phrase "SGGS" should be replaced with "Guru Granth Sahib", to which SGGS redirects. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The relationship between the AfDs is spurious. The New Testament one relates to individual parables and whether they merit thier own article. If the parables survive would would want NPOV verifiable factual, academically referenced, articles to be written on them - not 'here's what Christians should believe/should understant them'. Our articles on Christian topics must not be written from a Christain POV, nor are they excluisively for Christians. I'm not going to vote on this one, as I don't know enough about the subject - but it isn't an article on one passage, but a pastiche of passages that (in the author's opinion) relate to a topic of teaching. This clearly raises different issues for consideration. --Doc 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - That characterisation is not accurate. If you look at the parables articles closely, you'll find that they, too, often draw material from several of the gospels, including non-canonical ones. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes, they draw attention to the fact that some of the parables are found in more than one gospel - and parralels can be found in simmilar passages elsewhere (but 'm not defending the content - it needs cleaned up). That's clearly different to arranging a number of passages round a topic as religious instruction. (But again, I'm not arguing for the deletion of this, I'm just saying it is different). But if this were an NPOV article on a passage of Sikh scripture, I'd vote Strong Keep. --Doc 09:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment You say: "….specifically the NPOV concerns"
        1.) The article is about what the Sikh Holy Book says about Meat. The article only contains quotations from the holy text. How does this affect the NPOV? No point of view has been expressed by the writer. The article does not say "eat meat" or "don't eat" – This is discussed on the page at Sikh Diet which uses these quotations to highlight both POV. Please tell me how this poses a NPOV concern?
        2). You say: "We have an article already on the Sikh Diet" - As I have said before, the article at Sikh Diet does not have all the relevant quotes to allow the user to make up their mind one way or the other. Please show me where the two articles overlap?
        3). You say: "If the quotes are necessary verbatim, Wikiquote can handle that" Then I ask that all other quotes on Wikipedia are also removed so that no bias is evident in this policy. Check these sites: Parables and 1000's of pages
        4). You say: "I think an appropriate solution is to summarize the salient points of these quotes at the Sikh diet page" By summarising, you will be accused of bias and this page will be subject to constant change one way or the other depending on what suits the particular user! – Who will patrol these changes and decide where to draw the line? --Hari Singh

Speedy delete, not an encyclopedia article in the current form. If you want to write an article about the text, then do so, but extensive quotes from the text are not encyclopedic. Neither are your interpretations. That would be Original Research. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't see what criterion tells me that personal interpretations lead to Speedy deletion. If it is pure personal opinion or original research then it would be deleted normally.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I see you have selected this article and chosen to leave out the parables? Why is that, I wonder? --Hari Singh 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In this state I can't see this surviving. Is it an excerpt from Sikh scriptures? Is it a speech by a Sikh cleric? There is useful stuff that can be moulded for good use here I think. Need more time to look at it. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are quotations from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Holy Book. The format of the text cannot be changed for obvious reasons. Compare it with Parables --Hari Singh 04:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE ARTICLE--MY REASONS ARE

Hari I think you are getting off the mark---its not needed --anger will not convince anyone to follow you only by example are leaders of real repute born.

As for the editor--For Gods sake have some sense of fair play.YOU CANT DELETE THE ARTICLE ONLY IMPROVE IT>by shedding more light on it.

If you treat articles on Christianity different from any another Religion you are breaching a very important Law of this country. Do you really want it printed in the national papers? So take heed and try to understand the situation.

Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning.

The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??

Sikhism is founded on very democratic principles. In that there is no co-ertion to any viewpoint and an individual is allowed to arrive at his or her own conclusion and develope at his own pace.

This is so correct as I often find that as a person progresses spiritually, greater insight is brougt upon the subject matter and therefore the meaning of the texts just gets deeper and deeper.

Therefore it is a folly to argue as to who is right or wrong but the correct thing to do is to experience the the spirituality within the the SGGS and learn therefrom by actually living a righteous life and meditation only such persons acquire the wisdom contained within SGGS.

There have been many Saints of high repute who have arrived at the same conclusion as Hari singh but have not uttered a word as to eat or not to eat meat--by their very presence you know instinctively that it is wrong to kill for meat. And I have met such Saints.

This debate will live on as will the many shades of people ranging from pure spirit to pure matter.That is not a proplem either in Sikhism as we evolve spiritually too.

So all is in Harmony--dont worry yourselves foolishly--God is in charge.

JUST RELATE THE TEXTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND LETS EACH INDIVIDUAL ARRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSION. --Ksingh20 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [copied from User:Harisingh's talk page]: (This is clearly incorrect - The user had also posted this message to the SGGS on Meat Talk page and not as suggested here by Elmer Clark ( message in brackets posted by --Hari Singh 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)) First of all I wanna address the claims you're making that there is bias against this article because it deals with Sikhism rather than Christianity. I don't believe that to be the case. What this page is, essentially, is a collection of quotes about a central theme - the theme of the eating of meat in Sikhism. Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, one of the items on the list is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Other than the relatively brief introduction (which I also have issues with), that describes this article - a list of loosely associated quotations. They should be moved to Wikiquote. There is no Christianity-related article like this. I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes. The Parables of Jesus, which you've claimed are more or less Christian equivalents of this article, are much different articles. Each article is about one specific quotation from the Bible - and all of those quotations are famous in and of themselves. I admit I am not familiar with the Sikh Shabads, but as far I know they aren't considered particularly famous parts of the Guru Granth Sahib - and even if they are, they would need their own articles, each of which discusses the Shabad itself. You will not see an article such as Bible on the Afterlife that just explains the Bible's position on the Afterlife and provides a bunch of quotes supporting it. You do see articles like Heaven, which explain (more esoterically) a Christian (not exclusively in this case, but you see my point) belief. This is analogous to the page Sikh diet: no one has a problem with that, because instead of being more or less a collection of quotes, it's a general treatment of the subject. It's fine to quote a holy book a few times in context about a subject like that, of course, but when the article is pretty much just a collection of quotes, it belongs at Wikiquote. Also, to the above commentor: You seem to have a very flawed perception of what Wikipedia is. "Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning. The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??" Perhaps that is "obvious" to followers of mainstream Sikhism, but obviously not to the followers of those scholars. The question of "who who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism" is not something that should be answered here. See WP:ABOUT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT for more information about what should and shouldn't be put here. Also, a note to the closing admin: every single person who has voted to keep this has been either a single-purpose account or someone whose contributions are almost all on the subject of Sikhism. Among members without obvious connections to Sikhism, there has been unanimous agreement on "Delete." -Elmer Clark 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment you say that:
  1). there is no bias as: "Each article [parable] is about one specific quotation from the Bible - and all of those quotations are famous in and of themselves" Well in The Strong Man Bound we have listed 5 different quotes NOT one as you say. Further, all the Shabads listed in this article are also very famous quotes from the Sikh Holy Book which are recited frequently by preachers.
  2). You say " I challenge you to find me one Christianity-related page that is a collection of quotes" The one above has 5 quotes, Parable of the Leaven has 4; The Birds of Heaven has 4 some long; The Rich Fool has 4; The Little Children has 4; etc – Have I won the challenge?
  3). You said: "… a list of loosely associated quotations. They should be moved to Wikiquote." These are all list of quotes so shouldn't they be moved as well?
  4). You say: "I admit I am not familiar with the Sikh Shabads, but as far I know they aren't considered particularly famous parts of the Guru Granth Sahib - and even if they are, they would need their own articles, each of which discusses the Shabad itself" They are part of the SGGS! The term "Sikh Shabads" refers to hymns from the SGGS and this article lists a few of them. Then on the Sikh Diet article the relevance or not of these Shabads (hymns) can be discussed. So the SGGS on Meat has a list of hymns from SGGS, the Sikh holy book and the article Sikh Diet discuss the consequences and meaning of these hymns.
  So please could someone explain - What really is the difference between the parables and this article? As far as I can work out, both these articles list several verbatim quotes from their respective holy texts! I see more similarity than difference in their basic conceptual design. --Hari Singh 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. Why would it matter anyway? If you look at a lot of religious articles, people recommend keep for anything related to their religion, while non-religionists will not, but I don't recall any of those being ignored - I can think of many partisan "voting" on AfDs.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was the case at the time. I did not say to ignore their input, I just thought that knowing that might have some input on their perception of whether keeping this is really the concensus of the community in general. But, like I said, it's a moot point now. -Elmer Clark 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional KeepThe page is definetly unacademic and the "we" and "our" stuff needs to go, but subject is valid for wiki article. Roy Brumback 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have an academic (well, getting there) page on the subject; see Sikh diet. -Elmer Clark 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content is useful and needs to be improved and kept in some form - The heading is definitely unenycyclopedic and needs to be brought into line with something like Vegetarianism in Buddhism. What is referred to in "our" and "we" - which Sikh clerics said this? Which Sikh organisations said this? If there is are differing views among different schools of Sikh thought, then we need to put the different ideologies there with links to speeches from clerics who interpret the text differently. Put some info on what how different verses from the text are interpreted to mean different things. At the moment I feel that there are too many quotes- we need an explanation of what the quotes mean or what clerics think they imply for correct moral dietary lifestyle. Sikh diet and Vegetarianism in Buddhism seem to leave a lot to be desired at this stage as well. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had a think about it. It's a good article because it conforms to orthodox Sikh teaching (over 400 years). If you are a Khalsa Sikh, meat is Strictly forbidden you have to live by the laws in the Guru Granth Sahib but a non Khalsa Sikh does have more flexibilty because they have not taken Amrit (to become Khalsa) so they could take a more of a pick and choose approach. Its only when you take Amrit to become Khalsa, you formally accept (in the Amrit Ceremony) all the laws in the Guru Granth Sahib. It's a good article but.... If we allow this article then will have to allow a lot of other bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Therefore the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Therefore, I think part of it should be merged with the other article already mentioned. This article is good but if we keep it the price might be we have to let another 100 bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Be brave Hari Singh and say "lets part merge it with the other article" for the greater good and put it in wiki quote--Sikh 1 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main point is, a non Khalsa Sikh is under moral obligation to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Khalsa Sikh is under Legal obligation to live by every law in the Guru Granth Sahib because they have taken the oath and Amrit (in the Amrit ceremony). Therefore, there is a distinction between a Khalsa Sikh and non Khalsa Sikh. Now if a non Khalsa Sikh eats meat Sikhism does not condone it (morally wrong and a sin) but they are NOT breaking their oath and Amrit because they have not taken Amrit and the oath- there is no legal obligation on them but there is a moral obligation.--Sikh 1 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional merge Has to be peer reviewed. The article has a lot of merit but leaves door open to other bad articles if this allowed. A merge is the only way forward and input into wiki quote.--Sikh 1 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic and so poorly written as to be almost unreadable. Conceivably an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject, but I've always thought the correct solution to that is to delete now, reconsider later, in the event such an article is written. --04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: 1). You say that the article is: "Unencyclopedic" The article consists of important quotations on the subject of meat from the Sikh Holy Book - What is "Unencyclopaedic" about these quotations? Quotations are very frequently used in encyclopaedias and articles– so why are these particular quotations "Unencyclopaedic" while the other ones that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia are OK?
  2). You say that: "[The article is] so poorly written as to be almost unreadable" As I have already said, these are quotations from the Holy Text of the Sikh – Clearly, you have no concept of this religion. To you it may appear like a thesis on "Quantum Mechanic" but to a student of Sikhism, these quotations have a deeper and precious meaning and are easily understood. It is for this reason that most Sikhs users have supported the article while non-Sikh generally appear to not support it. --Hari Singh 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a violation of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources), it is written poorly, and it is not encyclopedic in nature. Chris53516 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment 1). The article Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources says: "Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Wikipedia article on the subject is perfectly OK. Copying specialised encyclopedias may be appropriate in some circumstances….." This original SGGS text forms part of the Public Domain encyclopedias of the Sikhs as it was written in 1708. So, I can see that the above would apply and article based on this text are fine as per the above edict.
  2).You say that: "…it is a violation of Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines". Looking at these guidelines, I note that it says: "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates" This article has nothing to do with the author or his associates. So how can you say that this is a "Vanity" issue?
  3). You say that: "it is written poorly" – The article is primarily a number of quotations from the Sikh Holy Book – When using quotations in an article, you are not allowed to mis-quote and you are not allowed to change these verbatim quotations – So whenever you quote a person or a text in an article, it’s a mandatory practise not to change or interfere with the way the quote was originally stated – whether poorly or otherwise. So, under the circumstances, your statement appears ill-considered and without merit.
  4). You also say: " it is not encyclopedic in nature" What is "not encyclopaedic" about these quotations? Quotations are very frequently used in encyclopaedias and articles– so why are these particular quotations "not encyclopaedic" while the other ones that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia are OK? --Hari Singh 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and NPOVify to Sikh diet and move that to Sikh dietary restrictions. JoshuaZ 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability WP:Importance or verifiability WP:VER requirements. Many parts of the page appear to be copyright violations - if the decision is to keep or merge this article that will have to be fixed either by deleting that text or getting evidence that is has been released under a license compatible with GFDL. Brian 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
- Please, how is this not notable? It discusses meat eating issues for the fifth largest religion based on the primary scripture. Why is it not verifiable? Why is it a copyvio? The Guru Granth Sahib is several hundred years old and is in the public domain so you could quote the entire book and it wouldn't be a copy vio. (btw, I voted to merge with Sikh diet, not keep). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:20, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Launderette[edit]

