Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of Christmas[edit]

  • This is religious propaganda. Conspiracy theories. --Ravingatheist 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:14Z
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:25Z
and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos talk 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why is an article on Christian beliefs not deserving a place on Wikipedia. Last I heard Wikipedia was not censored. No grounds given for deletion of a referenced article. Note related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday--Arktos talk 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge to secularization of Christian holidays along with Spring Holiday. What part of this article do you consider to be religious propaganda, and if so why not correct the article? —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:27Z
  • Keep. They're conspiracy theories, but they're notable conspiracy theories. The article needs significant revision, of course, as "Censorship" is a different topic and this article has far too little detail on the actual process of secularization. Powers T 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Powers. It was the religion-related cause celebre last winter and received signifcant media coverage. SliceNYC 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination amounts to a claim that the article does not have a NPOV. The article does have a NPOV tag on it at present. If we look at Talk:Secularization of Christmas#Highly Questionable NPOV, Talk:Secularization of Christmas#POV, the former is more properly a citation/reference issue and the latter is to my eyes a legitimate decision based on the time horizon. Even if there were current major POV issues, having a POV issue is not a reason for deletion unless the article is irredeemably biased, which this is not. There are plenty of sources out there folks, just very little attention is paid outside the holiday season. I see no other eason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This is an important cultural topic. Rohirok 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is non neutral, but I did hear of the term in American and British media last X'mas --Ageo020 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per GRBerry. Zelse81 09:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's actually an issue in society. It's not a POV article, but rather a reality. It's not saying that the trend is good or bad, but rather that it's happened. This page records an actual cultural event - just like the Women's liberation movement, or any other shifts in views. - Themepark
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Holiday[edit]

This article is based on Christian beliefs and deserves no place at Wikipedia. Easter is a secular holiday anyway. --Ravingatheist 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas (2). —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:28Z
and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos talk 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why is an article on Christian beliefs not deserving a place on Wikipedia. Last I heard Wikipedia was not censored. No grounds given for deletion of a referenced article.--Arktos talk 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge to Secularization of Christian holidays. Important topic. You can argue whether Easter is a secular holiday or not in the article and also in Easter. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:23Z
  • Reluctant keep. I still think the article needs serious revision, but I will admit that having some article on this topic is good. I think it goes into far too much detail on the supposed controversy, but a brief article discussing what "Spring Holiday" often means in this context is useful. Powers T 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. I am unnerved by the fact that the nominator, named Ravingatheist no less, objects to the article on the grounds that "this article is based on Christian beliefs." Wikipedia is not censored, and, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is not the Bill of Rights, separating church and state. Religious articles are perfectly fine as long as they stand up to the pillars. SliceNYC 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a legitmate reason to delete. --Edgelord 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination amounts to a claim that the article lacks a NPOV. However, the article lacks such a tag and there has been no discussion about the issue recently. There was on June 30 a claim that the title was inherently lacing in a NPOV, but not one that convices me, given that the title is the proper noun for what the article is about. Currently lacking a NPOV would not be a reason for deletion, only irredeemable bias would be, and that is not an issue with this article. GRBerry 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hope we don't start calling it the Spring Bunny - but an encyclopedia isn't here to make judgement calls! - Themepark
  • Keep - as Powers says above the extensive material on the naming controversy may belong elsewhere, but we still need an article. -- Beardo 23:39, 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 keep. - Bobet 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgamates[edit]

College a cappella group which does not meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Already mentioned in Tufts University. Claim to notability in article is a vague claim about touring nationally. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the article sounds notable, talk of recording albums and being featured in compilations. mathewguiver 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for a large bunch of Google hits, nine albums and many mentions in college publications from across the country. It's borderline, but they seem to be pretty active and well-known in that booming musical sector inhabited by the college a capella crowd... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs expansion. Meets WP:MUSIC via placing at least one song from their last five albums on Best Of College A Cappella compilations ("won or placed in a major competition"). Having said that, article does not properly assert notability (which I am working on now). ~Marblespire 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Alfio Bonanno

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape holiday items[edit]

I believe that this Wiki is probably one of the most fancrufty in the RuneScape series. I nominate a Delete per WP:NOT, as this is not an in-game guide for RuneScape. Who wants to learn about what items were dropped in a game so many eons ago when the information can be found on the main site? This kind of information doesn't belong here.Makoto 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeh, delete. Irredeemably crufty in my opinion. That tip.it article might fit onto the community page though. Hyenaste (tell) 00:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Hyenaste. Quick overview of this in RuneScape economy should suffice, and i'm sick of the vandalism, nonsense, OR and speculation in this worthless article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is likely to only interest the people who play it. It's more of a list and is rather uncyclopedic.--Andeh 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's obvious that quite a bit of effort went into this, including animated GIFs! But this level of detail about a game is simply not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment But I thought the proper definition of an encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge according to this artice. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, if any of the contents are very very special and important then they can be placed in the main article. --WinHunter (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic gamecruft and speculation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT the RuneScape FAQ. --Kinu t/c 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andeh. —Khoikhoi 08:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Only joking! Delete per nom and per the massive fancruft warning on the article's talk page. This would be a fine article for a fan wiki but not an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I didn't mean any implication to the contrary. Let me rephrase "and also because it breaches the fancruft warning" :) It's a nice article though so I hope it's get sent to another wiki. --kingboyk 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would be fine on a personal/gaming wiki, but it's just not right for Wikipedia. --Wafulz 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hopefully we won't get an invasion from the RS Army :P.--Andeh 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, the nominator is in that army, and so are CaptainVindaloo and I, the first two supporters. Hyenaste (tell) 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. fuzzy510 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after making sure the most important points are covered in the article on RuneScape economy. The rest can be transwikified to the appropriate WikiBook. Anton Mravcek 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What "important points"? Placing information about these items would be deemed fancruft, and they'd be removed. Makoto 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, the article is not right for wikipedia mathewguiver 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rinse, and repeat Not on Wikipedia.--Planetary 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all other "delete" votes--Edtalk c E 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I've put it at Wikia:RuneScape:Discontinued items and holiday drops/Wikipedia, so the transwiki is complete for those that suggested it. Hyenaste (tell) 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. We don't really need it here. It would do much better on the RuneScape Wiki, and some of it, such as the external links, could be added to RS economy and community. Dtm142 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft and per WP:NOT in my backyard. I would have added 'merge' to that but I'm no longer convinced that throwing articles at the RS wiki is helping anyone. The information here can be obtained on fan sites no trouble, and its presence acts as a fancruft magnet. QuagmireDog 01:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already merged by Hyenaste, and looking good, disregard above comment RE merging. QuagmireDog 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Take it to Wikibooks or some similar Wikia site, but not here. RFerreira 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You say that as if it hasn't already been done. Are you even reading the comments before yours? For shame, for shame. Hyenaste (tell) 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering how many people here who are going Wikipedia is not a game guide actually read the article.....there's acutally a decent amount of background information on the topic, for being a bizarre topic. I'd suggest merging what's notable and then deleting it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Mailer Diablo. - Bobet 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Performance Events[edit]

This is a dog of an article. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. BlueValour 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; few ghits and amateur official site is further evidence of its inappropriateness for inclusion. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the google test outputs 2k hits but the vast majority are sites which use the term as a description of some type of events and are not reffering to the organization in question. There are also quite a few hits which are related to wikipedia and their mirrors. Therefore I believe that the article is nothing more than spam on an obscure organization which struggles to have merit on its own. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:51, 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 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Flexible Learning Framework[edit]

Seems like nothing but an advert to me. No useful information, just ad jargon. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would use the term "government propaganda" rather than "advertisement". A lot of money is being spent on this project, but I can't find much in the way of independent coverage. I would like to keep the article as an answer to the question of what Australia's governments are doing to promote e-learning. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Educational program. Capitalistroadster 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs work--Prof.Thamm 08:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs some work mathewguiver 20:01, 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 08:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Emrys Smith[edit]

Unsourced vanity page. Was deleted by me as CSD A7, but after some more looking at it, I think the only thing making this article delete-worthy is a utter lack of sources. Please don't tag this as a repost. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some external links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't look more notable than an average academic, going by WP:PROF. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is lousy, but the Sunday Times ran this on 12/12/2004: "Swansea Institute senior lecturer and economics guru Dr Charles Smith is to lead an economics seminar in partnership with the Economics Editor of the Sunday Times. The training event will take place in Wakefield on February 23. Dr Smith has been asked to lead the seminar with Dr David Smith of the Sunday Times. "It is an honour and something which I am looking forward to," said Charles." If the Sunday Times thinks he is notable, I'm not going to argue with them. Uucp 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Given that the other leader will be an editor of the paper running the blurb, I read that more as advertising/boosterism by an involved party not as an evaluation by an independent source. GRBerry 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuli[edit]

I nominate this article for deletion. It was created about a year ago, however the name only gets 150 google hits [1], neither does "shuli": [2]. By all accounts he is a funny guy, but not notable in any way. juicifer 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have you considered using newsgroups such as Usenet. Using google should not be the only criteria used in analysis. You should consider the limitations of search engines here according to this section. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (completed incomplete nomination) NawlinWiki 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep despite the low Ghit count, seems to be notable per Howard Stern appearances, but I'm not an expert on Howardania. NawlinWiki 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm with Nawlin. Depspite the low Google presence (I went with "Shuli"+"Howard Stern", which got 646 total and about 160 unique G-hits), I think he's sufficiently notable based on years of past (and present) appearances on Stern's show. -- Kicking222 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any regular listener of The Howard Stern Show knows who this guy is as he has a news segment that plays every single day. Even with Stern's smaller Sirius Satellite Radio audience, the numbers of regular listeners are still in the low millions. If millions of people know the guy - that's notable enough for me. CindyLooWho 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see above--Prof.Thamm 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Howard Stern Show and Delete. The article's subject doesn't hold much merit to deserve a separate encyclopedia article. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if he is on the howard stern show every day then I think hes notable enough for an article, and the google test is not the only indicator of notability... mathewguiver 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --Philo 10:34, 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 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Robertson (Canadian politician)[edit]

OK, so he was elected in Etobicoke, a minor suburban GTA district. Atrian 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. fails WP:BIO in the literal sense, but has more notability than the average afd bio. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO for being merely an candidate as the highest archevement. If new (previously unknown) information about this person surfaces then I will be happy to reconsider. --WinHunter (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has already been a city councillor in Etobicoke (a former municipality which was merged into the new city of Toronto) and chair of the Etobicoke Board of Health. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Wiki consensus says elected (or formerly elected) city councillors in major cities such as Toronto are notable. He also would have received a significant amount of press coverage in his lifetime. He would therefore also pass WP:BIO under "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". CindyLooWho 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Was elected in Etobicoke pre-merger not Toronto. I've heard of him only cause I saw one of his signs near William Osler Health Centre, not because of press coverage -- Samir धर्म 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that his 13 years as Councillor ended a few years before the official merger doesn't mean anything to me. The six merged municipalities were all unofficially considered by GTA residents to be part of Toronto for decades before the actual merger. The spirit of the Wiki consensus is that "big city municipal councillors pass the WP:BIO test". He was a big city councillor - just as North York, Scarborough, (etc...) city councillors were. CindyLooWho 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What "wiki-consensus" are you talking about? If you mean WP:BIO, it says: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. are to be included. Not municipal councillors. If you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, no consensus was ever reached -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CindyLooWho is correct that actual AFD precedent has traditionally permitted city councillors of major metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, New York City, Chicago or San Francisco, while generally going against councillors in smaller cities. Precedent, of course, isn't the same thing as policy, so this isn't necessarily binding in all circumstances — and in this case, because pre-merger Etobicoke is in a bit of a grey area as effectively both a smaller city and Toronto at the same time, either precedent could be invoked with equal validity. That said, I'm personally more inclined to keep on the metropolitan precedent. Bearcat 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pandering for votes for the upcoming election! All it needs is the "I'm Dave Robertson and I've approved this message" tag at the bottom. Nice guy, but a ward councillor for Etobicoke is *not* notable. Yet. -- Samir धर्म 10:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Electioneering. Where's your objectivity gone???? The subject is no more than a politician of a minor conurbation, however you look at it. It's a major stretch to suggest that Etobicoke city council has the same status as Toronto municipal council, even though it is now merged into Toronto, a decade on. That was then and this is now. He may have generated press coverage, but its significance needs to be proven. Without press coverage, all politicians are dead. "Significant" per WP:BIO means "well above the average for a person in his position". Ohconfucius 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage by third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, unverifiable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although all opinions expressed here should be considered, I think it should be pointed out that there are 5 users here who can be identified as being from Canada and who would likely have a much, much greater understanding of what 'Etobicoke' really is, it's population size, the number of people that an Etobicoke city councillor would represent (the real deciding factor in my mind), and the city's pre and post-merger relationship to and within Toronto. Of those 5 users, the opinions expressed are currently 3 keeps and 2 deletes (one of those deletes being the nominator). BTW, I don't know the exact number of people that a former Etobicoke councillor would represent, but it would be in the tens of thousands - not anything like 1,000 which would be a 'small city' BIO-unworthy councillor in my opinion. CindyLooWho 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Wikipedia is a global creation. All articles should meet this standard and not be judged on some colloquial local standard. Suttungr 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To give a better idea, Etobicoke would have had over 320,000 citizens at the end of Robertson's era. If there were, say, 6 councillors (the same amount they have on the current Toronto city council), that would mean he was representing 53,333+ people. If there were 8 councillors, that would equal 40,000+ constituents. I doubt the old city of Etobicoke would have had more councillors than that (if anyone has the actual number let me know). Combined with the city's officially-unofficial position within Toronto, those are big city level representation numbers that I think qualify for keep under AFD precedent. CindyLooWho 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is possible that there may be a partisan interest in the Canadian votes ;-). I don't think the save/delete debate should hinge purely on the numbers of people represented, as this ignores the electoral system in place, and also the qualitative element of the importance of minor conurbation vs a major city. Right now he is a minor figure, but it would be a lot more difficult to deny the subject a page should he win his contested seat. Ohconfucius 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nah, there's no partisanship in Canadian municipal politics... out of curiosity, does anyone know who the Toronto municipal councillor was who made it through Vfd? -- Samir धर्म 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Samir is right in that, on the municipal level, Canadian politicians do not run under a party banner. However, many politicians do have a known history supporting one or another federal/provincial party as does this one (a fact that I only know from reading his Wiki page). I'd just like to point out that I live in Toronto but not in Etobicoke, I do not know Robertson personally and I am neither a supporter or a non-supporter of the party that he supports outside of the municipal level. I am voting for keep here based on unbiased grounds so if there is a "partisan interest in the Canadian votes" its not coming from me. Also, I never said that 'number of people represented' was the only factor. It is a deciding factor for me because, as someone who lives here, I already know that the former city of Etobicoke was (for an intents and purposes) the city of Toronto (so he already meets the 'big city' criteria in my mind). Pre-merger, 70% of all city services (police, ambulance, transit, etc) in Etobicoke were provided through Toronto. Suttungr, my judgement is not based on some "colloquial local standard". Having City of Toronto police and ambulances on your streets and TTC busses on your streets (along with a TTC subway line below them) means you live in Toronto. Etobicoke was far more Toronto than it was Etobicoke and an Etobicoke city councillor would, in a way, be just as much a Toronto city councillor as they would have a degree of power over those "Toronto"-wide services. CindyLooWho 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to your reference to voters you identified as Canadian - these being somehow worth more than non-Canadian votes. Wikipedia votes are co-equal, by my count it's 8-3 in favour of deletion (Strong keep, doesn't count as double). That being said, none of your points has anything to do with David Robertson. Let the article stand (or fall) on his merits, not on the relative importance of Etobicoke. Suttungr 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I didn't count 'strong keep' as double. 2. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not necessarily win. If 5 people say delete and back it up with poor or no reasoning and 1 person says keep and backs it up with very solid reasoning, keep can "pass". Regardless, as AFD precedent has already said that 'big city' councillors "pass" and should not be deleted, that is what I am basing my case on. I believe non-Canadians are very unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of Etobicoke/Toronto to know that Etobicoke is and was part of Toronto (a big city) and therefore, as a past concillor, the Robertson page passes under AFD precedent without needing to provide any more citation of notability regarding Robertson as an individual. Also keep in mind that AfD etiquette suggests Wikipedians should "consider not participating in a AfD discussion if a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Although the issue might look clear cut to non-Canadians, I have pointed out that the people who presumably have stronger knowledge of the specific subject matter (not just general AfD policy as everyone here has) generally find this page to be in a very grey area re: deletion policy and currently are slightly supporting 'keep' over 'delete'. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. CindyLooWho 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Ohconfucius, remove article now, restore when he becomes a (current) Toronto councillor, if ever. Suttungr 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he's on Council, then reconsider a new article. Far as I'm concerned, candidates for any position who aren't already in one should not have articles, unless they have another reason for notability. Even after election, I have issues with anyone but the mayors of major metropolitan areas having articles, but that's just me. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 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 speedy delete CSD G1. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erfyl[edit]

Total hoax; no visible relevant ghits, no images can be found. A real animal would have both. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense, so tagged... I hate hoaxes. My guess is that this is an attack on some friend of the nominator's, named Erfyl. NawlinWiki 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by nominator, do you mean me? (|-- UlTiMuS 01:15, 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 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Vaughan[edit]

NZ newscaster allegedly dogged by paedophilia scandals. Tagged as db-attack, but I thought it'd be reasonable to bring it here for a consensus, since it lists "references". Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Under condition of a complete rewrite. In this state it reeks with POV, even if it does have a few references. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be still working in New Zealand, and I'm not seeing anything on this on the internet.--Limegreen 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten without unsubstantiated allegations. He is notable enough to warrant an article. The New Zealand Herald reported on 14 February 2004 "Television New Zealand has reached an out of court settlement with its former senior journalist Rod Vaughan. Vaughan, made redundant last September after the axing of current affairs programme Assignment, said he took a personal grievance case against TVNZ which remained unresolved after mediation.

This week the state broadcaster offered him the settlement, which he accepted." Capitalistroadster 04:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as attack page.-gadfium 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (will rescind if content can be verified; even then it needs to rewritten from a more balanced perspective). Heimstern Läufer 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, attack page, can be recreated if reliable sources are put in and written in a neutral tone. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:26, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Systems[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through this combined AfD, determining the closure was improper. Please review the DRV before commenting here. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising for just another a non-notable software company. --Xrblsnggt 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This company has in excess of 2,300 software professionals (large for a software company), offices in India, USA, Europe and Japan and significant inward investment. It is providing technology for blue-chip companies such as Google. Plainly notable. I have copy-edited the crap out of the article and added some references. BlueValour 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was the nominator for this article in its previous AFD. At that time, the article did read like an ad, but now it just states the fact and also gives it some notability by being cited in Deloitte's report and also for developing software for Google --Ageo020 04:03, 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 no major consensus = keep — FireFox (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2006

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium[edit]

First Deletion Reason -- delete and merge into 9/11 Truth Movement, meetings subsection[3]. This gathering is not notable enough by itself to have a separate page. There's a place for it at the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium here[4]. I also question that we need 12 Alex Jones forks on Wikipedia, of which this is one. See 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. Morton devonshire 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Very notable, given it's breadth of media coverage. Washington Post, Reuters, and a bunch of international media not enough? Also please note this user has been on AfD Spree, based on his personal beliefs (sorry Mort). As for other smaller ones, if on their own they're not notable enough, merge them in. This one has legs based on all the international coverage and interest. rootology (T) 01:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep: Per above, previous AfD rationale. Ombudsman 01:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Rootology; large amount of media coverage from notable sources.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and merge into 9/11 Truth movement or reynolds wrap or someplace that is a larger overview. Not notable as a separate article. This is a conference of the "truthers". Cover it there. --Tbeatty 03:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of all the media coverage? rootology (T) 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the event wasn't notable as a part of 9/11 Truth Movement. It just doesn't need it's own article. A one or two paragraph blurb in anohter article that is covering the same stuff is sufficient. This is a form of '9/11 Truth Movement' spam. It will be cruft once everything dies down. Let's merge it now before it we have all these dead cruft forks. Let's put it this way: GWB takes a vacation every year. He makes speeches all across the country. They ALL receive considerable media attention (more than this conference) but they are included in Wikipedia in the many broader articles that cover the administration and Bush. We don't have articles that are "May 9 Bush Speech to Veterans in Kansas". It's too arbitrary a collection. Consolidate this into the broad overview of "9/11 Truth Movemment" and be done with it. --Tbeatty 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this into 9/11 Truth Movement...we don't have an article on every conference held worldwide...what makes this one so special? Nothing.--MONGO 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tbeatty. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very notable indeed. This article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter, independently from the POV within the article. Note that this campaign is being done in the name of NPOV, while clearly attacking only a specific POV is POV in itself. PizzaMargherita 05:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PizzaMargherita and others. —Khoikhoi 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Turnkey event in 9/11 Truth movement attracting unprecedented media coverage and attendance over one the most politically contentious issues in the world. SkeenaR 08:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Important! --Prof.Thamm 08:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not sufficiently notable for an independent article given the massive over-representation of Alex Jones articles. I question whether PizzaMargherita's comment helps the keep cause as topics that are anti-X are inherently POV. MLA 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are confusing a POV subject matter (which is perfectly acceptable in WP) with a POV presentation of the subject matter. Some serial AfD proponents (as well as yourself, it would seem) do not understand that the former does not imply the latter, and that their fixating on nominating only articles that focus on a specific subject matter is instead POV. I hope this clears things up. PizzaMargherita 11:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is also looking for balance. 1 article on the round earth theory vs. 15 on the flat earth theory, regardless of how NPOV the 15 are presented violates Wikipedia policy. Proposing a merge or delete of the 15 articles down to one is to be commended and strived for.--Tbeatty 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are confusing science with politics. On the same grounds, you could candidate for AfD the articles about the various religions and have all God-theories in one "Religion" article. (Besides, personally, so far I have seen more science in the so-called "conspiracy theories" than in the official report about 9/11.) PizzaMargherita 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I am not. It should be about science and yet some are striving to increase their political voice by spamming the encyclopedia with dozens of articles that are not independant scientifically, politically or religiously.
  • strong keep is this not vandalism? --Striver 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise an interesting point. PizzaMargherita 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is the vandal? Where is the vandalism? --Tbeatty 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... the nom has vandalized 9/11 conspiracy related articles before [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's merge them into one article and save him some time.--Tbeatty 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, making twelve pages on Alex Jones is not vandalism. Just excessive enthusiasm. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rootology, PizzaMargherita. CindyLooWho 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New account.--Tbeatty 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Provide evidence, else AGF. PizzaMargherita 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Provide evidence that they are a new account? They have less than 50 edits and established 5 days ago. Pointing out they are a new account is not a negative thing. This is not a vote and new accounts may be discounted when determing consensus. --Tbeatty 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please point me to where it says that new accounts' [opinions] may be discounted? I must have missed it, thanks. [moving the rest of this thread to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CindyLooWho]. PizzaMargherita 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not surprised you missed it. Here's the template that is often applied. {{subst:Newvoter}} --Tbeatty 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tbeatty. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep theories on 9/11 are very interesting, this article is extremely informative! --Frogsprog 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Tbeatty ♥ FaerieInGrey 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There really isn't that much information in the article when you cut out the massive quotes section, which strike me as excessive and an attempt to convince, rather than inform. Sxeptomaniac 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not remotely signifigant. Rmt2m 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Sxeptomaniac Ergative rlt 02:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tbeatty, but Keep this article. Derex 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice personal attack. --Tbeatty 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those long quotes are unencyclopedic, as per Sxeptomaniac, and should be deleted or moved to Robert M. Bowman and William Rodriguez (or to Wikiquote?). The remaining content will make an unremarkable single paragraph and should be merged as per Tbeatty. CWC(talk) 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom and Tbeatty. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per rootology on this one. Well-covered crank gatherings are worth including. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adds little to wikipedia. Kim FOR sure 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Media coverage seems sufficient. Gamaliel 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sam 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a meeting that happened, even if the things said in the meeting were factually erronous.
  • Delete not notable, possibly merge into "truth" movement article--Peephole 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. notable and a key event in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The info on here cannot possibly fit onto the truth movement page. bov 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. If this gets an entry, then my birthday party gets one too. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Delete per TBeatty --Mmx1 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-this info needs to be on Wikipedia somewhere, but probably doesn't justify having its own article. Jaganath 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. It is clear that the nominator is a single-purpose account or sockpuppet, and the item in question appears to be notable. If an admin believes this should go forward, feel free to reopen it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cleo[edit]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. DeleteLittleCleo 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't fish and have no idea if the Little Cleo is noteworthy or not, but I sure don't like the idea of single-purpose-user accounts for deletions such as the nominator here. If you think something should be deleted, nominate it under your primary account name. NawlinWiki 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Notable product, widely available for over a quarter of a century, and named by Field and Stream as one of the 50 Greatest Lures of All Time. Reason this is a speedy keep instead of a regular keep is that this seems to be nominated by a sock (see nominator's user name). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per starblind. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Looks like notable product, nom looks like bad faith. Fan-1967 02:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I am not sure about the notability of the product but the very act of creating a new account to nominate an article for deletion makes me question the faith of nom. --WinHunter (talk) 02:49, 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.--Andeh 02:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonship[edit]

Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. The band hasn't been featured in any reputable media, won any awards, released any albums on a major label, or gone on an international concert tour. No allmusic profile [6] and not a lot of relevant Google results [7]. Also nominating the following related articles:

--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all, main article tagged (and rest are just "see alsos" redirecting back to the main article), no assertion of notability. (Releasing a four-song demo and playing at local venues are not assertions of notability.) NawlinWiki 02:00, 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 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear blankets[edit]