Nothing to indicate this website started this year is in any way notable. Delete exolon 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NN ST47 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Han-Kwang 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability -Elmer Clark 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was big keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Bennett[edit]

This guy is so not notable. All he's done is won Big Brother. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So he's in a band but they don't even have a record deal. Therefore my vote is to delete and redirect to List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7). Recreate if his band ever becomes successful or if he does anything other than win BB. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess. I don't reckon most reality-show contestants are notable, but he did win the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Millions of TV watchers have followed his life closely, that makes him notable. Han-Kwang 21:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Andrew Lenahan and Han-Kwang. --Daniel Olsen 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All other previous winners are listed, it would throw the wikipedia sequence out. It makes no sense to delete him, as he is currently in the public eye, and thus a celebrity.
Keep Miilions of viewers make it notable, and its not as though there aren't thousands of references we could choose from as well. Winning Big Brother may be a stupid reason for being famous/celebrity, but he is a celebrity non the less now. Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I suppose you're planning to nominate Paris Hilton next? Undeserved notability is notability nonetheless. -Elmer Clark 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...odd nomination, nominator is a member of the Big Brother Wikiproject. -Elmer Clark 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about notability being undeserved, I said he wasn't notable. All he's done is won a television show, and the information on his article could easily be merged to the series' article, as it doesn't have any information of post-Big Brother experiences. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the information in this article is already contained in the list of housemates article, as so far he hasn't done anything notable post BB. Being the winner doesn't make you more notable if all you've done is appear on a reality TV show. Until he actually does something, his section in the list of housemates article is all that is necessary. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pete Bennett isn't notable. Winning a contest doesn't establish notability. -- Mikeblas 02:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pete Bennett is notable. He'll be quite popular and has signed with the same agent as Davina McCall-- Range 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anthony Hutton, Nadia Almada, Cameron Stout, Kate Lawler, Brian Dowling and Craig Phillips are all champions of their respective Big Brother season and do have articles based on them. As Pete won on the 18th August (2 days after this comment was placed) he has yet to put any media attention forward.
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When this man does something more notable you may make an article like say he goes on to do something more famous if not he can stay in Big Brother Housemates list. And you could say that if this man deserves an article then Nikki deserves one and Glyn deserves one so there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KWliKid (talk • contribs) 17:47, August 20, 2006.
Speedy keep Cameron Stout has his own page, and nobody remembers him. Pete, on the other hand, has his own band, was already a local cult celebrity in Brighton, had the shortest odds of any Big Brother contestant at the halfway stage (1/8), was the only bookmakers' favourite to win the entire series, is already regarded as being one of the greatest housemates that's ever lived, and is the favourite with Ladbrokes at 2/1 with Daddy Fantastic to have the Christmas Number 1 single, despite not having released a commercial single yet. The idea that he shouldn't have his own page is laughable and is actually giving me a painful stitch due to me laughing so hard at how ridiculous it is. I am in agony but I will continue writing to portray your ignorance on the subject. And anyway, why shouldn't he have his own page? Is there a limited number of pages allowed on this site? Is there a drought? No, there isn't. You're just being idiots. Pete deserves his own page, and there is no reason for having this deleted. Owned. Luke God 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.76.231 (talk • contribs) 17:52, August 20, 2006[reply]
Keep. Probably the most notable of all the UK BB winners.--Shantavira 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other Big Brother contestants, who didn't even win, are much more notable than Pete Bennett. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, then, that you couldn't name a single one. Now listen, child-like insect, we're all fed up of your pathetic anti-Pete/anti-Big Brother bias. You don't have a single viable point and you know it. This page is not going to be deleted, and you're wasting your time going against a huge majority of people that have already rubbished your so-called argument. You were an idiot for thinking you had a chance in the first place, and you're even more of an idiot now. Pete is staying, Pete deserves it, you lose. Get the message, and don't bother writing a reply.

Ryan Fitzgerald, Bree Amer, Jade Goody, Wesley Denning, Blair McDonough (he was on Big Brother before Neighbours, but he didn't win) Simon Deering, Danielle Foote, Derek Laud, Michelle Bass. Most of them are from Big Brother Australia, but the point I'm trying to make is the same. These people are notable for things that they did outside of Big Brother, and not one of them won any Big Brother series. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, seriously. You know you're wrong. You know this isn't going to be deleted. You have a large number of people telling you to get your head out of your arse and stop pissing all over Pete's achievement and get on with your miserable life. You've got evidence that wanks all over your supposed arguments in the forms of pages for Anthony Hutton and Cameron Stout, who are no longer famous and weren't very well known in the first place, compared to Pete who was the biggest Big Brother favourite in the shows existence, has a highly anticipated band who are favourites for the Christmas Number 1 single...I can't believe, actually, that you are still trying to drag this discussion out. I have single handedly proven that you are an idiot, and a host of others have also stated that they disagree with you, and you are in a minority that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Once again, Pete is staying on here. There is no reason to take him off even if you did believe he wasn't noteworthy. There is no shortage of available Wikipedia pages. All you're doing is trying to ruin Pete's credibility because you probably supported Aisleyne or someone, or maybe you just hate Big Brother and you're a massive hit on the Restoration page or something. Either way, don't bother responding because you just can't win. Take care now, honey.

That is mostly point of view and speculation, none of which has a place on Wikipedia. Personal attacks aren't going to make the closing administrator any more inclined to not delete the article if they have good reason to. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per majority of toher keep comments here Tyhopho 17:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per most comments here.Xzamuel 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Popular, even a personaility among the public. Leemorrison 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous above. Essexmutant 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this article because I wanted to find out about him. Presumably other people do that, and isn't that the point of Wikipedia? His article being read means his article should stay. Deiseruus 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most notable and potentially most memorable housemate of the entire series run. And keeps things consistent re: previous series winners. --jc 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every winner should have a page, but we ought to keep an eye on them to make sure they have notability outside BB. If not, it may be more difficult. --Ross UK 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If other BB housemates, let alone winners, get an entry, Pete certainly should. Chapwithwings 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least give him a couple of months to see if he can become as popular as Craig, Brian, etc. Don't forget what happened to Chantelle Houghton: one minute a failed Paris Hilton look-alike, the next, CELEBRITY! Quizman 1967 - Ulverston 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, as all the other winners have articles. --Alex ^{talk here} 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has done something notable, even if you do think winning BB is 'cheap.' Anon Dude 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm changing my vote from delete. I've thought about it, and I think winning Big Brother is enough for him to have an article. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete 2 reasons - 1. all he did was win a reality TV show and swore a lot and 2. I am not a fan of his and I believe Glyn should have won. Anyway, there's no point arguing really so keep the page if you really want but I don't find it particularly notable. Can't it just go on his section on the BB housemates page? Michaelritchie200 21:51, 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, per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steorn[edit]

Fails notability threshold for companies in every imaginable way. GBP 85,200 may buy a full page ad in the Economist, but a Wikipedia article is not included with that. --Pjacobi 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless better information is dug up and cited for this article, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the garden-variety "we've done the impossible, but we aren't going to tell you how just yet" claims of scam artists. I see two possibilities for the article's continued presence: (A) it is so widely reported (by gullible news agencies more interested in ratings than verifiable truth) that it should be included as a well-known swindle; (B) the company has actually done something that forces a change in the laws of physics, which would require "extraordinary proof", which is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Either way, reliable sources are needed for us to write about it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now. I still have misgivings about this being a manufactured news event, and the claims that there is "massive" news coverage are not yet borne out by either Google's search engine or the links provided in the article. (Where is AP? Reuters? BBC? Other internationally known news agencies? This is, after all, a potentially world-changing event. Perhaps organizations with reputations to protect are actually investigating, rather than parroting unsubstantiated press releases.) But I concede that there will likely be enough material eventually, given the "buzz". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters, Guardian and Scientific American --Orangehues 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Orangehues. None of these articles offer any new substance yet, just the brief challenge, the appropriate skepticism of age-old unproven claims, and Steorn testimonials. But it does make the case for notability, whatever the truth behind the noise. I guess we'll have to wait for a proper investigation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have a fairly simple criterion that's relevant here: if I came to Wikipedia specifically looking for this article, it should be kept. While they probably haven't really rewritten the laws of physics, they are getting a lot of news coverage. ^L_Wizard @ 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I came here specifically looking for the article. -Zapptastic (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Steorn is a technology risk management firm that has been around for several years and although this wiki article is currently biased to their recent developments and announcements, there is a significant amount of information relavent to the company which could be written here as well. The Internet Archive has pages as far back as 2001, long before they developed their "free energy" device. I vote that we keep the page and add more information to it. Jared81 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now, due to massive media coverage. If it turns out to be nothing special and nobody remembers the whole thing in a year's time, we can always re-evaluate then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here looking for information on this company as well. However, I suggest that, eventually, this could be merged into History of perpetual motion machines. Nightwatch／respond 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean way up. If it's a scam, it's going to scam people whether or not wikipedia has an article on it, and wikipedia can at least help to clarify the nature of the scam. People on web forums are linking to the wikipedia page about this thing already. I do think the article *needs* some kind of section for concerns that this company possibly doesn't even exist (and, say, a marketing company just bought up a defunct Irish company's website and put some nonsense about perpetual motion on it that will later turn out to be promotion for some video game or something). Awk 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Paul Studier 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been a big news story for the last few days and this story will not go away any time soon. A whole lot of people have been looking for information on this company and isn't this what wikipedia is for ? Niall123 20:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK; everybody seems to expect by now, that Wikipedia has something about everything in the news, but please remember that the project was started to write an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we all use Wikipedia to find information, but it's to find valid information, not rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and marketing events. That said, I'm trying to tighten up the sourcing so we can get to the facts of this subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However i would rather see an article on wikipedia with a NPOV tag or an article aoutlining the controversy than no article at all. Smartaalec 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's NOT a perpetual motion machine as mentioned in the article. It is in fact a Zero point energy machine. Please see Steorn's video which clearly demonstrates that this has something to do with magnetic induction. There are other inaccuracies in the article. For, e.g., their background is mainly in technology consulting, not dotcoms. I'm new to wikipedia so I suggest someone please make the corrections. See Steorn's patent description and an independent company verifying their claims, although admittedly that's not a very reliable source.--Orangehues 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The "independent company" cited in the above link (which is an alternative-energy wiki, not a reliable publication) is apparently Magnetic Power Inc., which "claims to be close enough to have some demonstration modules, which extracts energy from the vacuum of space, ready for market by end of 2006". In other words, this is like John Edward testing Uri Geller. I'm frightened by the number of people who will believe anything they read on the Internet. That's why we require reliable sources, folks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They may not have changed the laws of physics; maybe they're just siphoning off some previously unknown energy source. I'm not a physicist, I don't know. However, if they are a legit company and have a legit claim we ought to keep a record of it for history's sake. If they are a scam, we could have a spectacular record of that too. Spahi 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My name's Cathal, I think that this article should be kept on Wikipedia. If the whole idea is a hoax(which I think is hard to believe, from what I've seen) having it or not having it on Wikipedia won't change that. Just as many encyclopedias have detailed articles on ideas and things which later turned out to be false (flat-earth, the geocentric Solar System et al.) so too must Wikipedia, another encyclopedia report on this (potential) falsitude.
Keep Steorn very much deserves an article, if not only for the fact that it can link to Perpetual Motion and similar articles. It would also be a good place to have the results of their testing, etc.

(With the rather one-sidedness of this discussion, should the deletion box be removed?) ~ Nick.sideras 23:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to delete it, as they are a company that is making news, and thus deserve a Wiki entry.OkamiItto 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think they pass the threshold of newsworthiness. Tt 225 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been publicized in various places, and there is a lot of public interest about the concept. Because of this, there should be a wikipedia page to keep up with any new information about this technology, despite the fact that it seems impossible.--Sam Ellens 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article should most definately be kept - it has gained major attention in the news, and in my opinion the fact it may be a hoax is irrelevant - using that logic should we delete all the articles on List of hoaxes as well? As far as I'm concerened its a shame we have to have the deletion message up there for the next 4 days when the concensus seems pretty clear... Smartaalec 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are news articles on this company on the front page of Google News in the Technology section. REGARDLESS of whether their claims are bunk (and I'm not saying that they are), Wikipedia needs an article to address the controversy. C'mon, it's ON THE FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE NEWS. Styrbjorn 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto, it's ON THE FRONT PAGE OF GOOGLE NEWS. Anal admins, take note.
Keep Life on earth is about to change or these crazy Irishmen are about to make utter fools of themselves, either way this is notable without a doubt. Dev1n 05:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a documented company claiming to have created Free Energy. Properly a publicity stunt but they have managed to be on a load of major news outlets so I think we should document the company for the time being. I agree not to make it an advert though. --Dark archeus 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:LizardWizard, User:Nightwatch, and last but not least User:71.138.137.6. Quit VfDing everything without a good reason. --Neurophyre 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The strong likelihood is that this "technology" will go the way of all perpetual motion machines thus far, into the dustbin of history; but if anything the manner in which they have laid down their challenge is certainly notable and extraordinary; to advertise in a well-respected magazine like The Economist is probably a first, and may well be embarassing if/when it all turns out to be moonshine; but it does no harm to keep a record of these people on Wikipedia. It will be another punctuation mark in the long and dishonourable history of so-called "over-unity" machines. User:Jaganath 09:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per Devln, above. -- The Anome 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) but maybe trim it down and keep it to the bare facts. And if it proves to be a hoax/false claim/swindle/marketing strategy then delete it or merge it with another article, as appropriate. Sony-youth 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either a notable scam or a notable invention with notable news coverage and notable marketing. 16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)User:Tumbleman
Keep LCpl 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthwhile article which can and will evolve as the story develops. Many companies have articles so do not see why not this one as well.Kiale 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is either a major scientific breakthrough or a notable act of kamikaze P.R. which should be a permanent part of the story of free-energy research and claims. The bold, public "challenge" advertisement Steorn has placed in The Economist gives this story political significance, as many people suspect that successful free-energy devices which may have been invented in the past have been suppressed by industry or government interests. Steorn's strategy may be an attempt to circumvent this kind of suppression. RockPoet 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that the company's claims will be tested in the near future (see The Observer). Should the claims be validated, the entry should remain given the obviously extraordinary historical significance of this alleged discovery. Should the claims be refuted (as we all seem to suspect they will be), the degree of attention it has received from both the public and the scientific community will still warrant an entry, though it should be revised to conform to the Wiki's hoax guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.95.182 (talk • contribs)
Keep: nobody believes this is possible because it claims to create energy, and we know that is impossible. We also "knew" the world was flat, until we were proven wrong, we "knew" the atom was indestructible, until we were proven wrong. I have done some research on this story and believe it is legit, don't delete it until we are positive it is all a hoax. --User:NAM 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: And even if it is a hoax, it should be kept.. I came to Wikipedia looking for information on this company, and here it is... -Andrew 20:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful to know where this company fits into the broader history of similar claims, which is where Wikipedia can help the reader. I also came looking for this article in light of coverage in The Economist.--129.67.126.221 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, AfD does not govern merges; that is up to those that want it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Fantastic[edit]

Non-notable band, they don't even have a record deal. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Merge into Pete Bennett, if that article survives AfD. Han-Kwang 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band will be signed in a matter of days by a major record deal

Delete Having a major deal doens't make you notable; you have to have done something notable first. WP:MUSIC _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As they have been offered a record deal, they have potential.
Keep They have acclaimed credible attention on MySpace's 'unsigned bands'
Merge into Pete Bennett, until they actually are notable enough Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pete Bennett for the time being, and if they become more notable, recreate.Anon Dude 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pete Bennett until they become worthy of their own page
Merge into Pete Bennett per Will 82.39.52.221 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pete Bennett per Will (Pally01 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep They are almost guaranteed a record label and many people see them having a strong future in the next year. The article will be remade if deleted because of this so I personally see it as a waste of time. Jdh89manson 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They pass the notability test, with extensive press coverage.
Keep A BBC documentary series on the band is coming out soon, so a lot more will be known about them.--DrPoodle 21:54, 28 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 CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 10:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Dreams[edit]