Smells like a hoax? Get real it is an attempt at humor, I guess the author may not realize this is suppose to be a place for serious essays. Anyway it was funny. 9:19 PM EST

  • This was written by the article's author and sole contributor, FYI. Wavy G 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smells distinctly of hoax material, alleged "Copertawrapaphobia" gets zero ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Fear of blankets" apparently did come up in a recent Monk episode, but I can't find more than a handful of other references elsewhere, and there are no sources other than the Monk episode. Not notable. Mike Christie (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did anybody take time to read the article? It's a complete joke. Take this, for example: ...we fully anticipate the word to be added to the lexicon (I using big words like lexicon)... No need to even discuss it here. Very funny, though. Wavy G 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment yeah read top to bottom before nom. The thing is, though, that the tone is so inconsistent, going from medical jargon to an opinion essay to whatever else, that I couldn't just decide what it was. But that's what afd is for, right? (|-- UlTiMuS 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess make my vote a Delete, then. (Am I allowed to vote? Because I'm voting) Maybe, in the future, something like List of fictional phobias on Monk might be necessary. Wavy G 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is an attempt at humor rather than an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 14:44, 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 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monolith (Novel), and Terra War[edit]

Article is about a non-published novel. I am also nominating the author's other works in this AfD as well. The Author currently has a speedy tag on his article as he is an UNPUBLISHED author. Wildthing61476 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please do not delete this book. I would post more, but RC Duggan has advised me against it due to copyrigt issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commanderaminius (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Added Terra War to this AfD. Wildthing61476 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment added the links to the header for you LinaMishima 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not published, not reviewed, non-notable. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are not review because they are not published. They will be published probably within the next year.--Commanderaminius 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which is EXACTLY why they need to be deleted. Once they are published, reviewed and have notability, THEN reproduce the articles. Wildthing61476 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly; if that's the case, then it should be deleted as crystal-balling. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Publish first, get notice second, Wikipedia article last. (Did I miss something, or is there no mention here of a publisher, which is usually kind of needed?) Fan-1967 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia isn't here to haruscupate on future success or be a springboard for fame. Get the fame, then come back. 'Til then, Delete —ExplorerCDT 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious reasons above.EgyptianSushi 09:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --WinHunter (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Fan-1967, among others. ♥ FaerieInGrey 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment: The Gate is the name of a notable novel by Natsume Soseki. I'm changing the stub for The Gate over to reflect this and the pending delete above. Dekimasu 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed The Gate from this AfD and will remove the tag now. Thanks for the change Dekimasu! Wildthing61476 12:06, 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. 1ne 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arte Mecco[edit]

At best, the non-notable style of a single artist. At worst a hoax. Rmhermen 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity/hoax article which is a pet project of some user. Google test outputs 237 hits, being the top result the wikipedia article itself and the following a stream of wiki articles. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NFT. "Art Mecco" scores zeeero relevant Ghits (outside wiki). Fewer than 25 relavent Ghits out of 581 for "Hugeaux", and the Ghits almost exclusively linked to that style. The Artist's style borrows heavily from Art Deco and Gustav Klimt, and has clearly also borrowed the "Art deco" moniker in order to create a new identity/category for his art. The artist appears to have the endorsement of the 'National Conference of Artists of New York' (3 relevantsites linking to) and the Art Deco society of Washington (about 10 relevant external sites linking to). The NCA is headed by Margaret T. Burrows, who appears notable enough her bio here. On the surface, the wiki article also seems to be a copyvio of this page, but its main author is infact User:Hugeaux, and who has no edits other than this article, so it also falls foul of WP:AUTO, and WP:V. I would conclude that neither the artist nor the style are notable. Ohconfucius 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS If someone know how to and cares, a proposal for deletion of wiktionary item of the same spelling would appear in order. Created by the same author. It has already been tagged "rfv'"Ohconfucius

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arte Mecco. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

  • Undelete. This is a nomination for undeletion. This article is not a hoax or an attempt to self promote. Thank you to all the editors who have help this article to look and appear better. Please continue your efforts. Arte Mecco is in its adolescent stage as with other genres of art throughout history (Art Deco, Cubism, Avant-Garde, etc.). It is recognized by several art associations and artists. Never in the history of art has an artist fully documented a concept which uses natural pigments and theories. This is the reason many viewers see the article on Arte Mecco as a cognitive method for explaining an art genre during their time and their research. A special thanks to the editor(s) who has change the name: History of Arte Mecco to Arte Mecco to make for better Wikipedia research. You are true troopers.Hugeaux 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not here as the promotional tool for an unnoteworthy 'artist'. Nunquam Dormio 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete include is an paster statement and earlier editor assisted in support of the article. It is as follow:Please remove the tags from the article. Thank you Khatru2 for directing me towards, Wikipedia:Autobiography for assistance. I hope that this statement within its confines shall validate the article, because as a reference it pretains to my purpose:

One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. As the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiograph64.12.116.66 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Hugeaux 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote only once. Thank you. Khatru2 23:40, 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 - although we might be able to use an article on virtual airlines in general. Do we have one? DS 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Virtual Airlines[edit]

nn webforum, alexa ranking of 4,490,720. And apparently they can't agree on what the name of the forum is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no WP:RS indicating this site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - only if other virtual airlines articles are to be kept.--Tomtom9041 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - because I saw the website and is a organization that records Eastern Airlines

timetables, route maps, anual reports and newspaper ads. I think that is a good website to learn about a great airline that is no longer flying. 19:03, August 27 2006 (EST)

    • Comment: WP:ILIKEIT rarely if ever works. Wikipedia is not a web directory for every website that might be considered "useful" by someone. Please explain how this site meets WP:WEB and I might be willing to reconsider my recommendation to delete. --Kinu t/c 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established, with the forum as only source for the article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, authors request Allow repost later if verifiability resolved. Shell babelfish 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rho Epsilon Zeta[edit]

15 ghits, therefore non-notable. Quote: although there is no proof that it exists, therefore unverifiable as well; delete (|-- UlTiMuS 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Verifiability is difficult--am still working on that. Feel free to delete for now... I can re-add it once I find a reliable source. nafisto 02:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Shell Kinney under CSD G7. BryanG(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamo's law[edit]

Violates WP:NOR (to which page author agrees) as well as WP:HOAX (the math is simply not right). Irongargoyle 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 16x18=288. Fan-1967 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now, call me a math major, but this is the stupidest damn thing I've ever seen. First of all, even if it wasn't made up, one should surely realize that this "law" being only for two-digit numbers makes no sense, as multiplying xxx3 by xxx4 will always result in xxxx2, no matter how many other digits are involved. In addition, this nonexistent law doesn't work for 6, as the terrible article states- 2x6=12, 4x6=24, 6x6=36, 8x6=48. I'm getting really worked up over this, but only because it's so idiotic. -- Kicking222 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, ok, i made a mistake, please delete it!

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia Liberation Movement / Army (SLM/A)[edit]

nn website, nn organization, copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 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 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of Geri[edit]

Nonexistant album with a "rumored" track listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT as crystal balling, unless a source is given. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above --Mecanismo | Talk 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, four of the rumored tracks don't even have titles. NawlinWiki 13:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked it up and couldn't find any reliable source. Zephyr2k 14:08, 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 delete. Mangojuicetalk 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United-SF[edit]

As per talk page, not verified, nor notable, and vanity article AndrewRT - Talk 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - United-SF was written in order to inform the public and to give an example of a groups and parties that are trying to organize. United-SF is a party I know in particular and its very active in the Somali Community in the Twin Cities here in Minnesota. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I think it should be removed as an example in the Somalia article as an example. I do not know how to verfiy this group actually exisits since they have not decided to create a website or something of that nature.

--Samantar Abdirisaq 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete — I'm not convinced the webpage is referring to the same group as the last two external links. They seem to be just one of many armed groups in control of the independent state of Somaliland but I can't find any information on them except that they're small and don't seem to have any significant news mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -- I am sure its not part of any Somaliland group. Actually I think the United-SF is part of a variety of new Somali Groups/Parties like Somali Social Union Party which is based over in Europe. I have decided to call one of the members of the United-SF here in Minnesota to contact him about the party. he told me they were still working but were not as active. Perharps we can use the Somali Social Union Party. I forgot to add, The Leader of the group, he told me, was a guy in Somalia named Samantar Jabar Ahmed --Samantar Abdirisaq 05:11, 17 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, Teke 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak keep being written by a supporter of the group does not make it vanity, and almost any armed political group is notible. Verifyibility is an issue, but their website is enough for now. --Musaabdulrashid 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A Google search of "United Somali Front" brings up several mentions of the organization in a variety of websites, but nothing in the news- probably due to Somalia not being big news in North America though. However, the organization certainly appears to be known around the world. --Wafulz 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be renamed to United Somali Front - who would look for United-SF? Eusebeus 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarify From what I can tell the United Somali Front is a completely different organisation from the United-SF. The former is an armed group based in Somaliland (which probably does deserve an article), the latter an unarmed group with nothing but a website which doesn't even name the leader! Thanks for doing the research, Samantar, but please remember the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy when it comes to wikipedia content. AndrewRT - Talk 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case it should be deleted since the references provided are all to the United Somali Front and this would be in effect unverifiable. Eusebeus 21:57, 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 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spunky Dunker Donuts[edit]

Fails WP:CORP by about a light year. Fan-1967 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Scottmsg 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually fails WP:CORP by a parsec. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. Would speedy, but CSD doesn't have the appropriate criteria. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I love donuts as much as the next guy, but please... ---Charles 04:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lost me with first sentence, but the address at the end didn't help, either. Daniel Case 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name+address+business type+telephone number. A classic business directory listing, with a little personal opinion puffery added on top. Get thee to Yellowikis! Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G 11:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of "nice little donut shops". NawlinWiki 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that we are dealing with more and more corporate advertising stubs every day in AfD. Could we be any clearer that this sort of thing isn't alowed on the 'edit new page' screens? Oh and delete per wp:corp --Amists 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:CORP --mathewguiver 20:17, 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 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Nicoletta &Stein[edit]

No concrete assertion of notability, no sources given. Reads like an advertisement as well. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:08, 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 Speedy Delete CSD A7. Not notable and no assertion of notability as far as I can see. kingboyk 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Petersen[edit]

Article appears to claim notability, but further research can give no information on this person. Doing a search for Vogue and Flora Petersen turned up no hits. Previous tag removed, sending to AfD Wildthing61476 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Notability claim is rediculously out of place and in contrast to the topicality of the rest of the article, and I also could find no hits. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ok let me get this straight. she is the daughter of a person who is the friend of the pope. And she has an article because she came up with a 'SUGGESTION' to install barriers next to Metro stations, so that people wouldn't fall on the track and get killed by the train (how will people get into the train if there is a barrier!) . Anyway, searching for Robert Petersen on google gives a lot of hits, none of them showing that a particular person is famous. --Ageo020 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's not notable, and platform screen doors is already here. Daniel Case 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn —Khoikhoi 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:55, 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. - Bobet 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) ===Simona Fusco===Simona fusco is staring in a movie on SHowtime. Very notable. Been in many movies. Many magazine covers worldwide[reply]

  • Strong keep she has a lot of magazines covers & pictures, & had IMDb credits CharliTa 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty, aspiring model? Yes. Notable enough yet for an article? No. Eusebeus 03:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Has some credit to her name, though it is certainly questionable. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am mainly basing my weak keep on the fact that she was a WWE diva search contestant. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has seven IMDB credits. Doesn't that qualify? Uucp 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Her credits are very, very minor. The most important one that actually made the cast listing is "Flashing girl". --Wafulz 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Simply having a few entries at IMDB is not necessarily grounds for notability. She has a few, extremely minor, bit parts. See WP:BIO for an outline of generally established criteria. Eusebeus 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe her roles in the Diva search (eliminated second) and assorted movies were too minor to merit much attention. --Wafulz 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is not even near the top of the castlist in any movie she's been in, not notable --mathewguiver 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, did someone say "contestant" and "flashing girl"???? Say no more: Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 22:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The IMDB has been used as a golden standard around here and that she is on it is also notable.Lan Di 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete You have to be kidding me, having a page on IMDB means you get an article here? What a load of crock. A few bit parts do not make someone notable, usually, and certainly not here. Renosecond 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has done a few things, but nothing notable yet. James Duggan 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bit parts, 2nd to be eliminated, not notable yet. ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted web page. The article is a straight copy and paste of the "about" page on the company's own web site, which is copyrighted and not GFDL licensed. This application of Copyright Judo is stretching the copyright speedy deletion criterion slightly, as it might be argued that Staffoffshore.com (talk · contribs) was implicitly dual-licensing the text. But in order to have an encyclopaedia article about this subject we'd need to both completely rewrite the article from sources and move to the article a proper title. We might as well start from scratch without any concerns over copyright or corporate autobiography. Uncle G 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staffoffshore.com Offshore Staff Leasing[edit]

Standard corp advert article. No assertion of notability, and I see no need to try to find one in light of the completely spamish tone of this article. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, pure spam (article name gives it away, really) Fram 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of this and Bones for Life -- Wellness through Movement Intelligence (AfD discussion), I do wonder whether a new law akin to Geogre's Law is in the making: There is a strong correlation between the inclusion of a marketing slogan or potted business summary in the title of an article about a company or corporation and the failure of its subject to satisfy the various criteria for encyclopaedia articles on companies and corporations. Uncle G 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Fram ST47 12:52, 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. - Bobet 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebShop 2.0[edit]

9k ghits, however almost none are in English and I couldn't find a single one that looked reputable. Therefore, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom ST47 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the name itself is an external link is a giveaway that this is corp spam. ~ trialsanderrors 09:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray (Gaven)[edit]

Notability assertions everywhere, but none are up to WP:BIO. Article can't decide what it wants to be, and even if it were to be kept, it would need a complete rewrite. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray has recieved Centenary Medal (awarded by Federal Government), has streets named after him, and has demonstrated awards and services - how is this not a notable person? He's one of the most decorated non-military persons in the Gold Coast and Hinterland region. Search Hansard for citation in Parliament regarding his services. Has various monuments to him in stone and bronze in Studio Village/Helensvale region (Northern Gold Coast). I'll check the BIO requirements in a sec... Johnpf 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the WP:BIO policy, I find 61 links from Google on him ("Phil Gray" Helensvale), including links to all the major TV channels (7, 9MSN, ABC and 10) Newspaper articles from as far afield as Townsville and Newcastle (1500 and 800km away each - not everyone gets noticed that far from home!), Sydney newspapers (different State!). I didnt include his entire record in Education - he has been a major voice in policy and standar disation in Queensland over a 38 year period. He has impacted on the lives of at least 100,000 people directly, and about 6 million indirectly. I'd also point out that the WP:BIO tests are as follows:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field

Education and Community Service, awarded Centenary Medal, so is nationally recognised as notable, including by Federal Government of Australia

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage

in by-election last March 2006

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

for his work with Westfield Helensvale.

Google Test

as above, with specific search for '"Phil Gray" Helensvale'

I guess the issue is whether WP is a global resource or not. This man is important and notable to about a third of Australia's 6th largest city. I accept the point that the article is not well written, and it was something I was intending to rewrite over time. I didnt expect it to be put up for deletion within 3 hours though! Keep and Clean Johnpf 05:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN, political career isn't that far yet and he isn't a Mother Teresa as far as service goes --Musaabdulrashid 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if being like Mother Teresa was the standard there'd be what, 10 or 11 bios in wikipedia! Johnpf 11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable using reliable sources. Any sources for the information in the article? Currently it has none. If he is notable it should be easy to come up with sources. Weregerbil 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: one in 1,200 Australians got the Centenary medal, hence the 5 Google hits for "Phil Gray" "Centenary Medal". Person is doing valuable local work, but is not up to the standard Wikipedia should have (though, of course, it often does not live up to that standard with other articles). Fram 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search for Phil Gray shows he has received some coverage in the media. However, he lost the seat of Gaven for the Labor Party in a byelection and Antony Green's assessment is that he is unlikely to win it in next month's election. (Antony Green is one of Australia's leading political analysts). [8] Further, it reads like an ALP brochure at the moment so it would need a rewrite. Delete unless rewritten with verifiable information and in an NPOV form. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed all references to the ALP, and done a little tidying up. Johnpf 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Deuterium 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. RFerreira 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite so it isn't a labor campaign page. If he isn't elected after the election in two weeks time maybe his current contributions are not viable but he certainly fits a few WP:BIO categories right now so from that viewpoint it is not a reason to delete either way. Most notably he fits in terms newspaper coverage so we can easily find a neutral representation for the page. Ansell 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Kits[edit]

A bike race of uncertain notability, no sources cited for its existance. Was speedied (improperly) by me as CSD A7, then re-created. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I nominated it for speedy.) Appears to be some guys doing a pub crawl on bikes. Five participants the first year, four the next. May be "challenging" (it can be hard to ride when drunk), but not notable or verifiable. Fan-1967 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not notable?!?! Listen folks, the Tour de Kits is simply in its beginning stages. You need to give it time to grow into a beautiful flower. You know what else wasn't 'notable' or 'verifiable' for the first couple years after its birth? Jesus. Had wikipedia and you editing-nazis been around 2000 years ago the world may never have seen the growth of Christianity and all that is good associated with it (i.e. Christmas). Leave well enough alone. Give the Tour some time. I guarantee this year's Tour will be the best ever and have more participants. Just give it time to grow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eboli (talk • contribs) Note Mistagged, actually entered by 154.20.119.196 (talk · contribs)
    Is whatever there is in the article verifiable? In other words, are there any reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, magazines) that have already covered this race/tour? If the answer is no, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it just yet. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a pretty rediculous comment, Eboli, and it goes contrary to WP:NOT a crystal ball. Your personal opinion aside, there are several policies that directly shoot down the grounds you cite for keeping this article. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per myself above. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V, suspected WP:VANITY, WP:NOT a crystal ball for something "simply in its beginning stages"... maybe it'll be as notable as Jesus someday, and then it'll get an article. --Kinu t/c 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. CindyLooWho 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it evelvoes into a major world religion. --Musaabdulrashid 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to just pass this over, but that mind-boggling "beautiful flower" comment could not be ignored. Delete as a textbook failure of WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. —Khoikhoi 08:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious that this page is going to get killed without my say, but since the article is so awful, and since Eboli decided to call us nazis, it gets one more request for deletion. -- Kicking222 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ST47 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and submit rebuttal to WP:BJAODN. Seriously, comparing a bike race to Jesus? --Wafulz 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be completely honest: comparing a drunken bike race to Jesus. Fan-1967 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the only user voting keep needs to resort to cheap shots and bad analogies to make their case that means that they obviously having nothing worthwhile to offer to this debate. On a personal note I am positive that Jesus or Christianity would not have stopped their mission if an acient version of Wikipedia did not find them notibale at one point in time. --Edgelord 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having been witness to the creative and impressive planning and execution of the Tour de Kits I would argue that events like this do deserve to be where people can access and learn more about the feats of its participants. The Tour is a challenging adventure that can really only be described as a Journey for those who participate. It ultimately comes down to mixing the achievement of personal goals with the emotional and intellectual bonding between men and women of all backgrounds and beliefs. The participants listed are only a few of the many people who have participated in the event at various stages, sharing in the successes and travails of those biking. The Tour de Kits exemplifies the kinds of challenges that go beyond drunken nights with random acts of ridiculous behavious. The Tour de Kits is an impressively executed race at which only true athletic intellectuals will find themselves victorious. ~Tour Enthusiast~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.21.122 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: No, nothing really "deserves" to be on Wikipedia if it does not comply with policy, such as WP:V. Reliable sources carry significantly more weight than impassioned claims around these parts. --Kinu t/c 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Along with the notability and verfiability problems, I find it hard to keep an article of a subject whose defenders insist You need to give it time to grow into a beautiful flower. Wikipedia is supposed to list events that are already notable, not those that you think could be. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remind me not to be in Kits during the next time this event takes place, lest I wind up with puke on my shoes. *headshake* Pub crawls are not notable, kids. (Does this make me an editing Nazi? That'd just round out my week perfectly, that would.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just wanted to say that I didn't call you Nazi's I edited that comment to put the bullet in and it assigned it to me. I vote keep though. Eboli— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.182.195 (talk • contribs)

:Please not above user has already voted. This vote need to be disrgarded. --Edgelord 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The earlier comment was from a totally different IP. Eboli just tagged it as a Keep. I've updated the tag. Not that it matters. No way the article's going to be kept. Fan-1967 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Please disregard my previous comment. --Edgelord 17:55, 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 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Petersen[edit]

Non notable musician. Searching for him on google gives a lot of hits , none of them which are related to music or bands. searching [9] with the bass added to the query, turns up wiki and its mirrors. Ageo020 04:16, 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 deleted by User:MONGO as nonsense. BryanG(talk) 06:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain of a thousand foxes[edit]

Article on an event from an rpg claimed to be "the most epic event evar [sic] to happen there involving foxes." I have little doubt of that, but I'm not so sure about its meta-vulpine notability. Only two Google hits, both to the rpg forum [10]. I am not a gamer so I'll leave it to the community. Prod contested in body of article.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 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 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of World of Warcraft[edit]

Appears to violate WP:OR and cannot help but be a magnet for POV. This is not an article, it is a list of grievences. Indrian 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - there are sections (the gay players issue, for example) which can be supported with media references etc and which are as I understand it (not being a player or gay) quite controversial. The rest of the article doesn't read like a list of grievances to me in its current incarnation, although I agree that it could become one. BigHaz 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with World of Warcraft. TJ Spyke 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been against this article for a long time, but I still want to keep it. Stating WP:OR is wrong, seeing as the points in the article right now have citations. The ones that don't are clearly marked with [citation needed]. Yes, it is a POV magnet, but so is George W. Bush, Microsoft and a whole slew of other articles, so that again is a silly point to bring up. Havok (T/C/c) 07:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 07:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. original research problems, if any, can be fixed. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:08Z
  • Keep per Quarl ST47 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree wholeheartedly with Havok's comment above. Viper 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve citations. My guess is that this is already a split off article from the very large World of Warcraft article -Markeer 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup article, sources need to be improved and can unverifiable ones can be removed. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The current title made me suspect it would be an essay. Although it's a subtle change, I think that "Criticisms of World of Warcraft" makes it sound more like a report. But whatever. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just fix the sourcing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not original research there are references cited Yuckfoo 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Derktar 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted. Material copied from published survey and WP:OR.. Shell babelfish 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMPUTER USE AMONGST DOCTORS IN AFRICA[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of data abakharev 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When Wikipedia has ten million articles, this might be a valid subtopic, but right now this is an essay. Daniel Case 04:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to fix capitalization and Keep. Article was created by a new user who is striving to make good faith contributions. Medical issues in Africa (see recent global AIDS conference) are very important and therefore notable. Quality of article is weak but could be salvaged. Deet 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per title and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information ST47 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe these data are useful somewhere, but not in an essay that seems to violate WP:OR, has no citations, and only provides one link to another article about a group that doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge rewritten version with health informatics, which already has sections by region but nothing on Africa. There is a fair amount of useful information here, though the author should be requested to retrieve the references. The presence of inline reference numbers tends to suggest a possible copyright violation, which needs to be checked. Agree with Deet that medical issues in Africa shouldn't be neglected. Espresso Addict 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Espresso Addict -- good information in article that is worth preserving. ♥ FaerieInGrey 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Espresso Addict. ColourBurst 00:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or {{sofixit}}. ~ trialsanderrors 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete applying Copyright Judo. The article is a straight copy of the company's own advertising blurb on its web site, which is "Copyright 2004 Itwerkz Global. All Right Reserved" [sic!] and not GFDL licensed. Uncle G 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITWERKZ GLOBAL (ASIA PASIFIC TRANING DIVISION)[edit]

Between the terrible title, formatting, and content, there are a handful of reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but for the sake of simplicity, delete as failing WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:39, 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 per Pagana's information on notability. Redirect lowercase to uppercase article. Tag for cleanup.. Shell babelfish 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar at tahoe[edit]

Developer flogging upcoming ski resort project. Plenty of facts, and perhaps it's notable in some way or could be but I just don't see it. Daniel Case 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and as per WP:V ST47 12:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Northstar at tahoe entry has been edited to address your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahoetracy (talk • contribs)

  • Uh, no. I don't see more than ad copy, basically, just what you might find in a brochure or website. All the editing did was make it look nicer. Daniel Case 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see also Northstar at Tahoe. User has been creating various non-notable location articles. --Fang Aili talk 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both incarnations. --Fang Aili talk 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Ral315 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep this article does sound like an ad, but I do agree that this is a topic worthy of a wiki article I've been hearing their ads on radio for years now... mathewguiver 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are several other small-to-medium ski resorts linked from Lake Tahoe: Alpine Meadows, Diamond Peak & others presently red-links. Perhaps a page of 'Lake Tahoe ski resorts' could be created with brief summary info for all the non-major ones? Espresso Addict 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree the present tone of the text is a little brochure-ish, but in terms of notability I don't think there's any question. Northstar-at-Tahoe (it usually has those dashes) is a massive, long-established winter resort, one of the most popular of its kind in Northern California. It was particularly notable for being one of the first resorts to embrace snowboarders, at a time when others were kicking them off of the slopes. As a result, Northstar is often referenced in writings on snowboarding. It's also a regular venue for competitions, and is frequently in the media. I just got 276,000 ghits on a quick search. --Pagana 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. If kept move to Northstar-at-Tahoe which appears to be the accepted spelling. Vegaswikian 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge the salient parts into Lake Tahoe wintersports or somesuch. Notable, but this is a Wikitravel entry. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Seafood Centre[edit]