Contested Prod. Apparently a piece of fiction from a non-notable author, being serialized in a non-notable film publication, but not a film project. Looks like one chapter ([77]) has been published. No other sites appear to link to or discuss it, or even notice it. Non-notable fiction. Fan-1967 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim of notability, nothing there that won't take 10 seconds to rewrite in case the show becomes notable later. --Daniel Olsen 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serialized story in a magazine that itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Publication is nice, but it's not grounds for inclusion, particularly when the publication has not yet occurrd. -Elmer Clark 00:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In this edit, author attempted to blank the whole page (Tawkerbot reverted it). Does that counts as a CSD db-blanked? Fan-1967 02:01, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus dvd[edit]

Online pornography site based in Greece. Specified search terms in Google produces less than 1500 results ("Lotus DVD" Porno (1490), "Lotus DVD" erotic (650) and "Lotus DVD" Greece (1040)). A previous attempt to propose a speedy delete was removed by an edit (which also glossies a few wordings) with an irrelevant edit summary. Possible (porn) advertising. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Delete - seems to violate WP:VAIN, but I'd change my vote to keep if i saw some good sources added and a rewrite. --Daniel Olsen 21:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources indicating that this site meets WP:WEB. Also reads like an attempt at advertising with many unsourced claims, i.e., LotusDVD is an example of succeed on-line marketing and web sales. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. will381796 23:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fals WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 23:48, 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 defaults to keep — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:38, 29 August 2006}

Baldassare Squitti[edit]

Non-notable family member of editor who created this article. Two hits on Google, both in Italian. ... Kenosis 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of the Italian parliament, wins on WP:BIO, which considers "members of a national, state or provincial legislature" to be notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs)
- Truth asked me to look at the official Italian Parliament site (http://www.camera.it/) I went over the whole thing and found niente (nothing). As a last resort, I did a search; results: *Parola ricercata: "Squitti" - Totale voci di menu trovate: 0 (Word searched for: "Squitti" -- Total hits found in the menu (site): 0) Jim62sch 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, the wording is, "Political figures holding international..." note that "holding" is in the present tense, not in the perfect (as in "who have held"). Is squitti still alive? Jim62sch 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TruthbringerToronto beat me to it. Modern means should not be used to establish notability of 19th century people, and a parliament member is certainly notable. --Daniel Olsen 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two Italian articles mention him only in passing, as an editor of an article. If he is not notable in Italy, why should he be notable here? Obviously there is a severe misunderstanding of how history as a discipline works. Y'see, both general history books and even almanacs tend to focus far more on the recent than on the distant past. In fact, if the (distant) past is considered the base and the present (more accurately recent past) the top we find an inverted pyramid. Is this because fewer notable events happened in the past, or because fewer notable people existed? No, it is because the filter of time has acted to reduce what was once thought of as notable to that which truly is notable.Jim62sch 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Truthbringer. Jim, this would be a good point to bring up at WP:BIO not on an individual AfD. JoshuaZ 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Delete per Kenosis' translation, with no prejudice against recreation if an actual source can be found. JoshuaZ 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment How do you know he was a parliamentarian? Can you read Italian? Jim62sch 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. JChap2007 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is interesting that Baldassarre Squitti's father was born two years before him. Heaven only knows what else is going on here, but something is surely wrong with this picture. Were these guys brothers? I have no way of verifying anything here. ... Kenosis 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, especially given that the sources are in Italian, and dollars to donuts I'm the only person here who can read Italian, so, since my translation could be considered OR, how are the rest of you to discern compliance with WP:V and WP:RS? Quite the poser there, eh? Jim62sch 23:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is ridiculous. The "citation" upon which the claim of political notability is based is to the Vibonese library system ( http://www.vibonese.it/ ). The "citation" appears to have something to do with Italian parliament but is actually an online document from a local library, the reference to "Baldassare Squitti reads (translated): "From 1904 until 1913 comes elected deputy of the district of Monteleone Calabro (put into effect by Vibo Valentia), Baldassarre Squitti, optimal politician legacy to Giolitti." ... Kenosis 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Actually, as I understand WP:OR, minor translational matters confirming factual issues are not considered WP:OR. JoshuaZ 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is completely bogus, the claim of notability is made up with a citation to a meaningless blurb that mentions a local deputy of some kind back in 1904. ... Kenosis 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice due to lack of WP:V based on the translation provided by Kenosis; no reason not to recreate if a reliable source can be found establishing the claims provided in the article. (As for how he was born two years after his father, as the article claims... I'm not even going to attempt to figure that one out.) --Kinu ^t/_c 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He seems to have been a real parlamentarian and university law professor. Perhaps obscure to most of us, but definitely not bogus. I'm personally not interested enough to rewrite the article, but I'll give some clues for anyone who is. WBIS Online (a biographical, or rather bio-bibliographical, database which gives only very summarized data and references to other publications) has two entries for a person of this name. His full, correctly spelt name and title appears to be "Baldassarre Squitti, barone di Palermiti e Guarino". He is described as "barone; giureconsulto; politico; professore di diritto" in one entry and as "barone; sottosegretario di Stato alle Poste e Telegrafi; professore universitario di diritto" in another (but a reasonable guess is that they refer to the same person). Anyone interested in rewriting the article should check the publications listed by WBIS Online (copied below). up+l+and 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "barone; sottosegretario di Stato alle Poste e Telegrafi; professore universitario di diritto" -- Baron, undersecretary of state for mail and telegraphs, professor of law. "barone; giureconsulto; politico; professore di diritto" -- Baron, giure = pledge, vow; consulto = (maybe) consultant (but I can't translatte the whole thing, cazzarola!); politician, professor of law.

Amato, Domenico: Cenni biografici d'illustri uomini politici e dei più chiari scienziati, letterati ed artisti contemporanei italiani. - Napoli: Mormile, 1887-1891. - Voll. 2

Translation: Slight biographies of illustrious Italian men of politics and of the more well-known scientists, writers and contemprary artists. Jim62sch 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piccolo dizionario dei contemporanei italiani / compilato da Angelo de Gubernatis. - Roma: Forzani, 1895

Translation: Small dictionary of contemporary Italians, compiled by Angelo...Jim62sch 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarti, Telesforo: Il Parlamento italiano nel cinquantenario dello statuto: profili e cenni biografici di tutti i senatori e deputati viventi. - Roma: Tipografia Agostiniana, 1898

Translation: The Italian parliament on the 50th anniversary of the constitution: profiles and slight biographies of all the living senators and deputies Jim62sch 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malatesta, Alberto: Ministri, deputati, senatori dal 1848 al 1922. - Milano: Tosi, 1940-1941. - Voll. 3. - (Enciclopedia bio-bibliografica italiana).

Translation -- Ministers, senators and deputies from 1848-1922 Jim62sch 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi è? Annuario biografico italiano: con cenni sommari delle persone più note del parlamento, dell'esercito, dell'armata, della magistratura, del clero, delle pubbliche amministrazioni, dell'insegnamento, della letteratura, dell'arte, dell'industria e del commercio / compilato a cura di Guido Biagi. - Roma: Romagna, 1908

Translation: Who's who? Italiam biographical yearbook: with slight summaries of people of note in the parliament, the army, the navy, of the courts, of the clergy, of public administration, of education, of literature, of art, of industry and of trade -- compiled and edited by Guido BiagiJim62sch 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: as for the birthdate of the supposed father, my guess is that the Nicola who was a senator and born 1853 was actually a brother of Baldassarre. This Nicola Squitti is also included in Malatesta's book, listed above. up+l+and 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You guess? Not much evidence for WP:V then, eh? Besides, you'd think that since the article was written by a relative the geneology would be bloody correct! Jim62sch 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has the same baronial title, so he is definitely a relative, whether a brother or more distant. It is quite possible that there is something on the parents or family in one of the listed references, so the answer may not be that difficult to find. I am under no obligation to do anything more than guessing here, as I'm not actually writing the article... :-) up+l+and 13:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I was just being sarcastic. ;) Jim62sch 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, now that Nicola is just his brother...Nicola is listed as a Senator in the article. The link provided by squitti says otherwise:

Professione: Diplomatico (diplomat)
Carriera: Console generale di I classe (17 marzo 1901) (general council)
Inviato straordinario e Ministro plenipotenziario di II classe (18 giugno 1911) (special envoy and plenipotentiary)

A lot of problems with this article. Jim62sch 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Console generale di I classe is more likely Consul general (of the first class), or First-Class Consul General. However, the difference doesn't affect much. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I wrote the wrong thing...I spelled the wrong thing wrong too. My bad. Jim62sch 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Obviously those with an interest in the late-19th and early 20th Century Italian Parliament will have intense interest in Nicola Squitti, who is the one that's verifiably a member of the Parliament. Where's the verification on Baldassare Squitti? There apparently is a whole database of former parliament members including a page of info on Nicola Squitti; so where is Baldassare on that database? It is, after all, the supposed basis of notability here. ... Kenosis 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Actually, there is absolutely zero proof that Nicola was a senator. Jim62sch 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, Nicola Squitti is the one who is said to have actually had a conversation with Mussolini (here). Perhaps that's notable as to Nicola, but not Baldassare. ... Kenosis 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Well, my cousin's uncle's dog pissed on Mussolini's leg, can I do a story on the dog? Jim62sch 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment BTW, that's not a conversation with Mussolini, it's a eulogy on Squitti delivered on 21 march 1933, and sent to the parliament and signed by Mussolini as head of the government. Jim62sch 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) -- Oh. ... Kenosis 21:40, 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 after Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Pointe Preparatory School[edit]

article is just a couple of links and school is not obviously noteworthy to me Blood red sandman 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TruthbringerToronto. What's not noteworthy to you may be noteworthy to a lot of other people. --Daniel Olsen 21:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment now that article has been expanded a little it may show some potential - im now on the fence on this one. - Blood red sandman 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's a high school. Gazpacho 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable institution. Metthurst 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded and without prejudice to recreation of proper article, since WP:SCHOOLS was rejected/deprecated. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article contains no assertion of notability, and not all high-schools are notable. GRBerry 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to city article and do not keep. Vegaswikian 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. And not all high schools are notable. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel Olsen. Meets verifiability standards. Silensor 23:08, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cortonwood[edit]

This page is totally unverified. Apears to have no signifigance. Does anyone know of this place who can verify it exists and is significant? Blood red sandman 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To my knowledge, strip-mall-type place aren't notable. --Daniel Olsen 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Keep per TruthbringerToronto below. --Daniel Olsen 00:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its previous incarnation as a coal mine ("pit" in British usage), it is deeply signifant in British labor history. It was where the 1984 coal strike started. I have added references for its past, and will try to locate a verifiable source for its current role. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - of course it's a place, and per User:TruthbringerToronto. Camillus (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i was not aware that the miners strike started here. Speedy Keep - Blood red sandman 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly accurate article. Quite significant in the area due to the fact that it is where the strike started and it is now a successful retail park providing numerous jobs. Totally agree with the access problems on a weekend. Would be nice to see a little more about the colliery in the article. Nig. 24-08-2006 (Sorry, bit of a newbie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.166 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 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 Keep all Naconkantari 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wise and the Foolish Builders[edit]

Articles consist of straight quotes from the Bible, with at most two lines of interpretation, unsourced. Wikipedia is not a directory. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are also nominated for the same reason:

The following is a navigational template linking to all of these articles (and others, sometimes more than once):

Template:Parables of Jesus

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsara (talk • contribs) .

Others similar Articles

Comment. Can we just be clear on the fact that the articles added by Harisingh and Ezeu below are not the subject of this AfD? If you wish to nominate these articles, my opinion is that you should do so in a separate request. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Strong Man Bound Basically just has 5 quotations
Parable of the Lost Sheep
The Little Children
Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
The Wicked Husbandmen
Mark 4
List of New Testament stories

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harisingh (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And while we are listing Biblical parables, why not list some good ones that show that these stubs can be expanded into proper encydlopedic articles. Why, may I ask, did the nomintor not list these?

Because they stand on their own. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ezeu 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - For all the above and SGGS on Meat - The point of these quotations is to inform the reader of what these Holy texts have to say – that I hope you will agree is an important point; an important issue and a mechanism that needs to be preserved. The job of Encyclopaedias is to correctly inform!! Without quotations you get to a situation when wrong messages of the holy text can be conveyed as is happening with some aspects of Islam. So its is very important that we are allowed to quote these holy text verbatim so that the message is not interfered with – Discussion can be NPOV or POV, etc and these can be added to these articles if required. The quotations in themselves do not have a POV or NPOV – They are a FACT. The quote from the holy Bible is a FACT which has existed for 2000 years. Whether you believe it or not is another matter – Many billions believe in these facts. The writings of the Bible, Koran, SGGS, etc are all FACTS – They are NOT NPOV or POV. If I write that the SGGS says "There is one God" – That is a factual statement. If you go and look in the SGGS, then you will find that statement there. Whether you want to believe the statement or not – is another matter. Verbatim quotations are facts not subject to the POV or NPOV criterion. When we start making our own comments and have discussions on these texts, it can becomes POV or NPOV. I urge all participants here to vote and argue to keep the SGGS on Meat article as well. Many thanks --Hari Singh 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - the articles are terrible - some of them need renamed - some could perhaps be merged. But these are notable (and I don't even need to cite WP:POKEMON). Bad content gets cleaned up - not deleted. I'm willing to work on this when I get some time (not this week). We always end up keeping these things, so I suggest this is withdrawn. If deletion was to proceed, we'd need to debate each seperately, as some of these have had huge imact on art, literature and cuture (leave aside religion). --Doc 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Doc. --Daniel Olsen 21:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - as per Doc. All (or almost all) of these are definitely expandable. Heck, I sure people have written disserations on many of these.... --Rangek 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. None of them is merely a dictionary definition, and all of them have potential for expansion. --Ezeu 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All or Merge together. They are just quotes from a fictional book(yes I believe the Bible is fictional) with at most a 2 sentence explanation, no need for seperate articles. TJ Spyke 23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that over 2 billion people are Christians worldwide (see Major religious groups) and rely on the holy bible for guidance and enlightenment and for them this issue is of serious relevance – 2 sentences of explanation without the original text will not do! Also, this subject matter is important for them and so I feel there is justification for spreading the parables. - Your personal POV does not come into it. It's what the whole world believes in and thinks - that is significant!
  Further, these holy texts have been around for 1000s of years and many millions of Bibles have been printed giving this subject matter inherent magnitude. And finally, the issue of morality and spirituality is very relevant to the world and should be enhanced by coverage in an encyclopaedia. I ask you please, to be objective in your discussion and unbiased in the points that you make. --Hari Singh 00:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What you (or I) believe about the Bible is (or should be) beside the point. These parables (fiction or not) are worthy of distinct articles. However, as it stands, in many cases, the content could be merged for the time being (until proper neutral verifiable information can fill them out - it certainly exists).--Doc 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parables by themselves without interpretation belong on Wikisource. If they have interpretation, they need sourcing for that interpretation (which I don't see in the ones I spot checked, didn't look at all of them). Delete or transwiki but they don't belong here, this is not the place for sources. ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make much sense. The text themselves will already be on wikisource, so there's no point in a transwiki. So the question is what to do with the articles. We don't delete things because the current content is crap, we generally redirect elsewhere or stubify. Given we've plenty of sub-stubs, on much less noteworthy thing, that such as 'x is a school in New Hampshire' or 'Y is a film directed by Z', there seems little problem in stubifying these to 'is a parrable found in the gospel of Matthew at...' (if there is indeed no other information currently in the article) that allows for someone (perhaps me) to write an article later, without someone deleting it as a recreation. Let's just treat Bible articles like an others. If the closing admin wants to notify me, I'll clean these up myself. --Doc 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing the strong argument for keeping articles at the individual verse level. When I look at Gospel of Matthew for example, which is an entire book, the article is well sourced and ties themes of the book to other books via theme articles. I can see an article on all the parables, or on specific parables as they are told in several books, but not verses. Verses belong on Wikisource, where they already are, so scratch my suggestion to transwiki and just delete. I don't buy the "a crap article is better than no article" argument. I'm willing to revise my thinking for any of these that are substantially improved (remove the verse itself, point to source, and give cited references to the significance, meaning or connection of the parable) but in this state? No. They must go. We had individual verse articles before, and I remember them being on AfD. I thought they went. I certainly can't find them now, and I spent some time looking. WP is not a bible, and it is not an annotated bible. These must go unless they change a lot before the end of the AfD. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't looking hard enough for the verses.. here is the history of one (thank you pschemp for the ref): [78] ... note that the verse is now a redirect to a more appropriate higher level place rather than bibletext. I feel that strengthens my argument. ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - These are not merely random biblical verses or "straight quotes" as the nominator calls them, but parables of Jesus. Parables of Jesus are paramount to Christianity and are thereby notable. The articles are stubs, some of them badly written, but with your logic we should delete all stubs. The issue in question is the subject, not the quality of these articles. --Ezeu 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Quality of articles should not dictate whether they are kept. Subjects are clearly notable. -Elmer Clark 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to run with TJ Spyke's comment here for a second. If were discussing episodes of a TV series, we would be deciding whether there is enough information to go into the article to make it stand on its own. Even if we were talking, say, speeches of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., the standard would be, is the speech individually notable? That's why I see these articles as having been nominated: they are minor parables with either no discussion or only original research about an editor's perceived meaning of the parable. Based on that, the articles do not stand on their own and assert the notability of the individual parables, and that's why I favor deletion. That said, if an editor does have enough information to expand the articles that hasn't been brought to the table yet, then I favor the new, expanded article being allowed to exist. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles rock, or at least will one day. Roy Brumback 11:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Doc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Doc Carl.bunderson 06:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note the relationship of this AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGGS on Meat. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the relationship. I see a Chewbacca Defense.--Ezeu 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the linking is spurious (see my reasoning on the other AfD - which I'm not voting on). This seems to confirm my fear that this nomination is some form of WP:POINT. --Doc 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:POINT. Each AfD is bringing forward a valid concern, let me repeat the concerns I had with these articles:

95% of articles are straight quotes from the Bible.
Little actual context.
What context exists is unsourced.