Ad, more or less, for Singaporean restaurant. Given that I had to click the linked mall to find the most basic fact in a business where location is so much, i.e. where it's located, I doubt that there is any notability about this place. Daniel Case 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is not a restaurant, it is a hawker centre, a rather unique cultural element in Singapore One of the better-known ones, might I add. 206.255.1.73 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. --Musaabdulrashid 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason for a government-built facility to advertise itself. Its the tenents who do so....to their own outlets.--Huaiwei 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable even in a local context. It's just a conglomeration of some big restaurants, nothing more. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SPAM ST47 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a great place for tasty seafood the Yellow Pages, looks like WP:SPAM for a non-notable location/business. --Kinu t/c 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the new version. Thanks for the cleanup, sourcing, and dePOVing! --Kinu t/c 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, article is generally advertising. I must admit this place has been popular with tourists since its opening. It houses a few of Singapore's best restaurants imo, Jumbo Seafood and Long Beach, the more renowned ones. However, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. A redirect to East Coast Park will be the best option and some information at the article will be good. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, article has been rewritten into an encyclopedic term, needs expansion though. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not too sure how many of the above voters are actually Singaporeans, but I must say from a local perspective that this food centre is certainly well reknown for its collection of some of the most celebrated seafood restaurants in Singapore. The quality of the article may need some spring cleaning, but to delete based on allerged non-notability dosent quite fit the bill in my opinion.--Huaiwei 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please look for, and put, some sources like Straits Times articles or whatever in the article to bolster this argument. Daniel Case 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont think I can fish for a Straits Times article now, for why should it suddenly talk about a well-known eating place which has been around for decades? It needs no introduction to locals. Have you tried doing a google search, and see how the Singapore Tourism Board markets it [11]? Or how about an article like [12], which was published in the Sunday Times, for something more convincing? I could easily find these sources within two pages in google search, so I find it difficult to believe that you can make such a quick conclusion on its non-notability. Where is your evidence, on hindsight?--Huaiwei 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to show evidence, you do. Daniel Case 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And which I did. It seems cosier being a deletionist, is it not? ;)--Huaiwei 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link one is simply a listing. The Sunday Times article is a different matter. But it seems to be about disputes between restaurant owners, not the center itself. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link one is an entry in the STB's website about the East Coast range of eateries as a tourism site. A country's tourism agency bothers to have one page just for one hawker centre (and not for most others). I would like to see you arguing the non-notability of small countries next, I suppose. The Sunday Times article talks about "disputes" between eateries in a very sought after location, even when rents where increased almost two-fold. You appear to ignore every other comment on the location in the entire article which repeatedly underscores its popularity and notability at lease in the local context and to tourists.--Huaiwei 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, please remember to assume good faith. Second, I repeat: link one is a listing. Listings cannot by themselves establish notability. As for the Times article, it has some promise there.
What would convince me is some citations from guidebooks saying "Visit this place ...", or writeups from food or travel writers outside Singapore. As it is, you're just asking us to take your word for things. Daniel Case 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope everyone may assume good faith here too. What kind of "guidebooks" will fit your expectations, Mr Case? I suppose Vitual Tourist [13] and Explore Holidays [14] are too low-end for your taste? The New York Times too cliche for consideration [15] (even thou it was quoted from Fodor's)? The Sydney Morning Herald probably arent culinary experts [16]? The folks from The Times got their taste buds all wrong when asking folks to go to this place for hosting a restaurant considered to be one of their best in 2006 [17]? I found all these links and more within four pages in google search. Do you intend not to lift a finger and do any research yourself, while wasting time for those who have to show notability even in a clear-cut case like this?--Huaiwei 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now these are the kind of refs that might establish this place as a notable tourist destination.
I would consider withdrawing the nom but for Huaiwei's attitude, particularly as expressed above. First, the burden is and always has been on those advocating keep to supply references supporting a claim to notability. Second, to complain about this is something I fully expect (and have gotten) from single-purpose accounts with no interest in Wikipedia beyond getting their article about some subject of dubious notability on, or people who make things up in school one day, but to see it from a veteran, established editor is particularly dismaying to me. It's conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian IMO.
Those who have been asked to supply sources in AfD discussions have earned respect by doing so without complaint. Here, instead, Huaiwei sulks resentfully and seems to be more interested in getting in anti-deletionist jabs than reaching a consensus, suplied refs notwithstanding. Daniel Case 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I'm not sure that's a helpful characterisation, even if true. I agree that someone who cares enough about this article ought to be adding the refs, true, but there's no need for anyone participating to be upset about the process, you, Huaiwei, anyone... I'll add them myself if I have time and no one beats me to it. Making an article useful and preservable is more important than proving a point. Sorry to pick on you alone as I think everyone could benefit from that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the references given to the article, it was just a quick cut and paste job so maybe they could be further improved. Many of the references I spot checked were one or two line mentions in an article about Singaporean cuisine reather than in depth articles about this facility, but the guide book entries are more comprehensive and focus on the facility. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Amists 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Huaiwei. —Sengkang 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, it's a popular tourist spot. I suggested once about bringing Jimbo there. --Vsion 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. - SpLoT 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the delete camp can see where Huaiwei is coming from. To locals, this is more than notable; it meets WP:CORP - and thus KEEP. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to Singapore as a tourist (although technically on business I did get some time to enjoy things) in 2005. Many many people told me I needed to go to ECSC to try the food there. That's anecdotal evidence and not admissable, but does suggest refs for notability are out there if one tries to find them. And Huaiwei has... I see above that Huaiwei has no less then 5 apparent references, some from very notable sources. Let's get those vetted (as more than brief mentions) and actually INTO the article (a pet peeve of mine is that info developed during the course of an AfD doesn't always make it) and then this clearly is a Keep. Note: Without any slight to the original nom, the original article was a delete, and the way it is now is STILL a delete, absent the adding of notability refs given above. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:58, 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 as failing WP:BIO.. Shell babelfish 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnis H. Venhuizen[edit]

An anonymous user listed this article on the AfD log but did not post an AfD notice on the page and could not have completed the nomination. I am just completing the nomination processs but not giving a recommendation at this time. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a student member of a state board of regents isn't notable; nothing else asserted. NawlinWiki 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If the BoR membership was an elected position, I'd vote for keep... but it's not. Irongargoyle 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the student member of the SD Board of Regents has as much power and responsibility as the other members. SD Board of Regents are responsible for a budget of $527 million dollars, compared to the total state budget of $3 billion. The regental system has 30,000 students and employs 5,000 people--that's half of South Dakota's state employees. For reference, the South Dakota Attorney General manages a budget of $21 million. Finally, the fact that not all the regents have yet had articles written does not mean that they are not significant - it means that no one has written an article yet.jaredwiki 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Besides Mr. Venhuizen, only the chairman of the SD Board has his own article at present, and he's notable for being the CEO of a hotel chain. NawlinWiki 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems to me that this guy is certainly as deserving of an article as this guy, or this one. Both of these gentlemen were Truman Scholars as well. One serves on the local county commission. The other works at a Venezuelan newspaper. My point is that, while not "famous" on a National scale, Mr. Venhuizen is certainly within the scope of an encyclopedia as large as this one. Additionally, South Dakota being a small state (in population) doesn't make her governing individuals any less important. Russvdw 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far below notability. Fails WP:BIO per no significant press coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for notability issues. I don't think winning a Truman scholarship makes you automatically notable (for the same reason that not all Rhodes scholars have articles). Being a student member on a state board of regents doesn't confer notability. The aggregate does not either -- Samir धर्म 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject adequately covered on South Dakota Board of Regents page. Does not seem worthy of additional space. ~Timberjim 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Late Registration. Shell babelfish 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Music[edit]

While a song from a notable album, it is not a single, nor does it hold any significant value to have its own article. Ted87 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed completely. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Late Registration. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:02Z
  • I also like a redirect here. It's not as if someone would search WP for "crack music" in hopes of finding something else. -- Kicking222 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. P.s. what does "delete per nom" mean? Shawn88 13:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Per nominator", basically meaning for the same reason as (the nominator)". --Ted87 20:35, 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:03Z

The Derek Tonin Show[edit]

Either a hoax or WP:NOT crystal balling. Take your pick. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:58, 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 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Correa[edit]

Speedy removed and replaced with hangon by article's subject and likely creator, bassist for unsigned band. Claims of importance to regional hardcore scene are not cited, nor anything else. But it wouldn't matter because nothing there indicates any WP-worthy notability, neither under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Daniel Case 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding

the band in question, since with three self-released CDs it fails WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 05:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. fails guidelines and probable vanity. --Musaabdulrashid 06:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both, one as db-band and one as db-bio (both are A7, correct?), as neither article asserts even the least bit of notability (and, incidentally, are vanity). -- Kicking222 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've speedied the band because it's a group of people with no assertion of and no apparent notability. The bio is a little more assertive so let it have it's day... --kingboyk 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per musaab ST47 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so he knows lots of red links, belongs to a red link band, lives in a blue link and plans to move to another blue link, not very notable. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirit Shelat[edit]

Administrator with no claims to notability. Books mentioned in article are published by nn, probably vanity press. Article basically unchanged since July 2005. Hornplease 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Unchanged article for a year is no ground for justifying deletion. His latest book, "Mapping development" reviewed in The Hindu, a respected newspaper. If a one-time MLA or a high court judge is notable for purposes of WP, Kirit Shelat, given his experience of over 40 years in administration as an IAS officer and in authoring books would be notable enough. Also, the info appears to be verifiable. --Gurubrahma 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. As I noted below, he is not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat service officer. WE cannot assume that the thousands of state administrative officers across India are notable simply for serving out their careers. That his book is reviewed in the Hindu is not as indicative as it could be, because the book page of the Hindu relies on submitted rather than commissioned reviews. THe review was written by a former teacher at an Ahmedabad college, and is one of only two reviews by him. The book itself is not on record as being possessed by any library in the WorldCat system - an theres no systemic bias here, thousands of locally published Indian books turn up in academic libraries across the world - and is not available for sale at any major Indian online bookstore. He simply does not meet notability criteria, and is not a senior enough government official to be encyclopaedic. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an author of multiple books and as a senior government official. There is no evidence that the publishers are vanity presses. One of his books was inaugurated by Gujarat's chief minister, which is a good celebrity endorsement. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of his book on development is the same as the publisher of his book on Yug Purush Swami Maharaj - and doesnt seem to have any record on the web of having published anything else. He's not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat Administrative Service officer, which means he has to do something more than serve his tenure to be as notable as an HC judge. However, if he's Narendra Modi's advisor, which has been added without citation to the article in the last few minutes, then he may- repeat may- pass over some bar of notability, as Modi himself is so very very encyclopaedic. (Indeed, some months I seem to have done nothing on WP but discuss things Modi may or may not have done.) Hornplease 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannjot find articles in either WP, but perhaps I am spelling his name incorrectly there. Hornplease
  • Keep per above. Sufficiently notable. Heimstern Läufer 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is notable and meets WP:BIO criteria. Author of a few notable books meets the criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The books are not notable by most standards. A WorldCat search of libraries reveals no copies in participating institutions. THe fact that one was released by the CM of Gujarat does not in itself make the book notable, especially if the officer in question works in the CM's office. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terence Ong, this person meets WP:BIO criteria. RFerreira 06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason to suppose that the books are notable? Hornplease 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Only persons of Indian Administrative service can become Secretary, Energy Department. He may not have been a direct IAS recruit. He would have been conferred IAS Doctor Bruno 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the writer is mistaken. Secretaries of state-level departments do not have to be IAS. Hornplease 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Hornplease seems to be Fundy-Watching this AfD.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hooray. Whatever that means. Hornplease 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A6) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:00Z

WORMFACE[edit]

Protologism with unpromising Google results and nonexistent Wiktionary page. NFT as well. Daniel Case 05:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Leuko 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Pathak[edit]

Very non-notable administrator, at the lowest level of the Indian Administrative Service. No claims to notability in the article or available through looking around a little.Hornplease 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District collectors are certainly not the lowest level of the IAS. In fact collectos are sp,e of the most powerful positions of the IAS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are neither the lowest level nor the highest level. Doctor Bruno 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is certainly the district collector of Mumbai. But it must be said, that the government's influence over public life is waning, so is the importance of district collectors. --Ageo020 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out [18] and [19] I am not able to understand the difference between these two discussions
  • Delete No claim to notability made. --Gurubrahma 06:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was quoted in a newspaper story about preparations for flooding, and mentioned in another about civil servants taking jobs in the private secyor. Being responsible for tax collection in a city the size of Mumbai is significant. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have any other articles for tax collectors? Is NYC's tax collector given his own page? How about Mexico City's or Tokyo's? Hell, the tax collector article itself lists two- one from the Bible and one whom has been dead for 550 years. -- Kicking222 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      He is not just a tax collector. He is the highest executive authority in a district. Have you read the article on district collector? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hornplease 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ageo. -- Kicking222 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Not notable. In the article about preparations for flooding, he appears as the local authority's spokesman informing about the existence of shelters, the second one mentions he has be assigend to the airport as "officer on special duty", whatever that means. He could be more important than he appears in the article due to systematic bias, but we have little else to go on. Ohconfucius 04:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp Doctor Bruno 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability, as above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The old lady up the road was once quoted in my local newspaper. That doesn't mean she should have an article. The JPStalk to me 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A3) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:57Z

Christmascarnivals.com[edit]

Site is a spam hub, and certainly fails WP:WEB as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:14, 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 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Sauvé[edit]

Vanity entry, non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. MBE recipients are probably notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:14Z
  • Weak Delete MBE is a fairly common award, though admittedly not to Canadians. The article just seems routine to me.Michael Dorosh 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on condition of more sourcesBakaman Bakatalk 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Michael Dorosh above that the article is pretty bland, but the MBE being somewhat uncommon to Canadians gives it a nudge towards notability. I must note, though, that the MBE is the lowest level of this particular award, and does seem to be a regular presentation. Very, very weak keep unless someone comes up with more sources as to this person's notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Despite low rank of the honour, a Canadian with this honour is a rarity. Agent 86 18:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion for failing notability and WP:V.. Shell babelfish 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Barr (Canadian military)[edit]

Non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Perhaps we need separate notability standards for military personnel. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nomination. Commanding a regiment should not alone be sufficient for notability, but that's a discussion best made by consensus - I'd suggest bringing up that point, Truthbringer, with the Military History Project, I'm sure they would appreciate your input.Michael Dorosh 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we let this page stay, then we'd have to let the million other people in militaries worldwide have their own pages. This should be moved to a userpage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyson Moore (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 August 2006
  • Strong Keep. Should we also delete the equivalent US military biography? Somehow I think that wouldn't even be a consideration. This person is notable as a senior officer in the Canadian Forces. NorthernThunder 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article suggests he's done anything notable, other than be named as "designate commander" of CSOR. Why is it you specifically feel he is notable? Simply because he is in the Canadian Forces with a rank higher than captain? I thought the reason we had notability requirements was to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from having an article. Can you cite a US "equivalent" article you feel is on a par with this one?Michael DoroshTalk 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with the US military structure to know what the equivalent position is. NorthernThunder 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion. I meant can you cite an example of an article on a US officer such as the ones you listed as an example? You asked if we should delete similar US articles, but never gave an example of one. It is quite possible we should look at deleting them as well. Can you provide and example of one of the articles you were referring to?Michael DoroshTalk 01:30, 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 Merge to List of Wal-Mart brands. Shell babelfish 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Value[edit]

This article has been deleted twice before (see deletion log), and continues to be recreated. Request is to either outright delete, or merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It exists & tons of people buy it in the United States. Could use some more information, maybe. Its a brand, but its written alright. Other speedies didn't seem to cite anything anyways. Kevin_b_er 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Merge it into the list of wal mart brands article. Plan on doing a merge of Ol' Roy there too. Kevin_b_er 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So then what policy are you quoting as the basis of your argument? Because there are plenty that are against your point. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4, request protected delete as well. In the extremely unlikely (0.05% chance) event this thing ever becomes notable enough for the likes of WP:CORP or similar, going through deletion review would be a worthwhile sacrifice over going through afd a 4th time. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge content of all of the "Wal-Mart brands" articles listed in the {{Wal-Mart}} template into List of Wal-Mart brands, delete all of those brand articles, and then move List of Wal-Mart brands to Wal-Mart brands (currently a redirect) or Wal-Mart brand (usually prefer the singular in titles anyway, right?). --Rkitko 05:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content of all of the "Wal-Mart brands" articles into List of Wal-Mart brands, and then rename List of Wal-Mart brands to Wal-Mart brands, per Rkitko. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:56Z
  • Merge per Rkitko. —tregoweth (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous deletions. This has been deleted twice already so why must we keep on doing it? Can it be protected against recreation? --Amists 14:26, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Erxleben[edit]

Notability not proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dorosh (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 August 2006

  • Keep. Her claim to notability is being the first female Canadian infantry solider. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I tried to expand this article once, but found absolutely nothing else about her except that she used to be either a truck driver or lumberjack, depending on the source I was looking at.--Nobunaga24 05:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete has some claim to fame, but it's pretty rediculous if her notability rests on her being the first woman soldier in CAF and nothing else. WP:V per above, too. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete while her claim to fame is unique, perhaps it is best included as a blurb in the Canadian Army article? She isn't as notable as say Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, or Alan Shepard, John Glenn, or Neil Armstrong and I don't recall an article on the first Female US Navy Combat Pilot, or first Female US Navy sailor. --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bschott ST47 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original nomination - I agree she is notable, but since there is no information about her in the public record, she merits a mention in the history articles but not her own article.Michael Dorosh 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention in History of the Canadian Army, for the fact that it would be absurdly difficult to find any information on her, and that her only claim to notability is being the first woman in the infantry. If there was a court case or massive controvery surrounding it, she could have her own article, but from the discussion and what I've found, it doesn't look like that's the case. --Wafulz 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. I found a few things about her and added them. Also, Erxleben being the first female Canadian infantry solider is as notable as Nichola Goddard being the first female Canadian solider killed in a combat situation. Not every "first" is a Neil Armstrong, some are a Helen Sharman. There should be an article on the first female US Navy Combat Pilot, along with other nationalities. The closest I could find was Kendra Williams, First American female pilot in combat (Iraq in 1988), a Notable alumni of the Singapore American School. The List of famous women in history makes for good reading.--EarthPerson 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong Keep per EarthPerson. The Helen Sharman parallel is very fitting. Heather broke the gender barrier in the Canadian infantry which makes it intrinsically tied to the notability of Nichola Goddard. Agne 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EarthPerson --Rob 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a stretch to call this person famous or even to compare her to Helen Sharman. Sharman is notable because she was an astronaut, not for being a chemist. I point out that there is no article for Kendra Williams. Suttungr 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Canadian Forces - I don't think she really requires her own article at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per EarthPerson. 4 references - minor references in each case, but she's sought out by reporters to get a quote, that's worth something. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not every breaking of a gender barrier is necessarily notable, but I would think this one is enough to merit an article. If it is to be deleted, at the very least the article should be merged into History of the Canadian Army. Agent 86 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hero[edit]

WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CVG. CSIN 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games has to do with this article. However, this is a chain of sandwich shops with 94 locations by my count, all of which are in Ohio and at least half of them in the Cleveland area alone. It could possibly be notable in the local area, but the chain is not famous outside Ohio according to the article itself. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 08:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's in decent shape now; I could support a keep. --Metropolitan90 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are many around here in Cleveland. I think the guideline to be investigated is WP:CORP. It seems like it is probably notable, but some reliable sources would be nice. As it is, the article is pretty not good. Wickethewok 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as U.S. regional restaurant chain since we have a whole category of them, some smaller than this (note guidelines which say as few as two can count), and cleanup per my tag. Daniel Case 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I did the cleanup, put an infobox in and tried to add some info from the company's website. I think it can be kept now. Daniel Case 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 94 locations? Definitely notable. Zagalejo 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a relatively old chain with 94 locations. Regional chains pass notability, and thanks to Daniel Case's cleanup, it isn't spam. SliceNYC 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Just withdraw the nomination. RFerreira 06:54, 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 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-BANGI.COMmunity[edit]

nn website. spam. CSIN 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete quoting previous prod: Non notable website (Alexa > 2,000,000); Furthermore, wrong-language -pedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per my reason for prodding. MER-C 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website, not english. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 09:11Z
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:44, 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 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg Nicoletta & Stein LLP[edit]

WP:CORP, WP:NN. CSIN 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom ST47 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per WP:SPAM. Seems like a pretty ordinary real estate law firm. Ohconfucius 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Orsini 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per discussion passes WP:CORP.. Shell babelfish 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Fencing Club[edit]

Delete. Not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. See also Talk:Dubai Fencing Club for ongoing notability discussion. Twisted86 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dekimasu 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:CORP with multiple independent coverage including a BBC feature [20], an article in TimeOutDubai [21] and a KhaleejTimes interview (5 March 2004), google cache is here: [22] Kappa 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article desperately needs cleanup but this is the first of these clubs in the mid-east and therefore might deserve an article here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A little cleanup would do the job.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Swing[edit]

Needlessly technical and non-notable article. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and expand/make it more accessible if needed. The subject is notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:52Z
  • Delete - WP is not a "how to dance" guide. Apart from two mentions of its connection to Lindy hop, it is a list of dance steps which are seemingly original research. A mention in the Lindy hop article may be appropriate if cited. Yomanganitalk 12:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yomangani ST47 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - East Coast Swing was probably the most popular style of swing dance during the swing dance fad of the late 1990s, and it remains a staple in most U.S. dance studios. I would venture as far as to say that the large majority of people who learned swing dancing in the past couple of decades probably started out with East Coast Swing. That seems pretty notable to me. The article as it is written is very poor, but that's reason to improve it, not to delete it. --Cswrye 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article currently sucks, but the topic, East Coast Swing, is still a cornerstone of swing dancing around the world. The only reason to delete it would be to re-incarnate the article with a fresh start. Everyone who take swing or ballroom dance classes learns ECS, there should be a Wikipedia article on it (though, a better one than there is now).--Will.i.am 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The topic is valid and notable. --Elonka 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is this even under discussion? If it's a poor article then fix it, but deleting it would be seriously moronic given its popularity. Ninti 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As Cswrye already pointed out, nearly everyone who has learned any amount of swing in the past ten years started out by learning East Coast. This article is very notable to the social dance scene, it's sad to see this even under discussion. Utopianheaven 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dellosso and Greenberg[edit]

Spam. nn. CSIN 05:32, 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. WP:SNOW take this to the relevent talk pages, or try WP:RfC -Doc 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weber and German politics[edit]

This was an 11Kb section in the Max Weber article. The section was created when the article appeared on the Main Page in Dec 2004 and has grown over the years to this length. This section is part of the reason the article was brought to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber. Because the section was so big (and troublesome) I split it off onto its own article (where we can add whatever template tags we want without harming the feature article) and attached a link to it in the Max Weber#Sociology of politics and government section. I nominate the new article for deletion to ensure (a)it belongs as a separate article (b)it is not original research (I do see a thesis statement in there) (c)all the appropriate template tags are added (needs {{fact, {{citecheck}}, etc.) and (d)that it should exist at all.}} Maintain 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Question Are you actually nominating this for deletion? AFD isn't for checking and reviewing articles, you want RfC or Peer Review. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am nominating this for deletion. I actually wanted to just delete the content from the article. Not being that bold, I transferred it to its own article and nominated it for deletion so that this crowd can delete it, correct what I have done, or do something totally different. Failing its deletion, I trust this process will deal with it appropriately. Maintain 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum this is a content decision - discuss it on the talk page of the relevant article, not here. Or try WP:RFC, which waa made for these discussions.--Doc 08:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as nomination is in the wrong place. Yomanganitalk 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Yomangani ST47 12:42, 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. Shell babelfish 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology[edit]

2 ghits, so fails WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This is a university, not a corporation. 100,000s of Google hits for the German name, "fachhochschule wiener neustadt". —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:44Z
  • Keep. The name in German is Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt, which gets 71,000 ghits. I am not sure what the English-language article should be called. The German-language article at de:Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt says the official English-language name is University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per arguments above. --Wafulz 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I instead support a Move to Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt or some other official German name. That's what confused me. Apparently, almost nobody calls it the University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology and there is no need to translate the name for the purposes of the article title. Other then that, it seems like a good candidate for translation from the de -pedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, this is a public school, not a company! The quasi-official translation "university of applied science" for Fachhochschule is very unfortunate IMO because in German, a Fachhochschule is clearly distinct from a "Universität". It would probably be better to call it something like a "technical college". In any case, I think the article should be kept, but the title should be changed. It is completely unknown under this name in Austria! It should either be "Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt" or "University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt" (this is also how it is called on the English version of its website [23]). Siberl 11:06, 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 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury 1 wrestling[edit]

A small wrestling promotion that simply isn't known enough to be on Wikipedia

  • Delete- Non-notable. Wikipedia simply can't have every little promotion be on here, otherwise it would get flooded with every little wrestling promotion out there. RobJ1981 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RobJ ST47 12:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:16, 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 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margalit Tsan'ani[edit]

The most notable ghit she gets is her myspace profile. Fails WP:MUSIC. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

പശു[edit]

Cow is a cow is a cow. Why do we need a special article on Malayan cows? abakharev 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although the article mentions the Malayalam language, rather than the Malayan region. BigHaz 06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing in the article besides the simple explanation of what a cow is is the significance to Hindus, but this belongs in Hinduism or a similar article. Heimstern Läufer 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). As a second choice, redirect to Cattle. --Metropolitan90 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content of this article is covered in detail at Sacred cow. The article title seems to be "cow" in Malayalam language, so it's not appropriate to redirect to Sacred cow. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:41Z
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. Yomanganitalk 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yay for cows. the title isn't even english. slaughter. ST47 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No point in having a Cow's article when only the title is changed to malayalam. [24] and Sacred cow do show the importance of cows in Hinduism. --Ageo020 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. ♥ FaerieInGrey 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this supposed to say "???" (question marks) or is my browser just not picking this up properly? RFerreira 08:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title's in Malayalam script, so it's probably your browser (it should display as a collection of curly characters). BigHaz 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a tranlator - Blood red sandman 15:05, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Ausburn[edit]