Please note that those parable articles that had sufficient context to stand on their own have not been nominated. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all that you say is true - so mark the articles for expansion, referencing and clean-up. None of these are deletion criteria - as there is sufficient context to know what subject matter is and to know that it is significant enough that a reasonable article can be written. --Doc 10:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and stubify, as per Doc and Elmer Clark.--Atemperman 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All-The articles are a part of the teachings of Jesus and should be added to Wiki pjct. Christianity as well as links to/from Jesus. They are in need of review and improvement, no doubt, but should still stand as a significant part of Jesus and Christianity. Also, ditto to Doc. Jazzdude00021 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved - at the moment it is a transcript of a religious text - we need information on who it is referring to, when these people lived, where they lived and where did this occur - what it tells us, what the scholars want us to see in this, what are the opposing viewpoints and what is the moral/ethical principles of the religion described in this .If this doesn't happen, then delete, as the effort put into this appears to be derived from using the sut and paste buttons. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do that. We keep things that should have good articles but havn't yet. We call them stubs. The existence of a stubified article is an invitation for someone to provide just the material you have indicated. Let's just treat Bible articles in the dull (but tried and tested) way we treat all others. The wiki-sower scatters the seed, and waits for the harvest.--Doc 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're now seeing the benefits of waiting, given our recent discussion on WP:SNOW. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I agree that they seriously need to be improved so that they are more than just quotations from a particular religious source. However, given that these stories and parables are alluded to in all manner of litertaure and art, people will certainly look to an encyclopaedia to find out what the story is rather than try to find it in a Bible. I intend to improve a few of these, for example add an explanation of what the Unjust Steward actually does that is unjust, as well as what his solution actually implies. Whether we merge or keep them, they need to be here for people who will naturally look to an encyclopaedia to tell them in a neutral way what these stories are.--Lloegr-Cymru^{£ ¥} 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Today I have added some very useful references and commentary on The Vine, i vote that at the very least this article should stay, but i think we should give all of the articles a little more time, people will add to them. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.127.53 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainhill militia men[edit]

This article is comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information. John254 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I was original prodder) 242 Ghits, most/all having nothing to do with alleged topic of this article. The first Ghit is the following MySpace page of "Jaytaska" (same name as article author), a 17 year old who is using the page to promote racism, violence, and to try to recruit people to this"group":[79]. NawlinWiki 21:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per one or more of the following: WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:NFT, WP:VAIN. --Daniel Olsen 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to nom this myself but John254 beat me to it. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - actually, if you google on "Rainhill Militia Men", (in quotes), you get precisely two hits - the above-mentioned myspace, and the WP category suspected hoax articles! Get out of here! Camillus (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also need to delete Image:Rainhill Militia Menn.jpg, uploaded by "Jay-taska" - claims to be the "RMM"s flag - could be any IRA flag. Camillus (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, if what the article claims is true there would be media coverage. -Elmer Clark 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as hoax and vandalism. The article's creator Jay-taska deleted the AfD tag, and seems bent on vandalism and making a nuisance of himself. ---Charles 02:44, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Fighter Standings[edit]

Non-notable ranking system or website for mixed martial arts fighters. The ranking system is new, unacknowledged by the MMA news media (Sherdog.com, MMAWeekly.com, etc), and is among a crowded field of ranking systems (like boxing, anyone can create a ranking list for fighters). Page creator removed prod. hateless 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that the system is in widespread (or any, for that matter) use. -Elmer Clark 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is effectively an advertisement to promote a website that does not meet WP:WEB and does not even rank with Alexa Internet^[80] - delete as non-notable - GIen 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These rankings are not recognized by.. anybody. This is just one guy with a dream. SubSeven 23:50, 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) 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts about foxgloves[edit]

no reason to exist outside of Digitalis. Merge if there is anything of note. ccwaters 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Spinning off the "trivia" section of an article is definitely not something we should encourage. -Elmer Clark 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I normally merge such things, but no references for WP:OR style comments means can't keep LinaMishima 13:41, 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) 05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAN, World Artist Network on MySpace[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

Contested A7 speedy deletion. Message on my talk page includes claim of "This is the largest group on MySpace", which is claim on notability and 199992 sounds like a lot of members, so bringing here for full discussion. Petros471 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Forum membership numbers are not the same as references by 3rd party reliable sources. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability. If this mini-site was truly notable, then others would have already written about you instead of you ending up having to write a vanity article about yourself. Unique Google hits for ("world Artist Network" MySpace -site:myspace.com) = 47 [81]. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web). -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The member number is massive, but I don't see any evidence of media attention or otherwise having an impact outside of the group itself. I'm also concerned that keeping might lead to more myspace/orkut/yahoo/msn/etc groups wanting articles. Weak delete, possibly change if reliable sources come to the rescue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's 0.2% of MySpace's 100 million accounts membership. And of those 0.2%, who knows how many of them are genuine contributors or people who just want another shiny MySpace equivalent of a Wikipedia:Userbox on their userpage. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netsnipe. --Daniel Olsen 22:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above/nn.--Andeh 22:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netsnipe and Andrew Lenahan. hateless 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netsnipe and other people. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan -Elmer Clark 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netsnipe and other people. DXRAW 09:56, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal Holocaust[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC. ccwaters 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. self-releasing one album fails WP:MUSIC. --Daniel Olsen 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As tempted as I am to accept "not saying "fuck Jesus Christ"" as evidence of notability...Delete -Elmer Clark 00:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Paulsen[edit]

Procedural nomination — this was inappropriately batched in with the Jennifer Pereira/Nikki Hipkin AFD, but really does need to be considered separately because the claim of notability here (city councillor and deputy mayor of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and major party candidate in the Canadian federal election, 2004) is sufficiently different from the other two as to make it inappropriate to consider them as a group. No vote from me; I'm not entirely convinced of notability, but since others are, since the article is potentially expandable, and since I wouldn't be nominating this outside of this particular situation, I leave it to consensus to decide. Bearcat 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO - local politician with media coverage. search Tiffany Paulsen -Filmography -Friday on google and you'll find a bunch of first page media reports. Cosider moving to Tiffany Paulsen (politician) to avoid confusion with the actor. --Daniel Olsen 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added external links and some additional details. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment here. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Liberal Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. She has never been elected nor held office. Not a major politician. Suttungr 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can't merge her to there, because that's not what she's known for. She's known more for being a city counciler/deputy mayor than a candidate. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Elected city councillor. --Usgnus 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxfor.us[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert for a website that won't exist for another five months at least. No claims as to notability of any aspect of article, WP:WEB and WP:SPAM refer. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. —Michael Hays 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball articles!! JPD (talk) 10:34, 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 speedy delete. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom Bandit[edit]

De-proded. This article is a vanity page on 'roids; it fails WP:BIO and has turned into a first-person political screed. Gems like "This is clearly part of a vendetta against Tim, and 100% of people who matter agree. Unless you're a total idiot, you'd concur if you were an eyewitness" are, to say the least, POV.

Author's only provided attempts at verifiable notability include links to the subjects non-notable blog & internet forum and the subject's book, ranked #1,734,650 in book sales at Amazon (published by Lulu Press, a vanity press). Scientizzle 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HalJor 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a non-notable biography. Article title also appears to be an attack rather than the proper name of the subject. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per one or all of the following: WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. --Daniel Olsen 22:28, 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. Verifiability has been established by the Harvard Crimson and SMS publications and (arguably) by the e-mail. However, Rklawton's point that a joke holiday celebrated by 1000 academics is not notable, has not been disputed by any evidence brought up here. -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Pigs Day[edit]

... and yet another thing made up in school one day. Less than 500 Google hits, many of them mirrors. It may be "real" in a few people's minds, but it's not real notable, and it really doesn't rate an article in an encyclopedia. Rklawton 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - very notable. I've heard this referenced on tv before (Family Guy). --24.31.114.157 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - 34 year tradition, apparent cult following, and noted in 5 (at least) external sources. Seems notable to me. --Daniel Olsen 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- External links are not references. These indicate that quite markedly. The Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics pages, for example, say nothing at all about what a Yellow Pig Math Day is, and provide nothing to substantiate any of the content of this article. The Jargon File entry for "random numbers" doesn't say anything at all about Yellow Pigs, also, but simply gives a link to the one of the same web pages given as external links here. The Everything2 node at least mentions Yellow Pigs. But if you actually read the entire article, down to the bottom, you'll see that it cites the very same web site as the Jargon File links to as one of its two sources for information, the other being the second external link given in this article. In fact, everything here appears to rely upon those two web pages as their sole sources. Uncle G 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on external sources:
1. link: some guy's home page. Not notable.
2. link: some girl's home page. Still not notable.
3. link: Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. Exceedingly local.
4. link: another nobody's web page. Yawn.
5. link: now this is interesting. It explains that the originator is actually not a notable mathematician. Rklawton 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, it shows Spivak to be influential as an educator, though not a research mathematician. His textbooks are in print and have gone through multiple editions. Similarly Kelly is verifiably the founder of a program with hundreds of alumni that is highly regarded among summer math programs. I'll grant that this doesn't have a direct bearing on this debate. Sho Uemura 03:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not consider any of the above links to be reliable sources. Specifically they mainly fall under the category of Self-published sources. I would be happy to change my opinion on this article if other sources can be found, otherwise I am left to think it is just a small group of people who are aware of and participate in such a thing. DrunkenSmurf 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yellow Pigs Day is an inside joke and a geek holiday (and thus would be unlikely to have reliable sources), but it is real, it does have history, and it is reasonably well-known among young mathematicians. In addition, Yellow Pigs Day and HCSSiM are very closely linked (Yellow Pigs Day is a big event at HCSSiM) and although HCSSiM gets only about a thousand Google hits it is nevertheless one of the largest summer math programs for high-schoolers. It may not be a mainstream article, but I feel it to be important enough in its community to warrant being in an encyclopedia. Qqwref 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that User:Qqwref has approximately two (or maybe four) edits to Wikipedia. Rklawton 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If something has no sources, then it is unverifiable and doesn't belong here. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by editors and readers. You've just told us that this article very probably isn't, and have thus made a strong case for its deletion, even though you have put the word "keep" at the start of the paragraph. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, please cite some actual sources. Uncle G 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First: HCSSiM is HARDLY "exceedingly local"; this year, its students ranged from China to California to Atlanta to New York. Second: HCSSiM is a 34-year-old program; let's estimate it to have taken, on average, 40 students a year throughout its existence. (This is a bit low; the program accepts around 40 per year now, but in the past there were closer to 60 per summer.) Then there are at least 1300 alumni of the program who should be familiar with Yellow Pigs Day. Finally, while David Kelly is supposedly a "non-notable mathematician," there is a Wikipedia article on him, and I'd argue that he's notable for creating one of the longest-running math programs for high school students, out of which several notable people emerged. --Fermatprime 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's kinda curious that --User:Fermatprime a self-admitted "hard core inclusionist" doesn't post anything on Wikipedia for six months and then comes back to specifically respond to this AfD. Two of the three "keep" votes appear to be from school kids/meat puppets. Rklawton 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is absolutely no reason to insult others! Are you trying to start a flamewar or what? Qqwref 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree it's important not to trade insults. However, would you mind pointing one out? Each of my points above is accurate and verifiable. Rklawton 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Everything2 node that Rklawton pointed to is actually about Michael Spivak, not Kelly. Uncle G 14:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the fact that it is an inside joke for a math geeks should pretty much spell this article's doom. Wikipedia is not the place to publish inside jokes.Rklawton 16:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page has no less merit than Category:In-jokes, Category:Geek_holidays, and Category:Humorous_observances. It seems that Wikipedia is a place to publish inside jokes, especially ones that are well-known! Since almost none of the pages in those categories are nominated for deletion, and the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy does not seem to support your position, your argument doesn't hold water. Qqwref 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it's well known, then you'll have sources that demonstrate this fact. You don't, so it isn't. Rklawton 17:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I don't edit Wikipedia as much as I should, and when I do, it's normally to correct spelling/grammar, etc. If I read more articles that desperately needed that kind of attention, I'd edit them. But I think it's safe to say that a holiday familiar to well over 1000 people qualifies as well-known, and you yourself have linked to a source demonstrating that it's familiar to that many. Perhaps it would be most agreeable to rename to "Yellow Pig" (which returns 32,000 results on Google, so it passes one test) and add more information about yellow pigs in general. Also, I've been registered for about two years, so don't call me a meat puppet. --Fermatprime 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep
1. As stated within the article, Yellow Pigs Day is an inherent component of Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics.
2. HCSSiM is not local, much less "exceedingly local". Aside from a few staff members, there are virtually no local participants. Participants come from all over the nation (and beyond).
3. Clearly, this is not a "thing made up in school one day". The HCCSiM summer program and the associated Yellow Pigs Day has a long tradition and a long history.
4. If Eric_Lander, of the Human_Genome_Project, thinks it worth attending and presenting at the Yellow Pig Math Days conference, maybe the topic should be kept. [See [82].]
5. If researchers from IBM, Sun Microsystems, and about two dozen major universities think it is worth attending and presenting at the Yellow Pig Math Days conference, maybe the topic should be kept. [See [83].]
6. HCSSiM (and Yellow Pigs Day) has been funded, in part, by the AMS Epsilon Fund. [See Notices of the AMS, November 2003, page 1221.] The "Epsilon" fund was created by the mathematical community to honor Paul Erdös. I hope nobody considers Paul Erdös to be a non-notable mathematician.
7. I do not consider the references to non-notable mathematicians to be particularly civil, and may actually be libelous.
8. As far as verifiability and citations, I refer you to [84]. According to the whois database, the domain is owned by Hampshire College. Therefore, Hampshire College is considered the legal publisher of the Web Site. This site clearly meets the burden of evidence for verifiability, because
  - the information is published by a major university, whose reputation is not in question;
  - the information is published by legitimate professional researchers; and
  - even if this is considered to be a self-published or dubious source, as stated in the rules, the information is an acceptable source because it is relevant to an article about the organization, itself.
9. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It is my understanding that wikipedia pages should not contain commercial solicitations. The chief stone-thrower's personal page offers his services at $400 per day. Perhaps it is the User:Rklawton page that should be deleted. RVerser 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and yet another meat puppet whose only contributions to Wikipedia can be read above. This does little to establish the credibility of the article.
  - Response Yes, this is my first post. I tried not to be repetitive. And nobody who has posted in this discussion solicited my comments. I find the term "meat puppet" to be derogatory and offensive. [If this is the culture of Wikipedia, I am disappointed.] A lifetime of work from two fine mathematicians is labeled as "not notable", and several additional Web pages and Web page authors are similarly labeled as "not notable" and/or "another nobody". [If this is the culture of Wikipedia, I am utterly horrified!] My account was created with my real name, and I'm not trying to hide anything. Please tell me why my numbered comments "do little to establish the credibility of the article"? I attempted to answer every issue that was raised by those asking for deletion of this article. I had never heard of Yellow Pigs Day before six months ago. The encyclopedia article was useful to me, and I was able to verify the existence of both the conference and the day. I also note that this article has existed for nearly 2.5 years, if I interpret the History page correctly. Why does it now come under scrutiny? RVerser 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Article duration isn't a voting matter. Cruft is cruft no matter how long it takes to find. As per another novice supporter: Yellow Pigs Day is an inside joke and a geek holiday (and thus would be unlikely to have reliable sources). Once you become familiar with Wikipedia and its policies, you'll undertand why this disqualifies the article. Of course, we don't expect novice editors to understand what Wikipedia is all about, though many of us are willing to help. It's that very fact, that most of this article's supporters are novices and unfamiliar with polices, that I'm bringing to the closing administrator's attention. Read up on the links I posted on your talk page. Read also WP:V and WP:NOT, and you'll better understand what topics qualify for an article. The short of it is that one department in one college (not a major university as stated above) has a tradition. That's nice for them. It's also not encyclopedic for us. Read up on our policies, though. We can benefit from editors with your enthusiasm. Rklawton 03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again: That web site at http://www.hcssim.org/ contains zero information that supports the content of this article. It has lots of information about a mathematics conference, but nothing at all that bears any similarity to the content of this article. Uncle G 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey Rklawton, why don't you read WP:NPA? You've been commenting on users a lot lately. Stop now or action will be taken. Also, as for a reference, I cite the following personal communication with sarah-marie belcastro, received on 8/21/2006:

"Hi!

I'm writing regarding the discussion on Wikipedia about the possible deletion of the article on Yellow Pigs Day. (I don't have a wiki login, and it would be silly to create one just to contribute factual information to a discussion there.) I am one of the Co-Directors of the Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, and a faculty member in Mathematics at Smith College. I did a little bit of checking into Wiki's definition of "reliable source"; I count as a reliable source because I am speaking within my fields of expertise, and it's easily verifiable that I have this field of expertise (I'm listed on the faculty at Smith, in the Mathematics Genealogy Project, on my graduate advisor's home page, etc.). Anyone who thinks this email has been falsified may contact me for confirmation of its validity.

I'd like to clarify some issues that seem somewhat murky in the discussion. For example, HCSSiM is not local but national in scope and permeates the American professional mathematics community. We are the second-oldest of the five national-level programs for high-ability high-school students. The program has more than 1550 alumns, all of whom have experienced YP Day. We do not explain YP Day on our webpage just as we do not explain the significance of the yellow pig or the number seventeen; nevertheless it is a holiday which we celebrate each year and about which questions are frequently asked. (Our website is primarily there for recruiting purposes and secondarily for alumn use. We're not in the business of educating the public, unlike encyclopedias which have public edification among their primary purposes.) There are mathematicians outside the HCSSiM community who celebrate Yellow Pigs Day. In fact, most of the time when I run into a colleague who is aware of YP Day, he/she assumes that the primary connection is to Mike Spivak rather than to HCSSiM. Spivak, by the way, is considered a notable mathematician by the mathematics community---in fact, I'd heard of him long before I'd heard of HCSSiM.

Now, this information may not convince anyone that the article is worth keeping, but at least there's now a reliable source to cite.

--sarah-marie belcastro." Qqwref 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a newspaper reference that verifies the majority of the article's content. I suggest that those who have expressed opinions on this nomination in regard to sourcing and verifiability reconsider them according to notability criteria. NatusRoma | Talk 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yellow Pigs' Day is verifiably the creation of two notable mathematicians. It is verifiably celebrated, or at least known to, over a thousand HCSSiM alumni (a fair handful of whom are notable by Wikipedia standards) and possibly others. The Harvard Crimson is a reliable published source, and therefore most of the content of this article is verifiable - the details of the HCSSiM celebration of Yellow Pigs' Day can be verified through photos put online by HCSSiM alumni. Sho Uemura 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As already noted by others, YP day is celebrated by more than 1000 people, largely within an international academic community of mathematicians.

For references to YP day and the associated HCSSiM program, see:

The Harvard Crimson, 1982
AMS, 2003
AMS, 1998
AMS epsilon awards
HCSSiM, 2006

--Gruepig 05:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:07, 28 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, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toshika[edit]

This article was poorly written in a non-encyclopedia format. The content is hard to follow and not of any real use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Schiff (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2006

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

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. --Porqin 11:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a vanity page created by someone with a MySpace account and tweaked by a sockpuppet. --Dennette 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete; userfy. — ERcheck (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lopez[edit]

Apears to be a self-created vanity page. Blood red sandman 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn college student. -- Vary | Talk 23:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete pure and obvious vanity with no attempt to even claim notability. WP:SPEEDY#A7 will381796 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and on a sidenote, can we beat up the guy who said "Why haven't you created an article about yourself on Wikipedia yet"? Danny Lilithborne 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Oh...boy, the creator and the article share a name? Vain! TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, or, being kind, userfy to User:Daniellopez. Camillus (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN -- Dennette 23:45, 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 — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:37, 29 August 2006}

Glasgow University Labour Club[edit]