Though a winner, Maggie has done nothing else signifigent in her outside life. Drew Daniel, season 5 winner, was also deleted even though he has a small acting career and thus is tchnically more significient. Comedy240 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep obviously. She was on a hit show with around 8 million viewers. She was on for the whole season. TV actors (or characters) with far less viewership/success get articles consistantly. The standard is to keep Big Brother winners, despite the odd inexplicable exception, here and there. This person easily meets the requirements of WP:BIO, regarding independent coverage from multiple sources. Unfortunately, we seem to have a problem where certain genres of entertainment popular amongst Wikipedians (i.e. science fiction) get one easy standard , and genres unpopular in Wikipedia (though hugely popular outside) get a tougher standard. The notion of measuring her "outside life" is silly. We don't require an athlete be known outside sports, an actor outside acting, a politition outside politics. She's tops on a top show. That's enough. --Rob 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you're certainly right about the tons of sciencefictioncruft all over Wikipedia. Still, at times it is (I presume unintentionally) funny: "Wow, real human beans actually spend their times this stuff?!" -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winners of major reality shows seem worthy of inclusion, regardless of what one AfD previously said. AfD shies away from precedent and looks at each article's subject's credentials independently. That being said, I would have argued for a keep on Daniel, too. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a reality game show winner is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. Once she has additional accomplishments, like substantial acting credits, she might be notable enough. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. NawlinWiki 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons Rob stated. -- ArglebargleIV 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reality show contestants/winners have posed notability problems for a while, and standards probably are needed. However, Rob's argument, Maggie is sufficienty notable due to winner BB6.-- danntm T C 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. I had contemplated putting an AfD on this one, but the fact that she won half a mill made me reconsider. However, how many lotto winners do we have listed in wiki? Thinking about it a bit more, I'm inclined to go for a delete as she was only part of a successful TV show, and she was not the main winner of the round. Her main field is an ER nurse and she's probably the only one without a huge mortgage. Not known outside BB. Her entry could be merged into BB6, along with the rest of them. Ohconfucius 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please clarify what you meant by "she was not the main winner of the round"? How are you using hte term "round" here? I think of a "round", as one of multiple parts in a competition (e.g. ten rounds in a boxing match). In Big Brother, a week or broadcast episode could be seen as a "round" (e.g. each opportunity for elimination). She surivived all the weeks/episodes/rounds up until the final one, which she was the winner (2nd prize being a tenth in size). At the end, there were only two contestants, which millions of people tuned to see. She wasn't just another part of the show. As for lotto winners, I suppose if a TV show was dedicated to a loto winner, giving them top prime time coverage, for an entire season of episodes, with millions of people following their every move, with lots of independent coverage, then maybe they should get an article. --Rob 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected about the "winner" part. I had misread the reference to $1m, thus thinking it was a second prize, although that was probably why I didn't nominate he when I first came across the article. I am sticking by my other comments. Ohconfucius 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, or merge and redirect with Big Brother (USA season 6). talk to JD wants e-mail 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or m/r until she does something notable. Even if she meets WP:BIO, there is very little interesting things to write about. It is all cruft: "she was friends with..."!!! If that's the level of content, then it's not worth having. The JPStalk to me 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thivierr (Rob), the subject already has done something notable. RFerreira 07:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please being the winner of a major show ie jeapordy or american idol is notable Yuckfoo 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definatly keep. Without biography pages, the reality show pages would get terribly unorganized and lengthy. As of now she has pleanty of links to websites about her and those would get lost if merged with Big Brother. Also, she has done/said pleanty of controversial things that wouldn't fit into the Big Brother article. She is DEFFINATLY significant enough to have her own article. Irkedpenguin 03:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's the winner of Big Brother 6. When people are looking through Big Brother pages, they'll probably want to know more about Maggie since she is the winner. A-Supreme 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people want to know more about Maggie, there should at least be something to know that isn't already on the Big Brother article. talk to JD wants e-mail 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after all she was the winner of Big Brother. bbx 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/question: And that's all she was, it seems. The article appears to say nothing of interest whatever other than that she won Big Brother. So why keep it? -- Hoary 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maggie is a well known and notable personality so the deletion vote criteria are not very appropriate. Unitedroad 12:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: I don't understand that at all. What do you mean by "deletion vote criteria"? -- Hoary 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect The article is a complete violation of WP:BIGBRO standards. Besides, a redirect would stop newbies from re-creating the page. Geoking66 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. Maggie was a winner of a popular television show and meets the standards for notability.--Benjaminx 04:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies[edit]

non-notability, neologism, just another list ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for nomination: This is a term that appeared in an article in Newsweek magazine LAST WEEK. I don't believe it has been around suffienciently long enough to be inherently notable. It is pretty much a marketing gimmick Newsweek does to sell magazines, so this time, instead of calling the article "Hottest Schools" like they usually do, they named it "New Ivies." Thus, it's technically a neologism This is not a group of schools like the Ivy League, the Colonial colleges that have been around for a long time and as such the term and their association becomes notable. This is a term invented last week, and aside from one magazine article (reported also by their coverage partner MSNBC), it has no longevity backing it up. If this were an article titled "Hottest Schools", it undoubtedly would be deleted. This is academic boosterism. Lastly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of lists of loosely associated stuff, a reporter of news (since we're just pushing forward Newsweek's article), and considering we are not here to haruscupate, extrapolate, speculate, etc., we should not be determining right now by giving this article credence, whether this term "New Ivies" will experience longevity or be a new force in higher education. How do we know next year's list won't be "Newer Ivies"? If it's not a "flash in the pan" after a few years, the article would be more than welcome. Right now, it's a newborn, and unless the newborn were the Prince of Wales, the Second Coming of the Messiah, or the next Panchen Lama, this enumeration of "New Ivies" hasn't been around long enough to do something worth noting here. —06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • DELETE as nom. —ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. If this were "Newsweek's list of Movers and Shakers" or something along those lines, it never would have been created, but because the title of the list is tied to the Ivy League, it's maintainted an inch of traction here. The nom said that it's not Wikipedia's job to report the news, but I'd go even further: this isn't news anyway, it's simply editorial opinion, Newsweek's scholastic truthiness. If, in a decade, this has gained such traction that other sources of media anticipate its coming and report on Newsweek's new New Ivies findings, then fine, it deserves a place here. But as it stands, it's not ready for article space; it's merely boosterism. JDoorjam Talk 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism from a single magazine. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I see more cites elsewhere, I'll reconsider. But as long as Newsweek is the only organization neologizing this, delete. Alba 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various comments sensing that the word "Ivies" was just a publicity gimmick. These colleges are highly selective, as are the Ivies, but other than that there's no given definition of why these schools are Ivy-like. SliceNYC 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inherently notable concept. The nomination chargesthat this concept was 1) invented by Newsweek to sell magazines (a tautology in the sense that everything Newsweek does is with the intention of selling magazines) 2) That this is "boosterism" of the specified schools (so what? Does it delegitimize Newsweek's coverage of any other notable institution to label that "boosterism") 3) That this will be a "flash in the pan", an argument of the form, "It's of note now, but won't be in a year" (if I created articles on "Hula Hoop" or "Barbie doll", could those be listed for deletion on the grounds that "Nobody will care about this in a year?)
  • Since all of these arguments are silly we should keep this interesting article around. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete as listcruft born of the publicity machine. And yes, if hula hoops and Barbie dolls had just been invented and only one magazine had spoken of them, there's a strong chance I'd vote delete there, too. Anville 20:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we listed every random neologism anyone found in a magazine... LaszloWalrus 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard the term used before and I think the entry should stay, if for nothing else, to explain the term and its origin and usage. NoRCaLD503 18:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was it used before with this specific meaning, or just an informal description of some up-and-coming or under-appreciated set of schools? DMacks 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we have a source citation for its prior use? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only source cited is Newsweek, which originated the term. This should not be considered until there are other good, verifiable sources meeting the WP:RS guidelines that show that the Newsweek's list has achieved general recognition as a legitimate grouping with a convenient name. By a good source, I would not include individual universities' publicity offices news releases announcing their pleasure at being a New Ivy. I would include college guides that reference this group as a group, or a reference in a novel or short story or biography--"I went to Kenyon College, supposedly one of the 'new Ivies,'" etc. (And I don't think the term is likely to catch on, because this is a dogs-breakfast of miscellaneous institutions with nothing in common but Newsweek's liking of them. I suppose Newsweek can define "ivy" any way they please, but to use it to refer to an unaccredited institution whose 0.04-century history has barely allowed time for grass to grow, much less ivy, seems premature at the very least. Come to think of it, I wonder what possible objective definition of "ivy" could include Olin but exclude Babson?) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 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 per discussion as failing to meet WP:V.. Shell babelfish 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88MPH Studios[edit]

delete ill-fated, non-notable company appearing to fail WP:CORP. Nothing notable but its failures, in short, nothing that notable Ohconfucius 06:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly say this is grounds for deletion, an encycleopedia is meant to report something and I think that should be regardless of whether it is out of business or not.
People would likely want to read about what happened so I think the grounds for deletion are highly unjustified. Yes, the article needs work per the Wikipedia standard of formatting but it's questionable standards if other articles for relevent companies have been deleted due to them appearing to go out of business.Kingpin1055 11:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment deletion was proposed because no notability was asserted, and that there was insufficient indepently veriable facts about this company's notability in general, and not specifically about its failures. Article not in the wiki format is not grounds for deletion; failing WP:CORP is. Ohconfucius 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, I believe a case should be put forward explaining the nomination, should the nomination exist simply because of the non-wiki template, then such should have been mentioned in the 88MPH discussion page before the warning was placed. This would've given any editors ample time to begin planning a large-scale re-write to conform with the standards and practices. Kingpin1055 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still have four days. Fan-1967 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small consolidation I suppose... another member has proposed condensing the article into a 'Reader's Digest' style entry fit to the Wiki format. Hopefully this'll prove satisfactory so that the article can be expanded properly according to the Wiki standards at a later date.Kingpin1055 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ill-fated companies often suck poop. --Nintendude message 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that this site meets WP:CORP. WP:V is also a problem, since there are no reliable sources in the article (a web forum and a blog do not count). --Kinu t/c 05:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A web forum doesn't count, despite it being the company's forum? Now, I apologise if I get the next section wrong, but it's difficult to fully understand the WP:CORP based on the way it's written. Because 88MPH has only published comics in collected and singular form, that they haven't been commented greatly outside of online news sites and 'blogs', and that it isn't a chain then it fails the guidelines of WP:CORP and as such isn't deserving of it's own Wiki page? I think the link to Adam Nichol's DeviantArt page as that's the place where he proved something. I would like it if he hd a more official place for posting it but some of this stuff isn't made hugely public. 88MPH has bee involved in a number of serious issues, and the full removal of the article will only serve to make things worse. Please give a list of criteria that needs to be filled so that the 88MPH page can be retained.Kingpin1055 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article continues to be trimmed and reworked to meet Wiki standards, and is a valuable piece of information as a publisher of independent comic books. There is still work to be done, but this is a company who has released several products commerically. To delete this page would be akin to deleting Dreamwave Productions or NOW Comics. Reverend Raven 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is important to be retained for those who wish to find out what has been going on with 88MPH Studios Inc. With little updates on the news page and a mountain of posts on the company forum a site browser can easily look up the page and find out what exactly has happened. Despite the issues 88MPH Studios has released a number of products and it is yet to file Chapter 7 bankruptsy so, even in it's state it is still technically in business. There is also a ongoing legal case which can be reported here as soon as a result has been reached.Kingpin1055 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per WP:V, Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unfortunately, a company's own website and forum are first-party sources. The reason this caveat exists is because it is not too difficult for someone to spend five minutes writing a website in the hopes of getting a vanity mention on Wikipedia. (I'm not accusing you of this, of course... merely trying to provide examples of the potential abuse that could exist if WP:V was not policy.) You should check out that policy, along with the recommendations at WP:RS, in order to see what can be used to properly source the article. It is entirely possible that an article on this company would encyclopedic, and I have no prejudice toward changing my recommendation if it can be properly sourced. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 20:16, 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.
This page Syed Ahmed has been histmrged with Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), which is a new article about the same man, and I have AfD'ed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing WP:BIO, notability outside television show not established. Shell babelfish 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed[edit]

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed with the consensus of all nine participants to the discussion. It now seems to have been re-created without a deletion review (in clear violation of our policies) and amazingly has survived a subsequent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed2.

Syed was a contestant on The Apprentice (UK series 2), and a perfectly adequate biography of him is provided in that article. He was not the winner, nor has he obtained (to my mind) any notability outside of the TV show. Media coverage of Syed seems limited to media speculation about his private life (almost exclusively in the Tabloids). Our precedent for shows such as Big Brother, whose contestants also received such media coverage, is to include a biography only on the programme's page. I therefore propose a delete and redirect to The Apprentice (UK series 2). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep one of the most notable fly-on-the-wall reality show participants in UK history with current and ongoing media coverage much as I attempt to ignore it. MLA 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and perform deletion review ST47 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Contestant in the Apprentice. Politely I could call this person a salesman, but objectively, he's nothing more than a liar and a cheat which are commom as muck. Not a contest winner, no notable achievements afterwards. Ohconfucius 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per policies to not encourage violations thereof. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if you look around the uk press you will see that he has recently achived yet more notibility and therfore should be kept Benon 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • a few mentions of his private life in the tabloids does not constitute sufficient notability per our policies! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:21, 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 Keep. No clear consensus but article is well sourced, future name change not difficult.. Shell babelfish 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff's fourth studio album[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Reporting on a soon to be released album is fine, but when we don't even know what's it called...??! kingboyk 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hilary Duff. The "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy specifically refers to unverifiable speculation, whereas everything in the article is supported by references. There's some useful material here that could be placed in the main Duff article, and that could be incorporated into a separate album article once the title is announced. Extraordinary Machine 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Extraordinary Machine. It's verified as coming out (according to sources, anyway), but its title hasn't even been released. A brief mention in the Hilary Duff article should be sufficient until the CD is named and a release date set in stone. Srose (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verified information into Hillary Duff, Delete the rest.-- danntm T C 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per danntm. ♥ FaerieInGrey 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per danntm Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Not having a title yet is irrelevant. We'll just move it when it gets one. Everyking 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article can be created when the album has been released. --Yamla 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the album has a confirmed name. 220.255.226.51 07:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why Not? until name is confirmed.--Luckystars 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Krayzie Bone. Shell babelfish 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thuggish Bone[edit]

Album not due for release until next year. Pointless one-line stub. kingboyk 07:34, 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 redirect to Trey Songz. - Bobet 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Day[edit]

Not due for release until December. Also a pointless stub violation of WP:NOT. kingboyk 07:35, 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 nomination withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 08:35Z

Ashwath Sundarasen[edit]

delete non-notable actor, who only played in a minor part on a sci-fi series, and who has not done anything notable since.Ohconfucius 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ashwath Sundarasen is listed as a "main character" in The Tribe, and the actors for all other main characters of The Tribe also have articles on Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:34Z

Ashwath had a main role in The Tribe for a total of 3 years to. (Raintheone 14:45, 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 Merge to The Walt Disney Company —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 08:28Z

Mousewitz[edit]

Does not deserve a separate entry, should be merged to Walt Disney Company abakharev 08:05, 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.. kingboyk 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seekexperience[edit]

Not a notable site (a grand total of 9 unique Ghits for "seekexperience", 3 of which are wikipedia!). In violation of WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article created by a single purpose account. Prod contested by an anonymous editor (also his single edit). Pascal.Tesson 09:14, 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 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese settlers in New Guinea during 1919-1940 times[edit]

First should be deleted as OR, and second as an article about a small group of people, each individually non-notable, most of whom have 0 Ghits. Dekimasu 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an OR essay which is extremely hard to understand. I am not convinced that the topic itself is completely non-notable. JPD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Weak delete - the version as currently presented isn't that bad and someone who knows more than I do (read "who knows anything at all") about the topic might well be able to brush it up and give it sources. That said, it may well be a wild goose chase. BigHaz 10:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mostly incoherent OR essay.--cj | talk 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, if POV and OR qualms could be addressed. --TheM62Manchester 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's doubtful that the OR problems can be addressed by other sources when the people involved have 0 Google hits. As an aside, I find this a somewhat interesting topic... but I also find it to be so esoteric as to be cruft. To fix the article, I think someone would also have to explain the notability of the topic in the lead. Dekimasu 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an idea, but it might ultimately be that this particular group of settlers aren't notable, while a broader group (1900-1940?) are. BigHaz 11:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title made it sound like an interesting article between the poor writing, the Original Research and the lack of notability, I can't see a reason to keep it. --Roisterer 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't surprising that this has little presence on Google given the period we are talking about and that Papua New Guinea isn't a first world country. However, it lacks any other sources and fails to establish importance of the topic as it seems to be referring to a small group of people. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ruthlessly edit. Rich Farmbrough 09:20 27 August 2006 (GMT).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottalk[edit]

Non-notable website. 660 Google hits. Prodded but prod tag deleted so coming to AfD. Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stunningly non-notable, delete. -- Hoary 11:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have only ever come accross one article less noteworthy than this, and that was an article about a rock (17823 Bartels for those of you who are curious). - Blood red sandman 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nuttah68 19:53, 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. Punkmorten 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Empires[edit]

Non notable browser game, fails WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Alexa ranking is 114,928. Peephole 16:25, 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom. BlueValour 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dont forget it fails WP:OR and reads like a game guide (WP:NOT). Cruft per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is neither GameFAQs nor Freshmeat.org, and reviews are disallowed anyway. This is in addition to the fact that the game is not mentioned in outside media. Geogre 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable, and fairs poorly according to WP:GOOGLE. --Nishkid64 20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and reads like a game guide. Fairs poorly on WP:GOOGLE too. All these compelling cases point that this article should be deleted. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. --Cooper-42 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a page of helpful information for new players to the game. Its what made me the AE player I am today - Alex Stankevitch, CEO of Metroline Airways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.5.250.47 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Niagara Falls - shopping facilities as content is already moved there and fails WP:CORP as a stand-alone. Shell babelfish 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Park Mall[edit]

As I understand it a shopping mall is not noteable. Blood red sandman 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Actually some shopping malls are notable enough to warrant articles. I don't know enough about this place to cast an informed vote, however, so no vote. 23skidoo 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At 800,000 square feet, it's fairly big, and the external links show verifiability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiable or not, it just isn't remotely germaine enough to justify an article. Legis 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malls are businesses. This fails to show evidence of passing WP:CORP. GRBerry 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:CORP "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Please review the multiple non-trivial published articles listed as external links in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't see multiple non-trivial coverage. The deadmalls.com site looks like a blog, not a reliable source, so I discount it completely. The Business First of Buffalo article looks like trivial coverage to me, and at most a barely worked over reprint of a press release, so I don't count it as independent, non-trivial coverage. (That reprint requirement is very hard to test, we essentially have to use a "sniff test", which is part of the reason that I think WP:CORP could be improved.) The last, Niagra Gazette article does look like an independent non-trivial article. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... this is a typical mall and nothing, not even the local press coverage, distinguishes it. Personally I don't think WP:CORP necessarily should be applied to a mall. This just reinforces the need for a guideline for buildings and physical locations.--Isotope23 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a bit upsetting after the RfA. One deletion proponent says that the article doesn't meet WP:CORP, so I demonstrate that it does. And then a second deletion proponent says that WP:CORP doesn't apply. TruthbringerToronto (Talk contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I don't know what RfA has to do with anything... but I said personally I don't think WP:CORP should apply to malls...--Isotope23 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I understand that other people don't believe WP:CORP; I seem to be the strongest advocate of that position, as I rarely see it referenced in a Mall AFD discussion before I arrive. That is part of why I usually include an explanation of why it does apply. I also don't see what other standard too apply. I've seen articles for strip malls, and when we count those things there are about as many around as there are schools (in developed countries at least), so we need some standard. WP:CORP isn't perfect, either for suitability to malls or as a general standard for companies, but it does apply better than anything else we have, at least in my opinion. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their are lots of articles about shopping malls, this mall has a lot of history to it. It is located near a tourist town and tourist's can read about it if they come to Niagara Falls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14305 Man (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 August 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why you need a more thorough discussion. It's thorough enough already. GRBerry has been clear and persuasive (and polite). Delete. -- Hoary 11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the authors have found a secondary reference that is verifiable and written a reasonable stub. Addhoc 11:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per addhoc. SliceNYC 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as BlueValour already merged the content to a combination article. The final step of a merge is a redirect. My understanding of the GFDL is that after a merge redirection is required and deletion is no longer appropriate. If I'm wrong about that, stay with my original opinion of deletion for the reasons given above. GRBerry 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per addhoc this is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 12:41, 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.

RCW Women's Championship[edit]

The result was delete Tim! 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable wrestling championship. Along with this I am nominating RCW Tag Team Championship. Lid 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - since making this AfD another page has appeared at RCW Lightweight Championship and another page was speedied at RCW Internet Championship[25]. I'm adding the Lightweight belt to the list as looking at the website for the belts illustrates it's a small scale promotion and doesn't show any assertion of notability. --- Lid 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't think it's not notable doesn't it's not. Not all indy feds will be as big as JAPW, ROH, PWG, ECCW, Stampede Wrestling, etc.. Mr. C.C. 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no assertion of notability, and even the website leads no credence to the notability of the championship. If the only source of the notablitiy is the website itself it also fails to meet the guidelines. --- Lid 07:36, 22 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non notable. Indy wrestling, more or less, always is, and this is no different. I suppose that it also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thε Halo Θ 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indy feds might get their own articles, but they should definitely not have articles for each title, because we'd be buried in them. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom -- bulletproof 3:16 21:14, 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 per discussion as failing notability requirements and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dally in the Alley[edit]

This is a poster competition. It scores a couple of hundred Googles. And that, basically, is it. No real evidence of significance and every winner appears to be redlinked with one exception, an unrelated policitican called Glenn Barr. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've been to this one. It's an annual fundraiser for a local charity. They have bands, etc., but it's not particularly notable. JChap2007 23:38, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JChap2007 ST47 12:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I authored this article with assistance from the Dally in the Alley coordinator, Connie Mangalin, employing materials supplied by the Dally in the Alley committee. All of the artists list are easily found in web searches, and at least one of the artists listed wrote his own article, which was chopped. This was Stephen Goodfellow, and if you've seen his work, you would understand how important he is as an artist. BTW: This article has stood one year. So why now the rush to ruin the work of several ernest, Detroit based people. I simply cannot understand how a person can attend the Dally and overlook its signficance. It is an example of a festival that has quite literally saved the community in which it takes place from the wrecking ball. Wmjuntunen 22:26, 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 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StraightWay[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable evangelical corporation, providing no verifiability. Prod tag was removed. IceCreamAntisocial 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Their home page is here: [26]. Not sure why that's not in the article. It seems like they ought to be notable, but there's very little web chatter. The only real claims to notability are two letters of commendation from the last two governors of Texas (which politicians hand out like party favors). This is very likely the kind of organization (homeless people, teen mothers, etc.) that doesn't really cross path with the web very much, so I'm inclined to cut them some slack, but not this much. verifiability is the issue. - Richfife 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling back to Neutral on this one. Evangelical organizations raise my hackles a bit, so I should compensate for that in my vote. - Richfife 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not mention that one of the "former governors" of Texas is the current president of the United States, and the other one is the CURRENT GOVERNOR of Texas. That seems to hold a decent level of verification. Because an organization is not validated through a google search--does this now mean that they are non-notable? The StraightWay ministry is the one which led Karla Faye Tucker to Christ 12 years before her execution. The director has been interviewed by Larry King about the ministry. Several Houston-based news stations have aired reports about StraightWay. Carter89fifteen 06:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, verifiability is the issue. What was the air date of the Larry King episode? How long was his segment? The Karla Faye Tucker conversion isn't notable in my book (religious conversion on death row is very common and generally suspect). And again, a commendation from a governor (even a president to be) is nothing to write home about. Follow this link for a reason why: [27] - Richfife 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the media coverage was done in 1997, before the execution of Ms. Tucker. The main issue reported was in regards to the organization's ideological opposition of the death penalty. Also... my facts about the Larry King interview were not straight (in fact, they were downright wrong). I apologize for that. While King covered the issue, an interview was not conducted. There were, however, several networks that interviewed Mr. Kirschke (SW director) about the issue because of how controversial it was, including MSNBC. It placed StraightWay very much in the limelight because it was their organization that brought Karla to a place of Christian conversion. Thank you for withdrawing your "weak delete" vote. I appreciate your willingness to admit your lack of objectivity when it comes to evangelical programs, but I am confused about your prejudice against these programs (which you say "raise your hackles"). My question is: If you are a liberal, who by definition is one who is an open-minded person and freethinker, as I am, why are you so intolerant of those of a different persuasion, even if it is Christian-based? To me, that seems to be quite a narrow-minded approach and philosophy to have.-Carter89fifteen 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, don't get personal, please. In order to show that the organization is notable enough, all you need to do is cite your sources, and provide references that other people can go to and see for themselves why the organization is important enough to merit an article. I hate to link to Wikipedia:Verifiability again, but really that page has the information you need. Also, it is a requirement of every Wikipedia article. The article will not be deleted if it cites reliable sources about its importance. IceCreamAntisocial 03:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of a multitude of re-hab centers. so-what? It isn't the Betty Ford Clinic. It isn't notable -- per the article, no notable people have re-habbed here, either. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 23 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim to a stub, merge into Teen Challenge, unless secondary references are found. Addhoc 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's another nn rehab centre, unver, delete. Edit: Also, if this isnt going to get deleted, please rewrite it. It reads far more like advertising/advocacy than it does an encyclopedia article. You know you're in for a 80's style hard-sell when you start seeing ® and © symbols all over a page. (SWTC --Amists 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a nicely written article, but I'm not convinced that this rehab center is any more notable than all the other rehab centers out there. Amazinglarry 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and redirect. Don't need two potentially divergent articles about the same thing. Ohconfucius 23:01, 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. - Bobet 11:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podstreaming[edit]

Yet another podcasting protologism. Claims to have been in use for a year and a half, but still only 136 Google hits. --Haakon 21:45, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Sounds like a fad but google hits are around only 300 plus most links are nonsense sites (on google search). The article may be crystal ball.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom (and article not long enough). Cedars 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has inherently notability as describing a new technology. Why should the its length matter? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing notablity requirements and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Age Cluster Class (MACC)[edit]

Not encyclopediac, of local (if any) interest only, implicit attack Wtshymanski 21:13, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be saying that on every AfD, even those which are not of notability concerns, could you try to be more specific? ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Vancouver School Board, and apply some NPOV --17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above - interesting concept, but not really one that needs to be broken out. I didn't get a lot of Google action with this either, so it's a bit on the narrow focused side. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a former MACC student, I believe that this article should stay put, just where it is. There is a MACC website, for whoever "didn't get a lot of action on Google". It is [28]here and is entirely verifiable.
The question that needs to be answered here is whether it is verifiable through reliable sources as being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That site would appear to be made by the group in question, not a reference to it from an outside source - which was what I was referring to by my Google comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 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 Keep per later discussion.. Shell babelfish 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion[edit]

Non notable webgame. Fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. I prodded it on august 1 and the prod was removed on august 18. Peephole 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It won a minor monthly award, but other than that, it hasn't become notable. No non-trivial independent third party coverage that I could fine. Also fails the nom criteria. --Wafulz 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won that award several times, first time in May 2000, and then again in December 2000, in January, March, April, June, September, October and December of 2001, and in February 2002. Shanes 02:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it should have been one week after placing the prod. This doesn't really have any reason for inclusion. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was prod deleted, but I speedy undeleted it per exception 2 on WP:UNDEL as I think it was notable enough to warrant an article. I played this game some 5-6 years ago and it really was very popular back then when web based games like this was in its infancy. And it won quite a few awards too, if my memory isn't failing me. Shanes 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an excellent and comprehensive webgame. I tend to give it as one of the top 3 examples of what a webgame is.Theseus321 01:48, 22 August 2006 (EST)
  • Keep Per above. Havok (T/C/c) 09:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB. Whispering(talk/c) 17:27, 22 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whispering ST47 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Planetarion is in decline now which ruins its Google test, but it was a big player in the browser-game market several years ago, with lots of derivatives. Tens of thousands of users in its heyday doesn't reflect accurately in its current declined state. Mostly historical. -- nae'blis 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm convinced, weak keep per nae'blis and maybe the fact that it's historical / past it's heyday should be noted on the page itself more directly-Amists 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Arkyan 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Cpc464 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I used to play years ago; it was one of the first web based multiplayer browser based games, and at its peak had 10s of thousands of active users. Certainly worthy of keeping for historical reference. BenRobb 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I played through rounds 4-6 and there was no shortage of players at that time! Perhaps the article could be expanded a little then on its reasons of its decline. I believe it had something to do with Jolt taking over etc... Although deffinitely keep the article even if only for historical purposes.
  • Weak delete: I don't believe it passes WP:WEB or WP:RS, but I do remember when it was big - its historical value could make it worth keeping, if it could be expanded/find more sources, but I doubt that can be done. --Mnemeson 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what counts as acceptable review, but I found some old ones still on the net [29][30][31]. There are probably many more, I remember reading about it in print, but it's so long ago that I can't remember where much less find those on the net. Shanes 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shanes. Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I used to play this game a couple of years ago so in my world it is notable. bbx 06:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as references were provided. Shell babelfish 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car dealer auctions[edit]

Original research, not suitable for an article. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX,
Please understand that I wrote this article in part based on my direct experience, but to a large extent based on secondary research with the original intent to aggregate information about the subject of car dealer auctions that is not readily available to the public. I tried to keep personal opinion out and still believe in the informational, educational and encyclopedic nature of this article. I'd be happy to provide links to my outside sources, if you think this would strengthen my position, and I would also gladly edit any parts that may sound "not suitable for an article" to you or to other potential readers. I'm hoping that in time other automotive experts will expand and improve on what I originally wrote. I humbly ask that you reconsider deleting it and provide constructive feedback that will be in the interest of the community at large.
--cfherbert 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problems are several here: first, there doesn't appear to be any sourcing in the article, which are necessary for verifiability; second, policy states that articles must not be previously unpublished. Check out No original research for details. If you can repair those, then great, but as this article is, I'll have to say Delete as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tony Fox,
Thank you for clarifying. I think two of my sources actually meet the criteria from the policy. I'm not sure how best to source them in the article, but here they are:
1) "Auto Auctions: Prices Influence What You Pay for Cars" by Jerry Edgerton <http://hffo.cuna.org/story.html?doc_id=1170&sub_id=12433>
2) "Chapter 4. Buying A Vehicle At Auction" by The National Auto Auction Association <http://www.naaa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3382>
I hope this will save my article from deletion.
--cfherbert 00:35, 24 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per WP:OR ST47 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rebuild the article using references, removing any claims that cannot be verified. From what I have found in a quick search, the article seems to be relatively accurate. It just needs references and some cleanup. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as I think we can assume good faith of the article creator (who certainly seems to be making a good faith effort to cite the article per his comments above). However, it certainly needs more citations and references. -Markeer 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - original edittor appears to be trying properly source the article. Subject matter is suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It does however suck poop in it's current form.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing WP:MUSIC. Shell babelfish 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Santos[edit]

Nonnotable rapper. Bare assertion of notability, but then article says "his dream is to be widely recognized". NawlinWiki 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His dream is to be widely recognized in the Latino Communities in the United States (see article! He is already widely recognized throughout El Salvador. Want some proof? here's some proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat Lui (talk • contribs)

    • Response OK, fair enough, but the article came through in Spanish for me when I clicked the link. Also, it's one music website -- not sure it counts as a reliable source. Any mainstream news articles, hit chart listings, etc.? NawlinWiki 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as unverifiable until there are reliable sources in English. I'm not sure if he'll be notable even if he is verifiable, but I'm going to assume good faith and wait to see some English sources before deciding. Srose (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is verifiable, if anything, into Pescozada, his group, as the information seems a little thin (based on the Spanish language sources and the Wikipedia article itself). --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the Spanish-language material. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Santos is not an official member of Pescozada, so the article should not be merged. Deleting his article would be like deleting the bibingka article, because even though it is widely recognized throughout Southeast Asia, it is not acknowledged in the U.S. as much. It would also be like deleting the Francisco Tarrega article, because "every interview I found was in Spanish". Look, if you ask me, this is a stupid matter to argue about. Also, if you google search Joaquin Santos, plenty of Hispanic citizens in the U.S. have written about him in myspace profiles, including other rappers you might consider "nonnotable". Furthermore, how come he has his own website in English? Nerdchomper 17:33, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone provide evidence, in Spanish or English, that Santos meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria? For example, has he had a record that charted on the El Salvador music charts, if there are any, or another country? Has he released at least two albums through a major, or significant independent, record company in El Salvador, or another country? If the evidence is in Spanish, I'm sure there would be enough editors on the English Wikipedia who understand Spanish well enough to read it and confirm that he meets the criteria. --Metropolitan90 16:35, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's up to the editors of the article to prove notability and they haven't done it. Furthermore, even with verifiable sources he'd barely scrape by on WP:MUSIC anyway. --kingboyk 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. There may be a little systematic bias, but just because an article about him exists in Spanish does not justify keeping the wiki article if subject himself fails WP:MUS, which he appears to do. Myspace is not a reliable source as it is too prone to spamming. Ohconfucius 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for insufficient evidence that he satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 16:06, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Velvet Abstract[edit]

A short film that does not exist yet. Unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Let's wait until it exists and see if it becomes notable. Weregerbil 09:48, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 99% of short films are not notable after they're made. Crystal-ballism to believe this will be any different. (Looks like this is part of a huge walled garden on James Hughes (Writer / Director), most of whose films are so far below the radar that IMDB doesn't even list them.) Fan-1967 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notablitiy, and fails WP:NOT. Thε Halo Θ 16:35, 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. Subject notable, sufficient verifiable information to merit seperate article. WP:NOT does not apply as information presented is much more than simply plot summary. Shell babelfish 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe[edit]

An article which is "solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction" (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7). Prod removed because "Warhammer 40,000 is very popular", which, while true, doesn't override WP:NOT. Delete --Pak21 08:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm, why? J Milburn 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Warhammer 40,000 132.205.93.88 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the content on this page is basically just an amalgamation of content already existing on other Warhammer 40,000 pages (eg Great Crusade), so I have removed the merge tag. --Pak21 08:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prod the Wikiproject to take a look which I have done. With any luck these guys will know how the page fits into their reorganisation of the articles. LinaMishima 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "we" know about it. There was a previous discussion about creating a "history" page, but it petered out with no decision; this page was created by a new editor without any discussion with the WikiProject. While there may be a need for a history page, this plot summary isn't it. (FWIW, the AfD is already listed at WP:40K). Cheers --Pak21 13:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A history page seems like a good lead in to the other more specific pages we have. "It is a simply a plot summary" is a reason for a rewrite, not removal in my mind. --Falcorian (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the wishes of the 40k wikiproject. It's their part of wikipedia to organise, so I'll side with them. Seems like all the material is already in other articles already. LinaMishima 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it should be pointed out that Falcorian is also a member of the WikiProject. --Pak21 14:42, 23 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT. Thε Halo Θ 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all relevant The Haunted Angel 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nerdiness is not an independent grounds for deletion, and the article as written conveys interesting information about a notable topic. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
    • comment it is strongly worth noting that the WP:40K project wants to have the article deleted, as they have already organised this information themselves in a different manner - nothing will be lost LinaMishima 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply As a member, I do not think that has been fully agreed upon. --Falcorian (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as before. Wikipedia is not a place for plot synopses. --Pak21 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed: re-vote due to not understanding relisting procedure. --Pak21 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the imformation is already contained in other articles (such as the Tyranid stuff, which relates directly to the Nids, and the Great Crusadek, which is a monumental event in the 40K universe), and whatever here that is original looks like it would be best used in other articles. Merge out and/or delete 24.147.252.241 23:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (aka Saberwyn)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT. Read it, then vote, not the other way around. GarrettTalk 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sterling Walker[edit]

Similar to the ones above, but appears to be even less notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • can't see why the other ones survived AfD. Ohconfucius 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On a Google search for the full name as a string, the top hit is to a Korean war casualty's directory entry. Review of the links on the first page that are about this fellow showed no evidence that he has been published by himself, only as a "new voice" in anthologies. No evidence of winning awards or of having a review about his work in specific. GRBerry 16:19, 21 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he has an independent anthology of his own, or other sole publications, or wins a major award. Espresso Addict 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 04:52, 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 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICWA World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Non notable wrestling championship with only one listing and no context - also up for deletion are ICWA Womens Championship and ICWA European Championship Lid 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - I missed including ICWA Cruiserweight Championship. Adding to deletion list. --- Lid 06:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all three of them. TJ Spyke 22:28, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know which fed these related to but now that I do I nominate deletion of that as well. --- Lid 01:28, 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 per discussion as failing notability guidelines and WP:V. Shell babelfish 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive Central[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, non-notable website with an alexa ranking of 1,400,000+, no reliable sources on this that I can find, so violates WP:V. Xyzzyplugh 05:00, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems pretty clear the site is now closed - see intuitivecentral.com - which would seem to torpedo what notability it had. Shimgray | talk | 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StorageByMail.com[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Google hits all link back to this wikipedia article, or to a PR piece which the company put out and which a few minor websites picked up. The website has no alexa ranking Xyzzyplugh 05:11, 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 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 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codeps[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Non-notable website, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet WP:V Xyzzyplugh 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It DOES show up on Alexa. It's the top 4 entries when you search for it. And unsigned needs to install web filters if they don't want their kids reading Wikipedia. If this article gets deleted, then you also need to delete other articles like Al-anon/alateen, AA, Coanon, etc. because they are also support groups. This group is NO less valid a group. Either that, or you need to merge all the support groups for addictions into one article. Madmumbler 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC) MadMumbler[reply]
  • Correction, top FIVE entries -- I just went in today and typed in Codeps and the first 5 entries that come up are for the group (some are for the older version of it, but they are there).Madmumbler 15:36, 25 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,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Nicola Giacomo Aluigi Giuseppe Linza. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability discussion. Most of the media coverage is trivial, but traffic reports and subculture discussion in the Adbuster article seem to clearly establish notability.. Shell babelfish 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikeTalk[edit]

This article about a Nike shoes collection discussion site survived a prior AfD as "no consensus" back in March (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NikeTalk), but since then has not been improved one bit, nor has the notability been shown further. It is still my belief that it is nothing more than spam and should be delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability. Addhoc 11:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good rewrite. Addhoc 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, just like it should have been in the first place. Blood red sandman 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again ST47 12:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, just a bunch of spam. Thirdgen 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. This is just plain petty. Scores of fan clubs enjoy uncontested Wikipedia entries.

Let's take a peek at an exemplary wikipedia fan club entry: [[32]] There's something odd about this one. This entry has no sources and doesn't even contain correct grammar, yet I don't see any deletion request. I don't see Nlu calling the entry's notability into question, and yet I can't imagine how THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has more members worldwide than www.niketalk.com. As I don't read any poorly dittoed fright rock "zines," I can't recall the last time THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has ever breached the mainstream media.

I could accept a style critique. The article, while constantly vandalized, was not well written to begin with, and I'm aware that this site's pedantic gatekeepers typically require that each entry be uniformly encoded in pretentious academic jargon - using as many cute latin phrases as possible so as to more accurately indulge the fantasy of actually participating in a real academic journal. If you want to condense this entry down to a banal recitation of verifiable facts regarding the site's traffic, history, and external mentions - go hog wild. We can all live with that.

What irks me is that this has, for whatever reason, become a personal crusade for a wikipedia administrator. Nlu, you really destroyed any shred of objectivity by continually railing against NikeTalk.com's "notability." How did this site require FURTHER proof of notability than VERIFIED mentions in Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal? The site's popularity may be verified simply by viewing the independently collected web stats. Since I doubt you've ever visited the site, let me give you a hand: [http://extremetracking.com/open?login=ntjordan ] Currently, the site receives between 70,000 and 90,000 unique visitors per day - and this is off peak. Over 4.6 million unique visitors viewed the site in January of this year alone. If that is not notable, you have a hell of a lot of entries to delete.

What's more, you've obviously attempted to narrow the scope of this debate in order to railroad this entry from wikipedia. You DELETED several "keep" votes - which in no way violated wikipedia standards - and then blocked all new and unregistered users from participating in this forum and prevented a TRUE public hearing. The NikeTalk entry has been vandalized on probably hundreds of occasions, and yet after ONE miscreant violates this topic you place it under security? Your motives here are transparent. I honestly can't imagine what your problem is with a harmless online community for sneaker fans sharing wikipedia space with millions of other articles, but you've clearly demonstrated a subjective bias against this entry. You've abused what little "power" you possess. And for what? To keep a sneaker message board from "contaminating" an encyclopedia that enshrines, among other things, warcraft mods and testicle cuffs? This is a resource that is, supposedly, open to the general public.

There is NO standard violated by this entry that has not been violated a thousand times over by entries you continue to allow. If this entry is spam, what of the entry for www.newegg.com? Does anyone really need a wikipedia entry to detail the history of a web store? If this entry is not notable, then what of The Doyle Fan Club or any of the thousands upon thousands of other equally obscure entries?

Look, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the people. It's intended to include topics that stodgy "formal" encyclopedias wouldn't deign to include. www.niketalk.com is the largest online community for sneaker collectors in the world today. Whether that's important to you or not is utterly subjective - and your standards are SUPPOSED to be OBjective. The entry should exist for those all those who might seek it. If you can abide an entry for the Cinderella Stamp Club, (600 members) I'm sure there's a place for the world's largest community of sneaker fans.

Wikipedia users, I'm not asking you to LOVE this entry. I am asking you to be fair - and in this case most of the criticism levied against this entry has been inconsistent and superficial at best. --RakimAllah 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the records, I reverted to a pre-vandalism version because these anons/newly registered users removed valid delete votes and defaced the AfD discussion itself. See the history of the AfD. Since those votes would have been disregarded anyway (not only as vandalism but also as votes by users who were too new), there is no loss. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still more hypocrisy from Nlu... First of all, unless you have IP records PROVING that all of those individuals were responsible for vandalizing the site you have NO basis for removing their valid "keep" votes. You have to admit, it all looks both petty and suspect to have cut off ALL "keep" votes and restored all "delete" votes. Altering or deleting votes makes a mockery of Wikipedia's "honor system" - and it appears you're every bit as guilty as those you consider "vandals" in this instance. Even though I clearly want the article kept, ultimately I respect the integrity of wikipedia enough to acknowledge and respect votes that go against my cause. You can't make the same claim - and you're an administrator. What does that say?
Simply because they are new users, you don't feel they have a say in the matter? MOST wikipedia users do NOT register for this site. Shouldn't all wikipedia viewers have a say? If an article is important to someone, shouldn't they be able to voice their opinions and contribute to the discussion? What you're attempting to accomplish is to limit this debate to those who have little to no understanding of the subject matter. Imagine if we put one of your prized articles on Chinese historical figures up for a deletion debate and allowed only Alabamian Klansmen to vote. Do you think they'd consider your subjects "notable?" You appear to have no respect for or understanding of the subject matter - and it's clearly biased your judgment.
Look at the quality of arguments tethered to these "delete" votes. How well supported are these sputtered fragments? "Spam" How so? If this is spam, you have thousands and thousands of other articles that would seemingly fit the same criteria. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles promoting businesses both online and off. Is it only spam if the author veils her or his bias behind third person objective? Not that it matters, but NikeTalk.com isn't even a business. All ad revenue above and beyond the site's hosting costs goes to various charities. It's a community that holds a unique position of influence within the sneaker industry, as indicated by all of those sources you fail to acknowledge. If someone can type "newegg" into your search engine and find an article that reads like a brochure, why is it that a sneaker fan cannot type in NikeTalk to find more information? If vandalism weren't such a pervasive problem here, perhaps there'd be a better core article for those interested to update. As it stands, the article can take one step forward and three steps back. Yet you clearly care more about the vandalism of your prized "delete" votes than the vandalism of actual CONTENT. How fair is it that people who have no real interest in this article, yet enjoy feeling as though they're really "editors" of something as ostensibly intellectual as an encyclopedia, are able to impose snap judgments in this space - yet those who actually care the most about the subject of this article are locked out because they had no reason to open an account in the past? Aren't they still wikipedia users? You're simply afraid of opening up the floor because you know that you'll never achieve a consensus delete under such conditions - so you JUMPED at the chance to manipulate the process to engineer your desired result. That's pathetic. You could've simply reinstated the lost "delete" votes, since you're following this so closely.
You have NO case with regard to notability - and you know that. How many other entries are asked to CONSTANTLY add new sources merely to prove their notability over and over again? The site was just mentioned in Time magazine in March. While the EASILY verifiable traffic and membership figures and previous mainstream media mentions should have been MORE than sufficient, the site has since been mentioned in the LA Times and Adbusters magazine. What more do you want? How is it that a stamp collectors club with 600 mentions is notable, but a community with over 50,000 members and 70,000+ regular visitors that has received international media attention is not? What, exactly, remains unproven about the site's notability? Have ezboard.com, extreme web tracking, Time magazine, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Adbusters, Details, Strength, etc. etc. ALL fallen for some "hoax" here? Visit the freaking site. ONCE. You'll find a community with 50,000 plus members - just as ALL of these sources claim. What more can you POSSIBLY ask for to demonstrate notability?
Compare the NikeTalk entry to other fan club entries. There are NO SOURCES in any number of unchallenged fan club entries - not ONE. There's no source to verify its content. You have XBox live "clans" with wikipedia articles for crying out loud. Go bully them. This article contains verifiable sources from some of the most respected mainstream periodicals in the world and that's suddenly not enough to "prove notability?" You have to acknowledge that you're being a little inconsistent here, to say the very least. While you may prefer starcraft mods, testicle cuffs, fright rock, and stamp collectors to sneakers - that's no reason to try and run a site off what should be a public resource. As with any encyclopedia, wikipedia ought to have the potential to BROADEN one's horizons a bit. Take advantage. It's not just about what interests YOU. --RakimAllah 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether those users were vandalizing or not is open to public judgment. I've posted the link to the history of the discussion. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that they did vandalize this discussion. Your attacks on me just, I think, shows the lack of case for keep (at least prior to Pixelface's rewrite). Even after Pixelface's rewrite, however, I believe this is still a spam magnet.
As for the strawman argument of "but there are other articles more deserving of deletion!" it should be noted that you can propose articles for deletion, too, and if you think that those other articles don't belong, propose to delete them. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LACK of a case? That's rich. I've posted an actual defense for this entry. You've posted nothing more than a bunch of empty claims. You CLAIM the site is spam, but you make NO argument for it. You CLAIM the site isn't notable, but you make NO argument for it. Have you REALLY passed the bar? For crying out loud, since when has "because I said so" been a valid argument? For the sake of novelty, try to make a point here.
Go back and look at the log you posted. This entry, and ONLY this entry, is responsible for the removal of valid "delete" votes: [[33]]
There's one other superfluous entry, the "get off ISS" entry. SEVERAL other entries contain nothing but valid comments from wikipedia users, which you then removed. What's wrong with these entries: "* Dont Delete You can't delete it, it has 500,000,000 page views - cafa301" "* * Dont Delete This is one of the biggest forums on the internet-samberkun" If a red user name indicates a new user, you KEPT delete votes from new users and, conversely, you DELETED keep votes from new users. What does that say about you?
Your claim that the site isn't "notable enough" for wikipedia remains indefensible. That you've repeatedly asserted this claim only proves your bias. Even so, let's prove your bias a few more times for the benefit of those who haven't yet been totally disillusioned. If the revised NikeTalk entry is spam, surely the article for www.newegg.com is spam. For crying out loud, go look at the entry. They're using it to advertise their upcoming 'regional expansions.' The whole entry reads like an advertisement. So, what's the difference? Please, tell me. IF you were a person of principle, I imagine you'd wish to apply the SAME standards to every single entry. IF you were a person of principle, you'd vote to DELETE the entry for www.newegg.com on these same grounds. If it is NOT deleted and "fails to improve" even after the community allows it to stay, I would then expect you to HOUND this entry with future delete requests until a "consensus" decision is reached. Otherwise, you're PROVING that you're treating this particular entry differently than others. Of course, I shouldn't have to be the one to propose the article for deletion. Now that you, an administrator, are aware of another spam entry like www.newegg.com - YOU will be the one to propose and argue for the article's deletion. It's your goal to remove all spam articles that you're aware of, is it not? Or, are you going to admit that you're only interested in removing "spam" articles if they somehow irk you? So much for your objectivity. This isn't a campaign against spam. You just have beef with this entry - and it's now obvious to all. At least have the integrity to own up to it and explain why you'll tolerate "spam" from newegg and thousands of other sites - even after they've been brought to your attention - but you're willing to wage this little crusade against niketalk's entry.
You're still not going to reach a consensus, especially after the article has been stripped down to include ONLY those statements easily verified by the included sources. The moment the NikeTalk entry was cleaned up, your claims were nullified. The subject is obviously notable. The entry has been scrubbed to the bone. That you continue to press for deletion only indicts you further. Stop the bleeding. Sadly, it all reflects poorly on wikipedia since you're so flagrantly misusing your administrative access. Fair-minded users won't stand for it. --RakimAllah 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Has this website really been mentioned in Newsweek, Time Magazine, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Los Angeles Times, et cetera? Does it really have "47,060 registered users"? If so then we probably shouldn't be having this discussion. RFerreira 08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after massive rewrite by myself despite RakimAllah failing WP:CIVIL. Does seem a little spammish though.Pixelface 09:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please after massive rewrite based on media coverage and large membership numbers Yuckfoo 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independently verifiable membership statistic. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of.... Do you do any research at all when you condemn these entries? NikeTalk is hosted by Ezboard. You may know them as one of the world's largest message board networks. The address www.niketalk.com is actually a redirect leading to http://p093.ezboard.com/bniketalk. So, it's not NIKETALK claiming 52,162 users - it's EZBOARD's own system. Not good enough for Nlu standards? Email someone at ezboard and ask them to confirm it. Or, you know, just man up and accept it. Either way works. --RakimAllah 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice rewrite, but I don't see anything that isn't a passing mention. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, decent sized forum that is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. bbx 06:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per discussion after article update. Shell babelfish 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 3166-2:TT[edit]

This is all covered in Trinidad and Tobago. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Blood red sandman 12:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, completely unnecessary to have a separate article on this. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ST47 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- there are several more of these that currently just redirect to the country they represent. Keep -- article has now been expanded somewhat similar to how other articles for these codes are structured. --Polaron | Talk 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ISO codes for a specific country is too crufty for even me, unless possibly if there is some unique or interesting verified and reference history behind these codes.-- danntm T C 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are aware that there is a whole bunch of these articles. One option might be to redirect them to lists of subdivisions of each country and incorporate the codes into those lists. --Polaron | Talk 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a possibility. I believe there are templates, such as template:mergeto, to give notice of proposed merger. A concern to keep in mind is the length of any final list.-- danntm T C 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is part of a series and this sort of information is highly unsuitable for merging, especially the larger examples. Piccadilly 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per piccadilly this is not suitable to be merged and part of a series Yuckfoo 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Wrestler Rick Love[edit]