University club, not notable. Astrotrain 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - college clubs are not notable unless there are special considerations that don't apply here. BlueValour 00:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The GU Labour Club has produced many prominent Labour apparatchiks. There are 13 articlespace links to the page, and I could presumably add to that if I could be bothered. Which special considerations ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apart from the fact they have debates and invite politicans to speak (typical activities for a University politics club I would imagine)- what have they done to be notable? Astrotrain 12:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a significant organisation in Scottish politics, and arguably in UK politics as a whole. It has been, and continues to be, a vital training ground for many senior politicians. As such it is an encyclopaedic topic. The article as it stands is bare, but the topic, which is what this AfD discussion is, or should be, about, is notable (certainly more notable than this topic, which I note that the proposer, Astrotrain, has voted to keep.) --Mais oui! 10:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A handful of student associations (eg Oxford Union)) can be notable. This has been the cradle of many Scottish Labour politicians. Catchpole 12:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all politicians who went to university had the university political goup as "a vital training ground". Individual political societies at universities are not inherently notable. Timrollpickering 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's debatable what the threshhold of notability is in relation to student clubs. However we do have Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association. We also had Glasgow University Shinty Club, although it may have been deleted. PatGallacher 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one has been deleted and the other is subject to an AfD. BlueValour 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association was kept. Catchpole 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The club itself is not in anyway notable in relation to the wiki criteria. --manchesterstudent 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not inherently notable. Warofdreams talk 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly fails WP:ORG. I quote: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article". None of the other notability criteria are met. Ohconfucius 06:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that it has just been decided to keep Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association. PatGallacher 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association had a claim to notability as the forerunner of the Scottish Nats - entirely different to this 'vital training ground' business which is simply a chimera. The Club have no notable achievements. BlueValour 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User:Timrollpickering is convincing on political clubs in general. Oxford Union and Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association have good claims to direct notability stemming from their actual activities that GULC lacks - note that I'm not advocating they try duplicating that Stone of Scone trick!
Redirect to Scottish Labour Students. In the spectrum between Oxford Union and Berkeley College Republicans this is by far closer to the latter. Encyclopedic information can be merged into the SLS article. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. GULC is highly influential in the UK political scene. ALthough members generally do not acheive much while in it they have gone on to be extremely influential in UK politics.GiollaUidir 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Timrollpickering and Ohconfucious. Herostratus 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

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

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

Mensa International is a social organization that requires annual dues for membership, which they will neither confirm nor deny. Being a member does not represent a lifetime achievement (unlike List of Eagle Scouts or List of Nobel laureates), but merely a genetic predisposition to score higher than 98% of the population on a certain kind of test.

"Member" is also unqualified ... should former or deceased members be listed as well, such as Ian Meldrum and Isaac Asimov?

Six million people in the US alone are "Mensa qualified", although less than 1% (around 50,000) are currently members ... most "famous" people (like anyone who has won a Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer Prize) are by definition potential members, but for reasons of their own, they have chosen not to pay the annual dues.

Mensa may be "the largest, oldest, and most well-known high IQ society in the world," but there are several others whose requirements are much higher and restrictive (1:1000 as opposed to 1:50), and whose members are more worthy of being considered geniuses.

If anything, this should be a Category with a Tag, rather than just an arbitrary list that will require constant monitoring. The History of the article shows that it is a magnet for trolls and vandals.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennette (talk • contribs)

This AFD was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani ^talk 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Original AFD here (Speedy Keep). Yomangani ^talk 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry for the snafu ... it's my First Time. :-) --Dennette 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge hall of fame info to Mensa International, create Category:Mensa members, and delete (Phew!). Nothing inherently non-notable about Mensa itself, just that this list is opinion (I won't say POV or Uncle G will be after me), likely to not be maintained, and could and should be handled by a category. Yomangani ^talk 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall of Fame is just a copy of a list from the American Mensa Web site (and has nothing to do with the international organization) that's already linked to the bottom of that page ... and none of them were ever members, anyway. --Dennette 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the official hall of fame is pretty awful, though - no list of names, instead I have to guess who the pictures are? And I can't even open the links in tabs, because they're not real links? Not the smartest bit of web design I've ever seen. I would have hoped for something more intelligent from Mensa... ;) — Haeleth Talk 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but as per Yomangani) --MrArt 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a category. Robertissimo 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoa, like, deja vu all over again ... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mensa International members ... looks like someone added "famous" to recreate the list after it was deleted once already! (Should those previous delete votes be included here?) --Dennette 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only apply if the contents of the list were substantially the same. I honestly can't remember what was in the deleted list, but I suspect this is an original creation rather than a repost. However, arguments from that debate may well be relevant here, so it's good to have the link for people to review. Well spotted. — Haeleth Talk 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The titled is too subjective, its basically a list of anyone thats been in Mensa that has a wikipedia article, cant we make it a cat and just put all the members in it? I mean if the person is famous enough to be mentioned then shouldnt they get an article, perhaps the red links if any will inspire people. Even then I am not sure if this is really appropriate for a category, but I will stay out of that discussion if it arrises. SO delete or make a category to slap on certain articles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment nearly every US state has a list of famous people from that state. Should those be gotten rid of as well? -Ravedave 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and saying "other things do not make sense so I should be able to make things that do not make sense" is barely a defense. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Plenty of problems here, like the fact that the hall-of-fame part of the list should actually be under the heading List of famous people Mensa wishes had been members, and the inherently subjective question of how one defines "famous" for the rest of the list.
The existence of citations does make this stand out from most such lists, but the quality of those citations seems to be rather shaky; for example, Stephen Hawking is listed, even though AFAIK he is not a Mensa member, with a "reference" link which leads to something that appears to be an entertainment gossip website (!) that does not make any such claim! WP:RS this ain't.
So, what do we have? A list that, if kept, must be split and/or retitled, and for which the verification process must be exhaustively repeated because the present citations are demonstrably unreliable, and which, after all that, will still be an original-research magnet and vulnerable to vanity entries and spam.
The usual arguments for keeping lists do also apply. The subject is clearly of interest; Mensa is notable, and people reading up on it will naturally want to get an idea of what kinds of people join, and listing members they have heard of is an effective way of answering that question. And this list does things, like geographical categorisation and centralising citations, that a category could not do. As such, while I think this list should not be kept in its current state, please disregard my "delete" recommendation if a genuine effort to resolve the problems I have cited has begun by the time this debate is closed. — Haeleth Talk 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh ... better make that List of famous people American Mensa wishes had been members, since it is neither compiled nor maintained by Mensa International. And keeping this list is a slippery slope that leads to List of people in prison who are members of Mensa (there is a Special Interest Group for them), or others who are "famous" by virtue of their infamy. --Dennette 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no objective definition of "famous", and the list is potentially vast. I'd not even categorise it, unless there are actually a significant number of people who are notably connected with Mensa. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG --Guinnog 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is only a subjective definition of "famous". There are probably many more Mensa members who are famous, accompanied with the number of people who are qualified for Mensa but have not joined Mensa International. Also, with the number of people who daily make articles on Wikipedia on non-notable people (which basically contributes to half of Afd), there is bound to be edit wars in the future on who should be on the list and who shouldn't. --Nishkid64 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/"Vote" Since the topic itself is too subjective to stand on its own legs as a seperate article, an admin should delete the article, but perhaps a bit of this should be readded. It appears that the primary contributors to this were in the Mensa article itself, and that the information was removed and placed in its own article. Therefore, I propose a bit of a quasimerge which places this list back into the article under "trivia" (albeit a bit abridged). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~abstain~~delete - for now - this is borderline to me and I don't have strong feelings either way - I do think that it would be better as a category - "Mensa member" than a manually sorted/maintained list --Trödel 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised my view based on discussion below --Trödel 06:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that Categories were sorted automagically ... and this way, mention of Mensa membership in someone's article (referenced or not, like Ian Meldrum and Isaac Asimov) can be found with a simple search, and the tag added. That also puts the burden of any dispute on the article in question and its Discussion, not the list article. Notability (they're already in Wikipedia) and current membership status (which cannot be verified anyway) then become non-issues. --Dennette 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For all of the reasons you mention a category would be much better. --Trödel 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If List_of_people_with_epilepsy can be a featured list than this list should stay. They are the exact same type of thing. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference is (a) there is a Category:People with epilepsy, (b) each and every person's article has "epilepsy" one or more times in the text (besides the tag), and (c) most of them have a good citation. The articles for most of the people on this list (e.g., Adrian Cronauer, Joyce Carol Oates, Karen A. Page, Alan Rachins, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr., James Woods) have 'no' mention of their membership, and/or very weak citations (like a questionable Encarta page). Making a Category:Members of Mensa would make them "the exact same type of thing". A simple bot could then traverse "What links here" for Mensa International, add the tags, and create the initial list, which would be much more complete and authoritative than the current one. (OTOH, someone would have to manually remove fictional entries like Lisa Simpson :-) --Dennette 05:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is the Mensa list inherently different than List of Skull and Bones Members (where membership is dues paying and secretive, and does not reflect a life achievement), List of famous tall women (no dues, hard to keep secret, but is no more selective than Mensa), and other such lists? Carlossuarez46 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone on List of Skull and Bones Members is also in the published list of members through 1971, so they are all verified. Someone's height can be easily verified from public records (e.g., Driver's license). What makes having been a member of a social club for only one year notable if they're already famous? --Dennette 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query This list was already deleted last November after a single day's discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mensa International members) and it was then recreated under a slightly different name ... what's the holdup? It will only be useful and maintainable if it is a Category. --Dennette 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice! This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice! Per displaced brit. Extreme Prejudice... I like that. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:24, 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Manchester-Boston Regional Massacre[edit]

Non-notable media baseball Game. Both speedy and prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A baseball game between people that cover actual baseball teams. Not notable. DrunkenSmurf 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Very Poor example of OR (no date, no location) ... zero links ... LOSE IT! --Dennette 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. What was said above, plus dreadful title. Speedy fine by me. -- Infrogmation 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, utterly fails WP:V, likely WP:VANITY. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:12, 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 as non-notable vanity advertising. Particularly like the copyright notice placed at the end of the article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imransiddiqui[edit]

Vanity/advertising page Wildthing61476 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The title says something else while the article is about FM 107 pakistan. Just advertising. --Ageo020 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This thing gives vanity articles a Bad Name. --Dennette 02:55, 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.