Can't find evidence of even existing, article written in nonsensical non-encyclopedic way. Claims of notability are iffy at best. No sources or links to evidence. Lid 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established ST47 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find were his blog and his online store for wrestling memorabilia. --Wafulz 17:39, 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 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fameism[edit]

Article is about a neologism (Google turns up 9 hits, most whch do not seem to be related to this "term"), could also be seen as original research. Prod removed without reason Wildthing61476 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article may well be original research, this does not make it any less true. The term 'Fameism' is a neologism, but the description of 'fameism' is none the less an occurance that is happening today. As an original piece of work it could be a template for incorporation into mainstream language and culture. Google turns up 22 hits, 2 of which are related to this 'term'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.119.144 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The above author's only edits are to this AfD and the article nominated. Wildthing61476 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion isn't a referendum on whether the word is a good word, a useful addition to the language. It's not even a discussion on whether the term will ever merit its own article. We're simply discussing whether it does currently. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 hits related to this term are on Urban Dictionary and have been created by the same person who made the entry on Wikipedia. There are no hits from reputable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.13.250 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Protologism, original research, and there is already a well known english word for this topic, it's called "Celebrity", and we have an article on that. --Xyzzyplugh 00:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research does not belong on Wikipedia, period. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny ReverendG 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in accordance with my comment above; NN neologism. WP:NOT for things made up in school and all. If the word catches on and someone creates fameism in a few years and that hits AfD I may or may not feel differently, but now is not the time. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:43, 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, copyvio. Aguerriero (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nshanian[edit]

The article is about a extremely obscure person (google test lists a single article) and the article itself was copied from some other source. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete copyvio ST47 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is just a publicity press release and bltantly says so right at the bottom. -- Whpq 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable. -Steve Sanbeg 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nshanian is an international soprano, who is well known in Armenia and Russia.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in the War on Terrorism[edit]

Page was created by a sockpuppet and is redundant with pages War_on_Terrorism:_Allies and War on Terrorism as well as the general template Template:War on Terrorism --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:21, 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. Shell babelfish 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Dinitto[edit]

Article on obscure, not notable radio host. Google test lists less than 900 hits and article is a constant copyvio mess. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom ST47 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the obvious WP:COPYVIO problems, there is insufficient notability, per WP:BIO, and an absence of reliable, reputable sources, per WP:V. --Satori Son 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aozora: Another Blue Sky[edit]

Article on very obscure webcomic. The google test only lists results from wikipedia and other comics wikis. The article's author only wrote this particular article and his user page is exactly like this article. Very obscure, possibly vanity. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nexis comes up empty (though it is hard to be sure; there is a Japanese financial firm called Aozora whose hits number into the hundreds and may be obscuring some hits for the webcomic). Uucp 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent reviews, no awards, no nothing. Ship it off to comixpedia. ColourBurst 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, when Adonisclopin created the "Aozora: Another Blue Sky" article .. Adonisclopin probably didn't realize there already was (and still is) an article about the Aozora webcomic. Perhaps move info from "Aozora: Another Blue Sky" article to Aozora? --EarthFurst 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in fashion[edit]

Article (obviously a template) was tagged as patent nonsense, which isn't correct. Maybe the fashionistas really are looking ahead in a verifiable way? Doubtful, but I'm bringing it here for a wider audience in case I'm wrong. Creator user:Jocasta shadow seems to be an editor in good standing. -- nae'blis 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No crystal balls. Delete. Alba 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what a load of absolute crystal balls. Why sreate the article in the first place? Why not wait 5 years when we might actually need such an article? - Blood red sandman 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - rubbish -- Whpq 14:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal ball. Besides, I happen to know we'll all be dead by 2010. Kafziel 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious crystal balls. --Kinu t/c 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the definition of crytal ball. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will get more relavent as time goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermann69 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Obvious crystal ball, seeing as we haven't even finished 2000s in fashion. AgentPeppermint 18:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of now, the future sucks poop so far; so wait until then to find out the trends. --Nintendude message 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No crystal balls. Dekar 22:52, 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 no consensus. —Xyrael / 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report[edit]

Despite being a Colbert fanatic, I feel that this page is quite unnecessary. It currently lists two neologisms- The Simpsons, this is not. The list consists of truthiness, which has its own article, and wikiality, which is covered in the article dealing with WP in pop culture (among many other articles which mention it). If Stephen can come up with a significant number of widely-used terms, perhaps this page can be recreated; at this point, it's simply redundant. Kicking222 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per nom. This seems to be a list/category that can be made in years to come, but not now. -Markeer 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC --Doc 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't watch this show, but it making up words seems to get some attention. It doesn't have many at the moment, but it might be easier to just keep it rather than have it be recreated later. That said I have no strong feelings on this one way or other.--T. Anthony 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, so that there is a place to put Colbert's neologisms (since I'm sure he has more to come), per the proposed guideline WP:COLBERT. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I was able to extend it with more "colbert-isms". Perhaps this list just needs to be extended, not trashed. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and WP:COLBERT. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - I get the feeling some people want to delete this because they disapprove of Colbert's stated dislike for certain aspects of Wikipedia, rather than because the list is useless. As it stands the list is partially useful, but personally I think if there isn't a list of morrisisms, Colbert doesn't warrant one for his less imaginative word-mashings. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the neologisms Colbert uses seem to become rather popular, and the list is certainly verifiable and expandable. --Maxamegalon2000 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Be really nice to have a clearinghouse for the Colbertisms that people keep creating articles for. Maybe having this page here will save some of those neologism articles from being created in the first place. VoiceOfReason 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both to prevent cluttering up the rest of the main namespace, and because, quite frankly, as one of America's leading media personalities (somehow), what he says carries some significant weight. This list serves to further illustrate and expand upon the coverage of Colbert's tendency to coin neologisms, which has been elsewhere reported on. I'm not his hugest fan, and I would say that an individual article for each neologism would be overkill, but a single, easily-maintained list (citing sources) is very appropriate for a show of this size and influence. Captainktainer * Talk 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable "glossary" of one of America's more popular shows. I think this deletion is fueled by the Wikiality incident.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookykman (talk • contribs)
    • Which part of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" do you not understand? We do not include glossaries. Or neologisms. — Haeleth Talk 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it, I actually was coming to the page to nominate it. Why you ask? They are less notable than episodes and are often one-time gags. Come on, he makes a new one almost every show. Wikipedia is NOT a glossary. Lets give the notable terms (or should I say term) an article and leave the rest to wither away. If a term can't establish itself outside of the show, it does not deserve to exist. Could the people voting keep see WP:NEO (avoid neologisms and never use protologisms [ie. all the content on this page])? This article isn't needed to keep out clutter. Why not just create a short limited list of examples of his neologism on the show's page? The main argument for this seems to be that it will prevent articles about the terms...why can't we just delete them when they come? BrokenSegue 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? Are you trying to prevent bad articles by including that bad content into this one? The cure is just as bad as the disease (just less visible). Why should the writers of bad articles dictate what we keep and what we delete. They shouldn't enter into this. BrokenSegue 01:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not include neologisms, and having a list of them does not stop them being excluded. Truthiness is one thing, but we already have a perfectly good article on that. Words like "jazzebration" and "wikiality", meanwhile, have zero currency outside very specific references to very specific items on this show, and thus have no place in an encyclopedia. Discuss very notable examples in their own articles; discuss less notable examples in the main article on the show; don't discuss non-notable examples at all. There's no place for this list. — Haeleth Talk 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report[edit]

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dania Aguirre[edit]

Very elaborate article, but not much there. Even the article basically says she's a student. The listed credits are not supported by [her IMDB page, which lists one uncredited appearance, one voiceover, and one unnamed character ("College Student"). Looks like, at this stage of her career, she's barely above an extra. Seems to fail WP:V and WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero hits in Nexis, zero hits in Bloomberg. Perhaps she will be notable some day but she isn't yet. Uucp 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 14:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can be recreated when she stars opposite Brad Pitt. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 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. Shell babelfish 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Phelps[edit]

Can't establish meets WP:BIO. Only about 700 g-hits for "Calvin Phelps" +artist. Bio page lists student awards and scholarships, and exhibitions but nothing that meets wp-bio. Different webpages give different dates of birth. :) Dlohcierekim 13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No entry in Bloomberg, no hits in Nexis. Both show hits for somebody with the same name who is the president of "Renegade Tobacco Co.". Perhaps this Mr. Phelps will be similarly notable some day, but he isn't yet. Uucp 14:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable, per WP:BIO, and absence of reliable, reputable sources, per WP:V. --Satori Son 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic ecosystem[edit]

wikipedia dead end which adds nothing new to the ecosystem article and is simply taking up space in the server. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean. This could be a very diverse topic once the right editors see and expand it. Check out articles like marine biology to see what I mean. --Wafulz 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree. 158.143.159.64 16:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pond ecosystem, probably under the name Aquatic ecosystem. Certainly room for expansion here. Espresso Addict 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep with Ecosystem in an 'Aquatic ecosystem' section. I have already merged Pond ecosystem in. The section can be broken out if it gets large enough. BlueValour 09:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is an important topic. I've added some information to the article, hopefully this will establish its notability. Bláthnaid 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important topic, requires own article. Jefffire 20:01, 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. Shell babelfish 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquilaine Diffusion[edit]

less-than-stub dead end article about a extremely obscure radio station. Google test lista 66 hits. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in sources. --Satori Son 04:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to GI (Liberatore, 2006). 12:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gi[edit]

Self-promotion - this stuff should be kept on the user's user page! Adambisset 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - grubber 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McGarry[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as being the youngest person to appear on a quiz show. The article does not cite sources, and the only link to that article is from the quiz show The Einstein Factor. The page could either be deleted or made into a redirect to The Einstein Factor. apers0n 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Einstein Factor. Seems like a good bit of trivia, but nothing else really. --Wafulz 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete trivia. Ohconfucius 23:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She was impressive on the Einstein Factor but winning an episode of it is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. As I recall, the episode last week didn't mention her age. No need for redirect to Einstein factor as there doesn't seem to have been any coverage of her. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This looks like a suggestion that her details should be removed fromThe Einstein Factor article as well. --apers0n 05:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not need for redirect. JPD (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable quiz show contestant. --Roisterer 15:41, 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 Speedy copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction by the pool[edit]

No ascertion of notability, all content is simply a copy and paste from the website as evidenced by the link. In a tone where it assumes the reader knows what it is talking about. Lid 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article contect copied directly from the web site -- Whpq 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as copyvio. ColourBurst 16:00, 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, transwikied. Aguerriero (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arimaa strategy[edit]

Cruft article on attempt to create another game HowTo on wikipedia. Article doesn't have any information whatsoever and only claims the intention to add information that doesn't belong on wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speedy. Why is this even a discussion? Uucp 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. I'm with Uucp- why even talk about this? There's no content besides a cross-space redirect, and as a result, there's no reason not to speedy delete the page. -- Kicking222 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. ColourBurst 15:58, 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, transwikied. Aguerriero (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arimaa tactics[edit]

Cruft article on attempt to create another game HowTo on wikipedia. Article doesn't have any information whatsoever and only claims the intention to add information that doesn't belong on wikipedia --Mecanismo | Talk 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speedy. Why is this even a discussion? Uucp 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. I'm with Uucp- why even talk about this? There's no content besides a cross-space redirect, and as a result, there's no reason not to speedy delete the page. -- Kicking222 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. ColourBurst 15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry if I have created a page which violates some Wikipedia policy. For the record, this article does not claim the intention to add content later, and it was not originally empty. It was moved in order to become part of a larger Wikibook project. At the time that I moved the original article's content, I asked for advice in the Village Pump, and was told that a "soft redirect" would be appropriate. Is there some dispute over the validity of redirecting pages that have moved to a new location? Did I have some renegade advising me in the Village Pump? A full article existed under this name for more than a year, and several external sites link to it. Would it not be a courtesy to users of Wikipedia to leave behind redirects whenever something moves? --Fritzlein 17:01, 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, no significance established. Note that I am reversing the closure made by Wikizach (talk · contribs) because a) it was nothing but a head count and b) the user in question is not an administrator and should not be closing discussions where the outcome isn't obvious.--SB | T 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LostCasts[edit]

Non notable podcast for the TV show Lost.-- Jtrost (T | C | [34]) 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable podcast. Seems to be an advertising campaign. --Peephole 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very good Podcast and worthy wiki entry. The podcast does exactly what it says on the tin and is certainly of note, even one of the Lost cast has phoned into the podcast —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.107.167 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 86.40.107.167 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Strong Keep This is the podcast that has frequently been referred to as the "podcast for the serious Lost fan" by the Lost community and even by other popular Lost podcasters. This is not a podcast that is based on reviewing episodes and entertaining (and there are some excellent podcasts which do those things very well;) this is the one podcast that deals with Lost mythology and literary references on a deep level. It involves considerable time and research by these intelligent and dedicated podcasters who also inspire their listeners to research the mythological and literary references within Lost. This podcast was one of the very first Lost podcasts and has remained a pillar of the Lost community. That alone makes them noteworthy. Then add to that, their distinction as the podcast that created the standard for the "grad school level Lost podcast" and their "notability" within the Lost community is cemented. These podcasters put a lot of time and research into each show (often quoting wikipedia; thereby boosting the popularity and growth of Wikipedia.) Their i-tunes standing testifies to this. How can they be considered anything but one of the most outstanding and noteworthy of all Lost podcasts? }This is my first post on Wikipedia. However it is not a single purpose account. I have frequently used Wikipedia (and yes, I learned about it from LostCasts) for research. It is the first place I turn to find answers or to learn about something. I think Wikipedia is as close to a universal all *purpose library as this world can ever know. I have never posted before because I never felt like I had anything important to add. I do today. LostCasts is an excellent podcast and deserves to be noted as an important part of the Lost community. I am proud to make this my first post. MrsB 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — MrsB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]
  • Strong Keep This podcast is the best Lost podcast to date. It holds discussions on theories, themes and characters along with book discussions. It is intelligent and a major contributor to the Lost community. This podcast is better than most because it delves deeper into literary themes than any other Lost podcast. I have known people who, through listening to Lostcasts, have become interested in different kids of literature. My neice who previously hated to read, became interested in reading because the podcast mentioned several books that have a relationship to Lost. She has since read Watership Down and loved it and is now reading other books. And podcast that inspires children to read cannot be bad and others should have a chance to learn about it on Wikipedia.Laureletsage 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Laureletsage (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable through general information, biography, and popularity within ABC's Lost pod casting community. This discussion is stalling any new information that would make this a more informative and indepth article. If being one of the most educational, informative, and popular media out there doesn't deserve notoriety, then wikipedia needs some serious spring cleaning. Please explain yourself in more depth, instead of just writing "not notable". Also, noting on people's non-activity, does not render their opinion "non notable" either, wether they heard it on a forum or not. Vondruke 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Vondruke (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep This podcast is quite well produced, extremely informative, and entertaining. Quite "notable" indeed. rkdarwin13 — rkdarwin13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is huge in the Lost community. It is generally regarded as the most informative and on-topic.It always ranks within the top 3 downloaded Lost podcasts, often being number 1.Jorge Garcia has participated in the podcast. The show has a large listener base, this is not at all an advertisement. The producers have recently been asked to speak at Dragoncon. Wikipediastar 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This podcast is essentially canon amongst Lost podcasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.78.46 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 69.203.78.46 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete Looks to be a fan site podcast. No notability. Wildthing61476 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable podcast. Nuttah68 10:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most popular LOST fan podcasts being published. Frequently in the iTunes top 100. 9:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.86.178.202 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 207.86.178.202 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Not even close to 'just another fan podcast'. Notable for the following:
    • pioneering an unique non-recap review style - with the exception of the literary reviews in the programming break, the program will not recap or summarize any plot material
    • the conduct of extensive philosophical, literary and technical research for each edition
    • provision of the podcasts and hompage enitely without recourse to advertising revenue
    • the LOST actor Jorge Garcia has contributed audio comments twice. The content of those contributions indicates, as he has posted on the Fuselage website, that he listens to each edition
    • extenisve listener contributions and collaboration with respect to theory development, especially by listeners in locations featured in LOST locations outside the United States: e.g. Sydney and the United Kingdom
These points can be verified by listening to each of the podcasts that are avilable on the LOSTCasts site or ITunes and reviewing the comments sections for each podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 August 2006
  • Delete. This article is not notable, and is obviously just trying to use Wikipedia to increase listenership. -- PKtm 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a great a great article for a great podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.200.180 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 August 2006}— Possible single purpose account: 71.135.200.180 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep One of the most popular LOST fan podcasts being published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.228.10 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2006— Possible single purpose account: 69.221.228.10 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep If the criteria for deletion is the claim that this podcast is not notable. Aside from the official podcast this both one of the first and a very popular podcast. They are very intelligent and put on a concise, and relevant show. If the criteria is that it's too much of an advertisement then rather than deleting it, suggest it be fixed. (lostcasts listener) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.131.12 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 67.171.131.12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep A simple search on Odeo or Itunes will show that this podcast is ranked fairly high for the independent podcast community. Based on the forum that they loosely represent alone is enough to warrant it's relevancy. Also consider when searching itunes for this podcast that it has at present, 52 reviews, where as the official podcast from CBS has 57 if you want to get to basic numbers which should give an idea of popularity. Dellybelly 01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (NULL - Account active for 6 months. Single purpose not warranted.)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast. No claims of notability have been backed up by reliable sources. The podcast mainpage has a campaign encouraging listeners to join wikiepdia for the sole purpose of voting to keep this article. The article features a link to this site within the prose.--Opark 77 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep. You people would not know a good podcast if you tripped over it:— Possible single purpose account: 203.192.146.137 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep This podcast is listed in the iTunes music store (which can be accessed through the itunes program) as the seventh most popular lost podcast - this is out of over 150 lost podcasts, including several official lostcasts. Alexa traffic results (http://alexa.com/data/details/main?url=lostcasts.com) also ranks the site fairly high. Beyond all that, is the obvious popularity of this show really the reason it should stay? I think the simple fact the producers are being referenced for an upcoming book on the theory gives it some credibility. Of many many podcasts, this appears to the number one strictly theory/spoilers lost podcast (in order of popularity on iTunes). The goal of wikipedia is to expand knowledge. If you're insterested in the show lost as well as podcasts, this is a very notable one and I can't think of a single reason it shouldn't be included.VKX 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For objective opinion, reference the following AP article from May of 2006 on LOST podcasters: http://asap.ap.org/stories/586641.s From the AP article: "If Jay and Jack and Generally Speaking are the undergraduate schools of "Lost" theories and thought, then LOSTCast takes it to the graduate school level, dissecting the show in a way few podcasts even attempt to do. If you want a no frills, hour-long discussion picking apart the meaning of the glow-in-the-dark map in the hatch, this podcast is for you." 216.82.221.164 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 216.82.221.164 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete Not notable pod cast Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most popular podcasts in the Lost community. As a fan of Lost who doesn't read any of the boards, I find it indispensable. ~ Mastermelari— Possible single purpose account: Mastermelari (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep- very recognisable podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2006— Possible single purpose account: 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Delete: prime example of non-notable fansite/podcast.--LeflymanTalk 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This podcast appears to be a notable example of a podcast. Keeping this article would maintain the consistency of Wikipedia, as other podcasts such as the Phone Losers of America podcast have not been deleted. LOSTcasts have been dedicated much to the theorizing of LOST. The writers for LOST are often noted for reading fandom sites, and even the show's actors have replied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.103.222.221 (talk • contribs) 209.103.222.221
  • Keep!!! One of the best podcasts on the Lost tv show and an excellent podcast in general. They engage in intelligent discussions and delve deep into theories and literature references pertaining to he show as well as examining the characters on Lost and they also give concise recaps.66.167.138.155 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Vargas — Possible single purpose account: 66.167.138.155 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep, what harm is it doing to the website, LOSTCasts are the best Lost podcast available, and is a great source of information without spending hours on forums! — Possible single purpose account: 81.152.43.10 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete: Poorly-written article. Reads like an advertisement for the podcast. Wikipedia is not an advertisment. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (don't edit this thankyou): The uniqueness of the format is sufficiently noteworthy. If it were the 10th template copy of an established format and addednothign new then yes, it would not meet the standard, but it is patently a groundbreaking approach to online interaction on a topic that itself warrants inclusion. The context of the subject proves this: there are many LOST podcasts, but the vast majority are templated 'fan review' offerings. This podcast is primarily a review and critique of online reaction to the initial medium. It was the first to use this approach. This is precisely the reason why entries such as the one for Tucker Max don't attract delete campaigns. Tucker Max really is unnoteworthy as a participant in his chosen area of activity (online media, with apparant sidelines into fornication, alcoholism and getting sued) but is noteworthy because he was a principal pioneer/early developer (but, interestingly, not even the inventor) of the 'fratire' literary genre. If the LOSTCasts entry were allowed sufficient time to mature, the uniqueness of the format could be properly documented and explained, as could its impact on other on line activities. The fact that it is also very popular is not a disqualifying factor. Many of the 'delete' entries assume (quite wrongly) that popularity of itself raises a presumption in favour of deletion. If that were true, huge chunks of Wikipedia should be cut right now. At the very least, a decision on deletion should be deferred for the balance of this year to allow the question to be reviewed after development of the entry. The entry is far too new and underdeveloped to allow a final decision on deletion at this time. In addition, one really has to ask if this delete campaign has any merit at all? It appears to be based on borderline, subjective views about noteworthiness that really have no means by which they can be tested, and therefore can't provide the rigorous basis required to apply the relevant policies in this case. Besides all that, no one on the Internet has a bullet proof ego, and I certainly include myself in that thought. My point being: would this delete campaign have been prosecuted so viciously if the word 'clueless' had not been used on the LOSTCasts website to refer to some Wikipedia contributors to begin with?--60.227.230.22 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above author has already voted once on this issue. Wildthing61476 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Comment This is not a 'voting' system - it even says so at the top of the page, viz: '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.'--60.227.230.22 13:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The LostCasts website has published this message to its users:

In addition, we cover recent Wikipedia issues. One of our listeners started a LOSTCasts entry, and some clueless users are trying to get it deleted! Help save our Wikipedia entry by visiting this page and telling them to "keep" the entry! Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not another fan site; it's meant to be encyclopedic.

Which really doesn't explain how the entry on Lindsay Lohan was ' identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.' 1. I mean, that piece doesn't exactly look like it was written by her arch enemy now does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.230.22 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - Encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive reference work having articles on a broad range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a given field, usually qarranged alphabetically. Encyclopedic is defined as of or typical of an encyclopedia; embracing many subjectives; and comprehensive. Based off of the definition of encyclopedia, it seems that if you are going to include Lost as one of your subjects that it would be just as important to consider Lostcasts as an integral part of referencing the t.v. show. Using this as justification could place this entry under Lost Further Reading.All definitions are taken from Webster's II New College Dictionary (Third Edition). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melontherocks (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Melontherocks (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep: These guys really know their Lost stuff and deleting this is crazy to say the least - Non notable - you've really hurt me, this entry has to be kept at all costs --User:cherry.j 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 86.135.108.245 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Mild Keep: It is a pretty large NOTIBLE group. Keep WikieZach| talk 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Delete. Article, and defenders of the article, competently explain what LostCasts is but fail to suggest its importance/notability. -- Wikipedical 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, and the issue is not whether it's a good podcast (it is), or "notable" in terms of effort and results, but whether it's notable for Wikipedia, in the WP:Notability sense. Defenders of the article here (driven to this page by the comments on the LostCasts site) have taken offense by being called not notable, but that's not meant to be an insult. The question is, then, is whether every major fan site should have its own article too. To me, obviously not. So why this one? Again, it's a slippery slope. -- PKtm 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:For what it's worth, the wikipedia page wasn't set up for advertising purposes. The podcasters directed attention to its deletion, which is pretty borderline, but they never set it up. Personally, I think there's a difference between the average fansite, which features recaps, pictures, etc, and the podcasting LOSTcasts does. Podcasting is an inherently more personal, creative endeavor than a regular fansite. It goes beyond a reflection of the original and becomes unique. It's the difference between a photograph and a painting. Does that make this important enough to deserve it's own page? I have no idea. Chunkyrice 13 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is alot of information yet to be posted in this article and deleting for non-notability is absurd when it is currently not a complete article. Notability in itself is a relevant concept and therefor should not be the sole reason for deleting an obviously popular topic.

Testerer 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This podcast is among the most popular of all of them. It was also one of the originals. I don't understand why anyone would suggest this Wiki article for deletion. It's a great podcast, and certainly 'worthy' of having a Wiki article.--BuffyMars 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: BuffyMars (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Strong Keep Lostcasts is not for every LOST fan, but for someone like me, who is interested in going beyond watching the show, this is a great resource for news, commentary, and fascinating speculation on what is behind the creative curtain for this show. These podcasters have given up a great deal of time to try and offer an entertaining resource that has at times overlapped with the actual production of LOST. The nomination for deletion of this article is spiteful and obviously from someone that wants to be a petty irritant rather than genuinely being concerned with the accurracy of content on wikipedia. I suggest the folks in favor of deletion subscribe to other podcasts and allow the great many listeners to be more than enough validation for an entry here. This entry is not a mere plug for a podcast. This podcast is as valid as a television or radio program and for me is a fabulous wealth of information. Devaluing this by stating it is made by fans is ridiculous. You want people producing a podcast about LOST to love the show enough to do their best. Please do not delete this entry! Micahsherrill 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Micahsherrill has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • This Wikipedia entry is to reconize an entity (Lostcasts) as a program put on by individuals who are fans of another program. It is imporant to document and note worthy organizations such as Lostcasts both for what they do for the community (their listeners) and their contribution to pop culture. Many entries should be deleted from Wikipedia if this entry should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razzledazzleradio (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Razzledazzleradio (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep: How dare you slander the name of Lostcasts - they are super fans and they educate the listeners on the mythology of Lost, which I haven't seen on any other podcast official or unofficial - they are the top of their game and deleting this article really shows the kind of mentality that some users cannot grasp the intellectuality that Lost requires! --User:cherry.j 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 86.135.108.245 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep We're big fans of Wikipedia. Anyone who's listened to our podcasts knows that we often use it as a resource, from The Philadelphia Experiment to Aldous Huxley. I have always had great faith in the concept of Wikipedia, and have defended it on many occasions.
That's why we were honored when, on August 14th, a commenter on our site (Loren), posted that she'd created a Wikipedia entry for us. You can see that comment here. Just a few days ago, a comment on our site let us know that the entry was up for deletion. The reason was that several Wikipedia editors said our podcast was "non-notable."
Yeah, that upset us. We know that we're one of the top LOST fan podcasts out there, but I don't expect everyone to be familiar with us. In defense of the Wikipedia editors, if they had not heard of us, they would have no basis by which to judge our "notability."
I started some bad blood by calling the Wikipedia editors "clueless", which was irresponsible. In fact, Wikipedia editors spend their free time doing something they're passionate about, with no compensation. This is something we can identify with, because that's what we do. But we have to make an argument for our notability. Here's a shot at it:
  • LOSTCasts has appeared regularly in the iTunes top 100 podcasts. We were consistently in the list when season 2 was on the US, beginning in November 2005. Of course, during the off-season, this has been intermittent. One additional item of note is that the iTunes top 100 is not based on total number of subscribers, but on the number of new subscribers within a given amount of time. We'll breach this top 100 again when season 3 starts.
  • Most podcasters don't publish subscriber statistics, but we do have a glimpse from an AP article published in May of 2006. LOSTCasts is also cited in this article. In terms of numbers, The Jay and Jack podcast subscribers are cited in this AP article at 13,000 subscribers. In the month of May, our subscribers started the month at 18,000 and grew to 22,000. This would make us the most popular LOST fan podcast being published at that time. Of course, this is the only window since that we've had into other LOST podcast subscriber numbers. But everyone would agree that once the Transmission left, it was really just us, and Jay and Jack.
  • ABC and LOST listen to us. As noted in the articles of deletion, Jorge Garcia, who plays "Hurley", is a regular listener and has called into the show numerous times. As well, we have been personally contacted by a number of other official LOST folks.
As I said, we're honored to have had a Wikipedia article written for us, and we'd love to see it stay. But it's up to the Wikipedia community to accept or reject claims of notability.
If you are going to comment on the articles for deletion, make it a logical argument for notability, not a flame. If you don't believe we're Wikipedia material, then say so! That's your right... and it's what makes Wikipedia great.
The outcome won't affect the future of LOSTCasts. We validate our notability through the voice of our listeners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) .— Possible single purpose account: 69.136.57.214 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment re: podcast notability: It appears that podcasts have a disadvantage under WP:WEB, as a fairly new medium that is relatively rarely featured as content articles in the traditional press, thereby decreasing chances for notability. 1) WP:WEB notes that Category:Awards may suggest notability, but there are no podcast-specific award categories, (and if any are added, they should be added to WP:WEB IMHO). 2) Traffic ranking sites such as Alexa (used in older versions of WP:WEB) also do not accurately reflect podcast traffic, which may be directly downloaded by music applications rather than web browsers. In general, I am left wondering if discussion for a WP:PODCAST article would be of merit (but I'm too lazy to embark on that endeavor), but consider that if one were to exist, it seems that an iTunes Top 100 ranking would be a reasonable criterion for podcast notability, a criterion that does not exist for other media in the umbrella category of WP:WEB. Yes this vote has attracted an array of single-purpose accounts and puppets voting "strong keep", but look beyond that and consider what podcast-specific criteria you would choose for notability. (My previous comment moved here with minor copy edit) --Santaduck 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For everyone out there who is unfamiliar with this pdocast, Lostcasts is one of the best podcasts out there for the hit drama "Lost". They have been called the "Thinking Man's Lost podcast" and I strongly agree with that description. Starting way back in September of 2005, they were already delving into possible mythological connections with the constellation Apollo and eastern religious connections to the usage of Dharma and the phrase "Namaste". If anything, this Lost podcast deserves a page, and due to the visibility caused by this deletion attempt, I believe many of us can add much more content to the page now. If you guys are reading this, I just want to say "It's a wonderful podcast and keep up the great work! Thanks!" --Nukem945 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Nukem945 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT. Meatpuppetfest. Morton devonshire 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This podcast should definatly have it's own page. I listen to many different Lost podcasts and LOSTcasts is a very strong contendor. It always has a very high level of discussion, think of it as a 500 level Masters class opposed to an 100 level Undergrad class. I think that if this podcast gets any negativity associated with it, the reason is that it may be above their heads and people are lashing out. It should stay. - 222.7.5.133 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Katmarie24 — 222.7.5.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep This is one of the most indepth podcasts around, they provide some of the best content and have great insite and comments. It should stay. - [[User:lostinlindenhurst] 07:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)lostinlindenhurst— 207.250.117.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - possible merge: This is a great podcast which goes beyond just fanboy drooling. For heavens sakes, they are doing book reviews of books seen in the show and discussing how the creators drew inspiration from them. They've had cast memebers sorta on the show. This is not just another "Gee...I hope Jack and Kate hookup" cast. However, I think a large page of Lost related podcasts may be in order and a better location for these.Sabalon 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although that may be true, it does not make this podcast notable according to Wikipedia policies. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that tagging every annons message (even though there not accounts so i fail to see why your tagging them with SPA) doesnt make there opinions any less valid. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually meatpuppetry is "highly inappropriate or unacceptable" according to official policy (Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets)). --Peephole 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen. This incident of inciting non-participants to supposedly "vote" here is antithetical to Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. Moreover, as the above referenced policy states, "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community." Let's not leap to their defense in some misplaced spirit of egalitarianism. Their actions here are disruptive and rude, plain and simple. -- PKtm 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't realize I'd stir up a hornet's nest like this in regards to this AfD. With that being said, new contributors are always welcome in Wikipedia, but not in the respect that it's to prove a point or to save an article simply because you've been asked to. Whethere an article exists about your podcast or not does not make it any less of a good program, it's just not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I love LostCasts, but if anything it should be contained within a bigger article about fan created casts.WeakLemonDrink 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can be dealt with in a line or two in the Lost article or better yet, just a link in the external links section. Gamaliel 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really a question. In Wiki articles about entertainment entities, in this case a podcast, are the editors judging the entertainment value of the podcast? Using another example, if I were to post an article about the 70s band The Goodrats, would editors remove it because they think it was an non-notable band because they never heard of it? If so, then so be it. But if not, I don't understand why you want to remove this article. It is a podcast. Some people enjoy it. Ten years from now, long after the Podcast is gone, somebody will turn to their friend and say - hey, what was that podcast we used to listen to with the great theories about lost, and that friend will turn to Wiki. Isnt that what Wiki is for?

  • Strong Keep This podcast is extremely well produced and serves as a great tool for those of us who are too busy to do the work of keeping up with the shows details ourselves. I believe it is a great aid to the Lost community and its Wiki article should be kept in good standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.214.100 (talk • contribs) — 72.145.214.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. While I'm a big fan of the lostcast I think a full article on it is not appropiate for an encyclopedia. As other people have commented I think the most noteworthy lost podcasts should be mentioned in a section of the Lost article with a description and a link to them. And obviously Lostcast should be in there as the best theory lost podcast out there. MQ 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — MQ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Since ABC and an actor or two have acknowledged this podcast and/or appeared on it, I think it has become a part of the show's history. The creators themselves have noted that fan feedback contributes to the outcome of how the show is written. Mserenity 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mserenity (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The same is true about a number of other fan podcasts, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't make any of them notable. As for the podcast affecting the direction of the show, I would like to see a verifiable source for the information. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI live in Roylal leamington spa, warwickshire England and Im a huge fan, Their Notability has reached across the World, They fully deserve to be listed here : SpOOky, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.69.19 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 81.157.69.19 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KEEP!!!! Why Whold You Delete This??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Sfgiants2062 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dataduplication[edit]

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP, blatant advertisement. Prod notice was removed without comment Gwernol 14:14, 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 CSD A7. kingboyk 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy (group)[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, 1 self-released EP. I'm also on the verge of saying CSD A7. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:50, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 best online[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable brand new website. Prod was removed by annon. editor. Was that editors only edit. Dipics 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Dipics aboveBeaner1 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nuttah68 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure if it's spam or good faith, but it's just not suitable for inclusion here - Blood red sandman 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Inevitable Dossier[edit]

Non-notable web publication. Title gets four google hits. Deprodded. Weregerbil 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fashionable speculative nonsense. JFW | T@lk 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; website theinevitabledossier.com has Alexa ranking of 1.5 million. NawlinWiki 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as failing WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gematria of Nothing[edit]

Does not explain relevance, history or importance. <1000 Google hits, Wikipedia mirrors at the top. Failed PROD on 14 March (author removed PROD) and was not listed for AFD. Delete unless strong arguments for its encyclopidicity can be advanced. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 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 one spate of coverage on murder does not two noteworthy news items make.. Shell babelfish 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Alaneme[edit]

Looks like an nn-bio to me, but I was not sure enough to put it up for speedy deltion. Only around 650 Google hits. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per coverage from major news sources (2 links added to article). WP:BIO states that articles on "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" generally should be kept. NawlinWiki 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure I know enough about the WP:BIO policy to vote, but this was a highly newsworthy case in the UK, and the issue of race-related murder has been heavily covered in the news here ever since the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I can't find an article about racially motivated crime in the UK which it could be merged into. Espresso Addict 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly, I don't quite see how murder victims fall into becoming notable people unless ther are notable prior to their murder. By definition, a person's murder can only happen once, so any press that is generated by the murder would only count as one event and on coverage per WP:BIO. The event may be notable, but the person may not, and we should be clear about it. I suppuse someone could create a list of "victims of suspected racially motivated attacks", but that would be too subjective and could include every person who is murdered in a location where they were not of the same ethnic origin as the local community there. Ohconfucius 05:05, 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. Shell babelfish 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Paint Factory[edit]

Doesn't seem to be real. Google turns up nothing, the history notes that the author has newspaper clippings but doesn't know how to cite them here. He was told how to cite them on his talk page, but still nothing--Nonpareility 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as hoax. I just ran a Westlaw allnewsplus search for "Kermit Paint", date unrestricted, and got nothing. Need I say that... I hate hoaxes? NawlinWiki 16:56, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Drop a Deuce in your Can, Brah?" (radio prank)[edit]

De-proded. I strongly question the notability of this prank. This article lacks any verifiable coverage by reliable sources to support the claim of "popular and well-known radio prank." -- Scientizzle 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and unsourced.Michael Dorosh 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'Nuff said. 'FLaRN' (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 03:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I lived in Florida and listened to this radio station fairly regularly, and I don't remember it. Even if I did, it lacks reliable sources. I think it was a good-faith article creation, but I have to question its continued relevance to the project. Captainktainer * Talk 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Mikker (...) 09:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete nothing to say - Blood red sandman 14:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please remember that AfD is not a vote; if you do not have something to expand on consensus, even with a statement of general principles, it might be best not to say anything for that particular article. Captainktainer * Talk 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find some reliable sources for this bit that show it's notable and real... even then it seems more like a candidate for a merge and redirect. Failing reliable sources, Delete ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 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 09:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Bullets[edit]

Non-notable. See too John Ling. Seems like the author is promoting himself. Moreover, some "fan" of the person is deleting every comment questioning about the validity of the entry sneakily. Therefore, delete. __earth (Talk) 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Recently released, no notable books reviews (mostly casual/blogger reviews). Doesn't meet notability criteria under WP:V or criteria proposed under WP:BK --Wafulz 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination. This is ranked in the 1.8millionth. No sign of any independently published reviews which would allow author to pass WP:BIO, his book is therefore not notable. Ohconfucius 05:14, 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 09:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ling[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. The author himself started the page. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourteen Bullets. Furthermore, there seems to be "fan" of his that keep deleting comments that question the validity of this article. Therefore, Delete __earth (Talk) 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - seems insufficiently notable, but I could be persuaded to change my mind. Maybe I just can't believe that someone I've nearly met (John is a friend of a friend; we were once invited to the same dinner) could really be notable for inclusion on WP. Whatever the case, keep or delete, we need to thwack those anons who keep messing up the talk page. I honestly can't be bothered to keep it straight; they remove and insert comments like crazy, even if those comments don't belong to them like *cough* mine. Johnleemk | Talk 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, John Ling might seem insufficiently notable, but I put this question to you. Is there anyone else, doing what he's doing, as prominently? Tanyiliang

  • delete per nomination. His first book has an A-rank in the 2.9millionth, his second is not ranked, and his third is ranked in the 1.8millionth. No sign of any independently published reviews which would allow him to pass WP:BIO Ohconfucius 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ohconfucius. John Ling himself made 83 edits, and the creator of the article, Tanyiliang is the author's friend.WP:VANITY -anon
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion as failing notability and WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Marois Country Club[edit]

This is a private club open for only 2 months of the year. No significant media coverage here and fails WP:CORP. Possibly of interest locally so I have merged the encyclopaedic content into Sainte-Anne-des-Lacs, Quebec where it fits nicely. I set up a redirect which has been undone by the creator. This is a nice looking article but it is completely unsourced with much POV. The parts of the article that I haven't merged are unencyclopaedic detail about activities and internal organisation, effectively a recruitment brochure. After any redirect a delete is needed to stop the redirect being undone again. Delete. BlueValour 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written with the objective of recruiting new members or serving as an advertisement. Lac Marois Country Club does not actively seek new membership as residents of that city know of the existence of LMCC, and residents of other cities cannot be members.
First, i agree that there are some elements that do not have a neutral POV. As a goal of making this article conform to Wikipedia standards, I have begun removing all non-encyclopedic entries, like names of the current staff members and all comments that do not directly describe the Lac Marois Country Club or its activities.
As there are articles written on every subject in Wikipedia by those who are passionate about them, this article is intended to present readers about LMCC's activities and events. For those who search about Country clubs, Lac Marois is certainly a good find, as it does not conform to the pragmatic view of what is a Country Club. Furthermore, the activities presented are valuable to anyone in need of inspiration for events and these events are described here since they form the foundation of what LMCC is.
Once we can all agree that this entry is encyclopedic in nature, then I can see no reason that it should not be included in Wikipedia. MzK 2:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I appreciate your attachment to an an article that you created however it is simply not encyclopaedic. To fit into Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable - WP:V refers and says Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources - and all the content about the club's activities is simply not verifiable. It is fine on your website which is a suitable place but not here. I rescued those parts that are likely to be verifiable and put them in the main article. BlueValour 08:26, 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 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep green, Green cleaning, Ecologic solutions[edit]

Prod removed after some changes made by the author, but I don't think the changes are sufficient to address two major issues: it's a Neologism coined by a particular non-notable company, and it's a thinly disguised ad for the company, which doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 16:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Author's attempt to remove the AfD notice is particularly distasteful. Geoffrey Spear 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally prod'd the company. I see nothing to change my mind now. Non-notable company and most likely a vanity article to boot. Dipics 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have reverted editing of the above comments by 24.39.132.131 (talk · contribs). Fan-1967 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added them to the header. Fundamentally the same content, same reasons for deletion. Fan-1967 12:35, 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 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

123.ie[edit]

Non notable organisation vanity + Non-Notable, its a small private web company, very much a vanity page possibly for the purpose of increasing google pageRank

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)  14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (person)/Cult hero (included later in discussion --Dangherous 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC))[edit]

This can only be POV. This belongs more as an article called List of people who have achieved greatness. Could be rescued I'm sure.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovethebluesman[edit]

Advertising for this guy's eBay store; no Alexa ranking; nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I prod2'ed it, but prod was removed without comment. Fan-1967 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=lovethebluesman.com&url=http://www.lovethebluesman.com/ - Alexa Site.
  • Wikipedia distincltly shows several online merchants, this store qualifies. It's been in business for 5 years and makes ten thousand dollars a month.Wolfmight 17:40, 25 August 2006
  • Misunderstood as Spam, due to the fact that it resides on Ebay, but it's one of Ebay's top stores. Guest 17:43, 25 August 2006
  • Comment Notable online merchants make thousands of sales an hour, and the alexa link you posted confirms that this site doesn't register at all. Please review the guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Doesn't look like this comes remotely close on either. And please don't forge signatures on your comments. Fan-1967 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it probably is a dog. If it looks like spam... -- Tivedshambo (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Free Encycopedia - Definition: free (frē) pronunciation adj., fre·er, fre·est. 5. Not subject to external restraint. src: http://www.answers.com/free&r=67 per The slogan should state Open Encylopedia. Free is very contreversial with current guidelines stated. Wolfmight 17:40, 25 August 2006
  • Lovethebluesman Store has 99.9% positive feedback, making it one of Ebay hall-of-fame stores. Please reconsider your current debate on spam. - Customer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.203.182 (talk • contribs)
    • Quote "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site" - Then removes sites such as Newegg.com and all other online stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.203.182 (talk • contribs)
      • Let's see: newegg.com, Alexa Rank 346 (one of the best on the web), almost 19 million google hits. Lovethebluesman.com, Alexa rank: None, 509 google hits. Fan-1967 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My ebay rating is 100%. I wouldn't link to it on WP though. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author's request. So tagged. Fan-1967 19:21, 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 Userfy to User:Backburnercomics/WESKetch_Architecture. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WESKetch Architecture[edit]

Contested proposed deletion. No 3rd party reliable sources provided to assert the notability of the company. Google hits for ("WESKetch Architecture") = 302. Mainly directory listings. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom for lack of sources establishing notability. NawlinWiki 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - Speedy delete per author's request, below. NawlinWiki 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and above. Blowski 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally prod'd this article. Non-notable company. Doesn't seem controversial to me. Dipics 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to make the changes necessary to make this a viable entry, but I need to know specifically what is wrong with the entry. I made the changes necessary according to the "notable company" entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs) .
  • Reply: You need 3rd party references. Eg: newspaper and magazine articles or major architecture/design prizes. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what exactly is the problem? Is it because WESKetch has too many published references to it? Or not enough published references? The wording of the "notable" tag it received was very confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs) .
Reply: Your article doesn't cite any references that makes it apparent straight away to the reader why there should be an article on WESKetch Architecture. You could insert subtle lies into the article and we wouldn't be able to verify anything because we have no sources to refer back to. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is my first article submission, and this is all really confusing. I gathered the information on the company from their website. Also on their website are the listings of the magazines they have appeared in and awards they have received. Not only is the magazine listed, but actual scans of the article are also linked. I thought the article would be significant because they were the first LEED certified architect firm in New Jersey. And sustainable architecture seems to be a hot topic right now, including research for school projects. I wanted to save other people time on their research by including this company as a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backburnercomics (talk • contribs)
It's not enough to just have a link to the company's website in the article. If there is verifiable information about the company on its website that supports its notability, please include that in the article (without, of course, doing a straight cut-and-paste from the site, which would be a copyright violation). And please sign your posts using four tildes (these ---> ~). NawlinWiki 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry for the trouble. Go ahead and delete this entry. I'll collaborate with my friend to bring this article up to wikipedia standards and then repost it at a later date.Backburnercomics 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Backburnercomics[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)  14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Lords[edit]

Nonnotable MMORPG. Author deleted prod tag claiming 55 million Ghits, which is true for searching Lords of Lords (Google ignores "of"); if you put "Lords of Lords" in quotes, you get 287 unique Ghits. Website has Alexa ranking of 856,374. NawlinWiki 17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:NOT. It's not nearly notable enough, and I can't find any independent mentions on search engines. Blowski 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - Whpq 17:50, 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)  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busaphobia[edit]

Author keeps removing speedy tags, so bringing it here. Supposedly means fear of Jerome Bettis, running back known as "the bus", who retired last year. WP:NEO, WP:NFT. -- Fan-1967 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not even a neologism; it's a hoax. Google search brings up one result, which is the creator's user talk page. Srose (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - absolute rubbish, and the fact that the editor keeps removing the tag only gives more evidence. Blowski 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not that hoaxes are not eligible for speedy deletion as per WP:SPEEDY -- Whpq 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Sorry, I know I'm breaking WP:AGF, but a user who keeps removing a speedy delete tag without giving any explanation on the discussion page is usually not one with the best interests of hte community at heart. Blowski 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is possible that the new user read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, as linked to by the speedy deletion notice, and realised, quite correctly, that it didn't apply. Hoaxes are not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is content that is incomprehensible, not content that is false. False content is subject to our verifiability policy, and is deleted through the normal deletion process. WP:HOAX explains this. Uncle G 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX -- Whpq 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX that clearly fails WP:V. --Satori Son 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above. Zephyr2k 03:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There (internet service)[edit]

Unnotable service - ranks 42,831 on Alexa. If it was a better quality article, then keeping it would be OK, but this article does not really discuss the technology, the pros and cons of the business model, or give a decent history of the service. Hence, either rewrite, or better, merge some of the content into a general article on this type of product. Blowski 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean-up There is a well-known combination Net service/game. The article is rather horrible, and quite advertise-y, but there is certainly notability. Check out GameSpot's coverage for some news examples, or look at the Google search for "Therebucks", the online world's currency, which gets 10,800 G-hits and a respectable 272 unique hits. And here is an article on the service's launch from Wired, and another one from ZNet. -- Kicking222 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write - This may be worthy of inclusion, but as it stands it reads like an advert --Amists 18:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - OK, I can see they are more notable than I thought. I will add a Wikify template instead. Blowski 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one as being rather notable. Arkyan 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just beacuse an article is badly written is no reason to delete it, and this seems notable enough to warrent an article. Thε Halo Θ 23:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleaning up, but definately notable. Bradcis 23:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up It needs some major cleaning up, but it deserves its own Wikipedia page. I use There and it is definitely a notable service. Just clean up the article some and i think it should be alright!! --Cookie 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article definitely needs work, but There's ranking with Alexa is hardly a reasonable criterion for deletion (see: Wikipedia's article on Alexa). There's technologies and business model both have unique strengths and weaknesses that warrant a separate well-written article. Jo Bleaux 23:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PicBin.net[edit]

RNot found on Google or Alexa. External links have been added to various relevant articles (which I have removed) so this is highly likely to be pure spam. Blowski 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pure spam - Blood red sandman 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New website, launched within the past 48 hours. Should article be deleted until Alexa/Google has indexed the pages? PicBin is non-profit. -- Bradcis 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing in WP:WEB that distinguishes a non-profit site from a profit-making one, and regardless this still doesn't pass WP:WEB by a long way. ~Matticus TC 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should still be deleted, regardless of business model. Please see WP:NOT for an explanation of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Rather like people who describe themselves as cool, if you need to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, then you probably don't qualify to have one. Blowski 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - just as a suggestion, a far better way of grabbing traffic would be to write a blog on your site with interesting content about photography. Places like Technorati will pick this up, and if users value your service, they will start using it. Also, search for terms like 'photography' on Google, and contact the owners of those websites to discuss putting links on their site.
  • Delete, wait until your site is popular enough to warrant an article and then write one. Recury 19:30, 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 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Guest House, St. John US Virgin Islands[edit]

NN establishment. Fails WP:CORP and the building itself does not apear to be noteable either. Also unverified. Blood red sandman 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching, I can find a lot of simple listings in business directories and tourist travel guides, but nothing at all about the guest house that isn't either self-publicity or no more than a business directory listing. (Blurbs that describe this subject as "perfect" are not useful for a NPOV encyclopaedia.) The article was created by Hillcrest (talk · contribs), whom I suspect is mistakenly thinking that Wikipedia is another self-submission business directory web site. Wikipedia is not a business directory. It is an encyclopaedia. Get thee to Yellowikis!. Delete. Uncle G 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no demonstrated notability. BlueValour 15:14, 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 Deleted and redirected to Droit de seigneur.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Nocta[edit]

Title is a misspelling of Prima Nocte, and only contains information from the movie Braveheart Thirdgen 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and as an unlikely search term it doesn't merit redirect. BFD1 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Droit de seigneur. I think it's a close-enough misspelling of Prima Nocte (which is itself a redirect) for this to be warranted. The point that it was misspelled in the first place illustrates this. Irongargoyle 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Droit de seigneur per Irongargoyle (no merge is needed). There are multiple other spellings that redirect there as well. --Metropolitan90 15:50, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drift brigade[edit]

NN. It says it was started on 2006 by a group of people! Add to this Charles "Chachi" Diaz -- Szvest 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC) --[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Blowski 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there might be a claim to fame buried in the article, as written the article is saying that this is a group of six people who wish to wander aimlessly through life. The article also lacks any sources to correct this perception or to provide verifiability. --Allen3 talk 23:05, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dam Dirty Apes[edit]

Contested prod involving potential vanity article about a group of student film makers. Primary claims to fame are a DVD release that Google can only find mentioned on Wikipedia clones,[35] a brief appearance on a single university's campus channel, and an award from a minor website run by a recently graduated film student. Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show verifiability and establish notability. --Allen3 talk 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination and above Blowski 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Also find it sad how they get their own name wrong. Unless "dam" is supposed to be some really bad pun.--SeizureDog 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I didn't get the dam thing either. LordRobert 09:14, 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 Keep per discussion as meeting notability guidelines. Shell babelfish 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kofax[edit]

This is spam. Language is written to present products as superior, to incite people to buy, and includes a link to the homepage of this company. I recommend deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysseshadd (talk • contribs) User's only contribution

  • A poorly written article doesn't constitute deletion. It has to meet several conditions for inclusion, namely WP:CORP and WP:V. For the moment, I am neutral --Wafulz 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's non-neutral because 209.36.164.6 (talk · contribs) copied the copyrighted advertising blurb from the company's own web site ("Copyright © 1992-2006 Kofax Image Products. All rights reserved.") into the article and removed the neutrality from the existing text. I've reverted to the most recent non-infringing version. Uncle G 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it does have to meet WP:CORP, except it doesnt - delete it. Amists 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I did a quick google search, which returned 1.63 million results. All of these on the first few pages pertain to this particular company. After this, I ran a google news search, which returned 9 results, but google news only keeps news from the last few months. As a result of these two searches, I'd say this company is notable. Srose (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep, one of the great pitchers in baseball history oh, er, never mind. Keep per Srose. NawlinWiki 19:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the existence of the page useful. I was looking for neutral info on the company products/history. Would have been nicer if it had been a trifle meatier....
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per discussion for failing WP:V. Shell babelfish 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 3 (second nomination)[edit]

This AfD was not completely filled out, so I've taken the liberty of fixing it up and listing it. During the first AfD the article's creator decided to delete it. No opinion (yet) from me. Srose (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No IMDb entry yet, still being written, entirely speculative, fails WP:NOT. --Wafulz 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this entire article is speculative. Upon investigation, I've found that there's not really anything to base speculation upon, and so the article is unsalvageable. Srose (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. Danny Lilithborne 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say to salt the space as well, but the Cheetah Girls appears to be a popular enough group that a third movie wouldn't be out of the question. That being said, until this movie has been confirmed to exist, it doesn't deserve an article yet. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect until more information comes up about this. This would fit better in a section in The Cheetah Girls 2 or a related article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 August 2006.
  • Merge into The Cheetah Girls 2: When in Spain. So the film's been "brought up, and talked about", as have countless other sequels that never get made. Extraordinary Machine 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Extraordinary Machine. 1ne 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect until more information is released. This article has potential, since ratings for the first and second were so high.
  • Delete there is no IMDB page, and is still not confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arigont (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or Merge with the other Cheetah Girls's pages. If I can find a place where the magazine can be found then I can scan the pic in from the magazine. (Does anybody know where I can get a copy of Dinsey Insider??) Until then keep it or merge it with the other Cheetah pages. Jtervin 17:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speculative, unsourced, WP is not a crystal ball. Unsourced material should not be merged into an exisiting article. BlueValour 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems very possible and just because something cannnot be sourced online does not make it untrue. 65.60.164.62 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge second paragraph only. Gazpacho 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until there is official confirmation by the Walt Disney Company that a 3rd Cheetah Girls movie will be produced, this article should not exist. This is a speculative piece that belongs as an editorial or a posting on a forum somewhere. This type of speculatory work discredits Wikipedia as a factual resource, particularly as an encyclopedia. RabidPanda V 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong or Speedy Delete. These movies must be verified as in production for them to be listed. User:Lord Hawk 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, crystal ball. The closest thing to a source for this movie is speculation from the actresses. As was said before, when there's a verifiable source for the movie (IMDB page, or even a press release from Disney), then we can talk about making the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWith the ratings of the premiere of The Cheetah Girls 2, a 3rd movie is definetly not out of the question, in fact we know that there will be more television, whether it's a movie or a television show, Disney isn't just going to drop The Cheetah Girls, disney is all about the money, and it certainly made money.so just keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msteal2342 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment You are missing the point of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a repository of every rumor you hear about your favorite singing group. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia of verified information, backed up by reliable sources. There are a list of things that Wikipedia is not, and one of those things is being used to store news and rumors like it's your own website. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LINK PROOF!!! - http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=63708349&blogID=157585174&MyToken=659177df-f6ce-4f93-ad39-7774d363bf42

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a WP:VANITY article.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Frontiers[edit]

I think this borders on a vanity article. Two high schools in suburban Washington have a science competition. Great, yes. But encyclopedic? Eh.... Dakern74 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, not only vanity, but completely unnotable. Delete --Amists 18:09, 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 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMV Hell[edit]

No real notability outside of anime music video fan communities. Not encyclopedic. Poorly written. Burbster 18:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten. AKismet 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V, non-notable. Recury 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons stated above. Rockhound 22:02, 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.
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Time for another Afd?![edit]

The fact that this article claims former residents of communist or former communist countries are grateful to american is ridiculous! anyone who has been to Russia, North Korea or China, will have been overwhelmed by the bitterness felt towards america! this article is just an american patriot's attempt to "get an article that can make us look good" anyone who disagrees should post reply very soon or I will list for deletion--Frogsprog 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic[edit]

UNFOUNDED statements like "Many Europeans are still grateful to the United States and other allied forces for their participation in World War II and the sacrifice of so many American lives in defeating Fascism in Europe", "Political representatives in many European countries are in favor of close ties with the USA" and "working and lower classes in industrialized countries tend to be more pro-American" are not in any way encyclopedic!!--Frogsprog 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion from Votes for deletion[edit]

Pro-American sentiment[edit]

No real content; just a poorly written attempt to counteract the Anti-American sentiment article. No evidence is offered for highly POV statements like 'Europeans in general are still grateful to the United States for its participation in World War II and the sacrifice of so many American lives in defeating Fascism in Europe.' Deus Ex

  • No point listing this here. The immense weight of Americans will ensure it stays. Chameleon 19:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Because all Americans are jingoistic idiots. Thank you for your enlightened contribution. Meelar 23:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, it's not my fault that most are. Anyway, as far as this debate goes, I have been fortunately proved wrong so far. So Delete.
  • Delete it. All the NPOV content that article could contain is already providing balance in the Anti-American sentiment article. - jredmond 19:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every page needs the creation of its opposite. —Morven 20:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anti-American sentiment does a good job on this. Lord Bob 21:10, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, everything worthwhile in this article is already at Anti-American sentiment. DO'Neil 21:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fully expected to vote delete until I actually carefully read the entire "anti" article. While it has enuf rebuttal/commentary to be quite admirably NPOV, it really does not include many positive views of the US. (In other words, I strongly disagree with "All the NPOV content that article could contain is already providing balance in the Anti-American sentiment article.") Especially given how many people around the world are willing to risk their lives, and/or give up all their wealth/belongings to immigrate to the US, I believe there are sufficient "pro" facts/beliefs/attitudes/whatever to warrant a separate article. (The current content does need some NPOV help, however.) Also, FWIW, I actually very much agree with many of the criticisms of the US (war on drugs, unilateralism, ignoring PRC genocide in Tibet, overly pampering Israel, not signing landmine treaty, environmental damage, sexual hypocrisy, overly restrictive copyright enforcement, privacy violations, "God" on currency and in pledge, death penalty, past direct meddling in other nations governments, etc.). Niteowlneils 22:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said "All the NPOV content that article could contain..." etc., I meant that all the existing NPOV content in the Pro-American sentiment article is already in Anti-American sentiment; that is, when one removes the heavy-handed POV from the Pro- article, what little is left is already in the Anti- article. - jredmond 04:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I still disagree. The anti- article doesn't (and probably shouldn't) mention the Marshall Plan, the fact that Europeans to this day officially express gratitude for US help in WW2, the space program, the fact that people from eastern Europe specifically cite the US as a factor in the fall of the Soviet Union, and so on. Or should the Marshall Plan article, etc. be removed as POV? Niteowlneils 14:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyking 22:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until it has had a fair chance at being improved. Or merge with the Anti into Attitudes toward the United States, which is probably a poor idea. The idea that specifically pro-American sentiment is not real enough to be encyclopedic is one that's hard to ascribe to sheer ignorance. Skeptics might read Jean-Francois Revel's recent best seller (in France) on the anti-American obsession; it's so pro-American as to be useless. But the article as it stands definitely isn't good enough. Dandrake 00:44, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have mixed feelings about this one. It is non-encyclopedic in that it does not anywhere define the topic or describe the sentiments. It appears to be part of an on-going debate with the article on Anti American Sentiment On the other hand it does provide a lot of links with other good articles on the subject. Send it to Clean Up maybe. ping 08:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Canada is particularly funny. Delete for POViness and Non-encyclopediness. MvHG 08:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awww! Muriel said what I was going to say! D3L3tifiK473. Denni 04:06, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 12:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's crap. And whats this about the sun expanding to consume earth? --Starx 04:23, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure POV and propaganda. There could be an encyclopedic article on this, but this article isn't it and isn't likely to evolve into it. It's just a long pure POV assertion that there Pro-American sentiment exists, and I think it is intended to suggest that the amount outweights the anti. Dpbsmith 21:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV that cannot be saved - Tεxτurε 02:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how there can be so much anti-American material here on Wikipedia, but heaven forfend there be anything good to say about the US. RickK 02:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, RickK, if it was good, that might actually be another thing. But it is MacDonald's for the mind. Denni 07:29, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

It's inevitable that this article isn't going to be NPOV, but then again, Anti-American sentiment isn't either. Wikipedia would fail in its efforts at NPOV if it deleted this one while leaving Anti-Americanism intact. There seem to be four just options:

  • Keep it, more or less as it is, and endure a not-quite-out-in-the-open debate between the two articles.
  • Incorporate it into a section in the Anti-Americanism article called "Arguments against Anti-Americanism" or "Responses to Anti-Americanism". It's hardly fair that there's no substantive section for the opposing view in the Anti-Americanism article, while there is for articles such as American exceptionalism.
  • Merge both articles into an Attitudes toward the United States of America article.
  • Delete both articles as unencyclopaedic.

My take is that either the second or the third option is the best one. The articles are natural and useful, so they shouldn't both just be deleted. --Atemperman 02:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

To sum it up there were 13 votes to delete, 2 that seem to support deletion, 1 suggestion to merge into another article, one undecided, 4 keep votes and one comment that seems to support keeping. Altogether a clear decision to delete but it still has not been done. I think Atemperman made a good suggestion. Get-back-world-respect 03:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Original Discussion (at creation)[edit]

This is such a stupid article. It only exists because some Yanks didn't like the existence of Anti-American sentiment, and so created this childish counter-article.

It contains no real content whatsoever, and deserves to be deleted. However, there is no point listing it on VfD because, being an American website, Wikipedia will always be full of dickheads who support this sort of article.

So, it looks like people are just going to have to trim it of Yankee national mental masturbation every now and then. —Chameleon 18:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language, Chameleon. If people from the US feel offended by the anti-American sentiment article could they please express their reasons at that article's discussion? Get-back-world-respect 03:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microbe Wars[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable student movie. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The camera was on loan from a college, the film only appeared on YouTube and apparently each student involved had at least one role (usually two) and at least one crew job. This article is completely non-notable. Srose (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for an entry for every video ever stored on youtube. -- Whpq 19:19, 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 Speedy deleted as admitted nonsense. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Taco Supreme[edit]

4 ghits, neologism. Delete (|-- UlTiMuS 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm on second look, more nonsense or WP:NFT than neologism. Either way, nom stands. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever it is (I'll go with violating WP:NFT), it sure isn't notable. Delete. -- Kicking222 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Verges on speedy delete as patent nonsense. Undeniably something made up in school (or elsewhere) on a very recent day that has no encyclopedic value. The article is also unverifiable, as the "creators" of the admitted nonsense are not even identified. Agent 86 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Obvious nonsense. Parodying FSM, which is already a parody? Doesn't make much sense right from the beginning. Also, this:
It was created by two individuals who were instant messaging each other, typing complete nonsense and developing a story from the chaos. --Wafulz 18:39, 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, because of strong comments and reasoning below. —Xyrael / 08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riboalte[edit]

plus redirect at Kingdom of Riboalte

Disputed prod. Non-notable micronation. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, patent nonsense, WP:NOT a place for everyone and their dog's pages about their made-up countries. NawlinWiki 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to have some web presence. The writer's English is unfortunately weak (may be even worse than my Spanish), but with patience that can be ameliorated. —Tamfang 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Website...Keep --Kitia 23:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may be a "real" micronation, but not many ghits. Micronations are by definition nonsensical, as they usually arise out of a unilateral declaration of independence by someone somewhere with a plot of land, and are recognised by no-one except other micronations, thus often depriving them of veriability. 'Sealand + principality' scores 451 out of 45,500 Ghits; 'Riboalte' scores 62 out of 577. Ohconfucius 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this one seems serious... --Kitia 16:02, 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 --Wafulz 19:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DN Partners LLC[edit]

142 ghits, fails WP:CORP. Also WP:SPAM. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment deleted. Admin: please close. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:45, 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)  12:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

43119[edit]

Another ZIP code article by the creator of 43228, currently up for AFD; nonnotable/nonencyclopedic on basis of precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99775 and other AFDs of ZIP codes discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43228. Note that creator said in the 43228 AFD that s/he would continue to create ZIP code articles regardless of consensus. NawlinWiki 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The original author appears to have an obsession with documenting every detail of Ohio. --Wafulz 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. --Wafulz 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing remarkable about this zip code, and the content belongs in the article about the town. -- Whpq 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article isn't about the zip code, it's about the city. Something like List of Ohio zip codes might be a good home for this instead. — brighterorange (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate and sets a dangerous precedent; there are approximately 42,000 zip codes in the US. Also and as noted above, the article is pretextual, being not about the zip code itself but about the town to which it is assigned.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Galloway, Ohio. This article contains information about the town not in the town's article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent; turning all articles about 5-digit numbers into ZIP code articles is not the most effective use of these titles. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about every single ZIP code. --Kinu t/c 05:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is utter trivia. And sucks poop. --Nintendude message 00:38, 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 --Wafulz 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dew tang[edit]

Never heard of it. 130 ghits. Delete as NFT. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment deleted before I could nominate fully. Someone please close this discussion. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:43, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sullivan[edit]

Non-noteable, possible vanity, definite hoax article. Article was PROD'd previously but removed by the author with no explanation. Ataricodfish 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, inventor of religion that gets zero google hits. Weregerbil 19:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ot at all verifiable, and most likely a hoax. -- Whpq 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong Delete religioncruft from vandals. Danny Lilithborne 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a free place to write on things and just because this cult has no "Google" hits does not make it untrue. The Cult i speak about is very true. This isnt vanity, I do not know this guy personally.Rediculous the way you all act around here. Nobel1

  • Strong Keep unlike you guys i understand that just because somethings not in google doesnt mean it doesnt exist (69.69.160.132 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT 2Ghits for "Sullinarianism", both of which wiki. Appears to be a non-notable concept from a nn person. Ohconfucius 09:57, 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 merge (and then redirect). —Xyrael / 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blondi (fictional)[edit]

Delete Not really sure why the dog warrants his own article: he wasn't of major significance, and only appeared on Kingdom Hospital. The information here would be better suited for the main article itself, not its own page.--Kung Fu Man 18:42, 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 --Wafulz 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelderbeast[edit]

No google hits, so I'm calling this a hoax. Any notable animal has at least one hit. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:48, 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 Deville (Talk) 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vortech[edit]

I was cleaning this up after finding it on a Random article click.. I realized that perhaps it does not qualify as a Wikipedia article based on notability, after I noticed that their albums were self-released. Anyways, listing here for the wise to decide its fate. Mceder 18:54, 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 Delete as a sub-stub, stillborn article. The subject could not become encyclopedic in scope and content.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Online[edit]

A game that was never even announced. Most notable ghit is on geocities. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced, and the game was never made. -- Whpq 19:13, 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 as an {{advert}} for a future event with no prior history to mark it as notable.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmameddevice[edit]

PROD removed without explanation. Event is a non-notable future event which reads like an advertisement. Ataricodfish 18:57, 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 as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Asad[edit]

Non-notable musical group with nonsense written in the article. Article fails WP:N and WP:Music. Prod was altered, and thus removed, by article's creator without explanation. Ataricodfish 19:11, 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 as an {{advert}} for a non-notable establishment, as per WP:CORP.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe creation[edit]

Article is about a non-notable, and not as yet opened restaurant. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if it was up and running it still wouldn't be notable. --RMHED 19:32, 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. —Xyrael / 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape_monsters[edit]

I've looked around at other MMORPG Wikis, and not one of them covered any of monsters. Why should this one? I vote a Delete per WP:NOT, as the guide does not appeal to anyone outside of the RuneScape understanding and lacks an encyclopedic tone. Why should anyone really care about what the "Chaos Elemental" is? It's great for a game Wiki, but definitely not for Wikipedia. Makoto 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete more RuneSpace silliness. Danny Lilithborne 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more cruft, lack of content likely failure of WP:NOT, game guidish etc per nom.--Andeh 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on (although not necessarily keep) - I thought we were trimming, cleaning and merging this article into RuneScape combat, along with weaponry and armour? Thats what everyone was talking about at Talk:RuneScape recently, if memory serves. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon checking, RuneScape monsters was not even mentioned in the discussion; therefore, I vote to Merge into RuneScape combat. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: Although RuneScape monsters should not be elaborated on because it's not encyclopedic content, basic info about the monsters should be placed in Combat per Captain Vindaloo.--Edtalk c E 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, move to wiki The RuneScape Wiki needs more articles, so relevant content should be put there, but this also belongs in combat.Hemhem20X6 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is deemed usable into Combat then delete. Little point in keeping the article beyond that purpose, it's either an ineffective (and arguably non-notable) stub or could be expanded to a game-guide style list, neither of which tie-in with what contributors are doing. QuagmireDog 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironically, the latest RS update has changed the graphics of several generic monsters AND the kalphite queen. I've not seen how drastic these changes are but the two KQ animations may now be out-of-date, and I'm struggling to see what few sentences could be ported. It may will be there's nada to take except a the KBD image and perhaps a few others. QuagmireDog 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've still not seen the new KQ, but the giants and demons are profoundly different and improved compared to their old incarnations. The Chaos Elemental and KBD pictures are the only thing here that IMO are worth keeping for the combat article. QuagmireDog 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary. However, please do not move to the RuneScape Wiki. We don't need more crap.--Richard 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or whatever, but I hate it when people nominate for deletion when they mean "merge and redirect". I'm taking the images to the Wiki, though. It's the only thing this article has to offer. Hyenaste (tell) 22:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for fancruft and game guides. I can't figure out how this article is encyclopedic. Audacious One 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~(Keep)~ Wouldn't everybody think best if Wikipedia covered EVERYTHING like an encyclopedia since that is what Wiki is. If you don't need to read it...then don't look it up correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.221.66 (talk • contribs)

You should read What Wikipedia is not. This is fan stuff. It's not encyclopediec.--24.109.220.202 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Deville (Talk) 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hofmann[edit]

A non notable radio personality. A google search for "The Life According to Larry Show." only returns what seems to be his myspace profile. A search for "Larry Hofmann" WHFR only returns a mirror. Nonpareility 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as insufficiently notable, per WP:BIO, and absence of reliable, reputable sources, per WP:V. --Satori Son 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Inn and Suites[edit]

1 ghit, fails WP:CORP by a landslide. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Per Nom... Now if it only had a gas station and a car wash... Irongargoyle 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, but, it was critically acclaimed because of it's [sic] appealing landscaping! No. Delete, fails WP:CORP. Now if it was only run by Peter Griffin... --Kinu t/c 06:01, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Canty[edit]

A non-notable DVD box artist for B movies. IMDB has no listing of him "stepping in front of the camera" Nonpareility 19:49, 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)  12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bamba Productions[edit]

Comment What if we have our website up, can we put this back when we aquire a domain? We can send the html of our site if you want to see it...wait this is the site server...[36] - Megaegga 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get 5 git, the article itself claims This group creates video sketches that can be found on Youtube, Google Videos, and Myspace. so therefore, NN failure of WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We're working on a website if that makes us any more "valid." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReturntoSender (talk •
  • Comment This page is not an experimentation! Bamba Productions is a valid sketch comedy group! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReturntoSender (talk • contribs) . (article author)
  • Delete Nobody has said the group doesn't exist; the question is whether they are notable and whether their notability can be verified. Because anyone can post videos on the above sites, having videos there is not evidence of notability. Right now, I don't see any evidence of verifiable notability. NawlinWiki 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided to establish verifiability and notability. --Allen3 talk 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No offense, my fellow New Jerseyans, but college sketch comedy groups (including the one of which I am a member) are not notable enough for WP, and high school troupes certainly are not. -- Kicking222 22:58, 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 No Randi Prize for Sylvia this week.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of predictions made by Sylvia Browne[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. Does a list of predictions by a psychic qualify as encyclopedic? I tend to believe no. Further, I wonder if having this list of her predictions violates any of her copyright on the lists (like having the Newsweek Top 1200 High Schools was found to be copyright infringement I believe). Delete as unencyclopedic. Metros232 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep maybe merge? the more notable ones with her main article? I think this was broken off from the main article when it had gotten too large. Also since the list isnt taken from any one place there isn't any copyright issue. Since Brown is a notable psychic a people pay attention to her predictions certainly some of them have notability, such as those she made on Larry King Live about the mining accident (but I think that's covered in her main article anyways). JoshuaZ 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The entire page is not taken from any one place, but the individual breakdowns do appear to be: the first section, the second section, and the last section. I found the 3rd section in a blog but can't find an original source for that. Metros232 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, subject to that, take the most notable few and move them into the main article on Browne. Delete the rest. JoshuaZ 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is "encyclopdic" its a list of predictions that are believed to have been made, its information. That's what an encyclopedia is for information, reference. So if you wanted to be informed on Sylvia you could "refer" to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.56.208 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Delete, predictions bad by a "psychic"? Especially one that are almost all incorrect? Get rid of it. TJ Spyke 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sorry, I couldn't resist. But I still predict "delete" for this non-encyclopedic article per the nominator. Agent 86 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sylvia Browne is no Nostradamus, no matter what Montel Williams might think. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These predictions are completely inane. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete. Amusing to see that she can't even get 50% right, but the list is not encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 09:50, 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 Deville (Talk) 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sogonow.com[edit]

Blatant advertising. The author even managed to mention himself by name in the article. Prod tag removed without comment. If it's not deleted, it needs a total rewrite. IceCreamAntisocial 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appeciate the feedback - I reviewed many of the other articles in the Travel Website category and tried to incorporate the information that they have provided to maintain the accepted standard - and I have continued to update the article with more information. If you have suggestions I would certainly appreciate them-User:Will Seccombe

  • Delete, vanity/advertisement --Andeh 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear case of spam. Prod was removed without explanation. Artw 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited out any reference to the ownership - I believe that the entry now is completely in line with other articles listed in the travel website category and it is not a vanity lisiting - any other suggestions would be appreciated - Will

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 English suffixes Deville (Talk) 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ee and Er[edit]

Kind of a pointless article. The one example given doesn't even follow the "rule" described. If anything, this could be a two sentence blurb in English language. It was speedied, admin changed speedy to prod, which was then removed. To be completely precise and specific, I believe this violates WP:NOT in that Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. --Wafulz 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into English language. By itself, this is not an encyclopedic topic: it belongs in the foreword to a dictionary, if anything. One (perhaps two) sentence(s) in English language should suffice for encyclopedic purposes. Srose (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of English suffixes with no merge. The information is there already in a more encyclopedic style. --Metropolitan90 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term. Recury 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukasa Minami[edit]

Model/porn actress with no notability asserted. Prod removed without explanation. Orphan article Catchpole 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Rup88 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Allen3 talk 22:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now – According to a list on the Japanese wikipedia, her debut was in 2006. I found one book and 15 DVDs at Amazon.co.jp; she also does not have a page in the Japanese wikipedia. Neier 23:01, 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 all three articles Deville (Talk) 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar inflation[edit]

I'm proposing this and two other articles by the same author for deletion, because they are either extremely non notable neologisms, or otherwise plain and simple hoaxes. Author (of the neologisms, and of the articles) calls himself "noted", but is extremely invisible on Google. Neologisms are equally unused, and seem to fail at least two Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR and WP:V Fram 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Sills Point and Tropposite. Fram 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To quote the wikipedia standards you cite in your proposition for deletion: Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.


Clearly every single article I submitted meets these criteria, and therefore my articles should not be deleted. Sillsm

Go to WP:NOR, and read the section: What is excluded. The section you quote is irrelevant, as a) the article is not about yourself, but about some idea you supposedly launched, and b) there are no sources given. Fram 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To rebut your interpretation of the wikipedia criteria: a) The article is clearly about myself as my name is in it and it cites me as a source. b) All material considered for deletion has been self-published, and distributed in a university setting. Therefore I am the authoritative source to cite on these ideas. And this does not violate WP:NOR, because all ideas presented here are at least a year old. Sillsm


  • Delete as violating WP:NOR; WP:NEO and possible WP:VANITY as coined in late 2005 by cultural anthropologist and symbolic theorist Maxwell Sills, given that the article was created by User:Sillsm. --Kinu t/c 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and don't delete or confusingly refactor my comment, like you did here. --Kinu t/c 18:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kinu I suggest you read WP:VANITY more carefully. I have here cited a relevant passage to clarify its meaning. As you have begun to edit and mame my defense, I believe you are no longer an impartial third party. The merits of my articles should be judged by the community as a whole, and not single partial editors.

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of articles, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

  • Comment: There is no point in continuing this discussion. WP:VANITY also says Wikipedia's policy on verifiability prohibits the inclusion of things that are not verifiable from independent sources. Unless you can satisfy WP:V, which is policy, this article will be deleted. Please read it along with WP:RS and WP:CITE. --Kinu t/c 18:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Maxwell Sills and Courtney Chatellier, both mentioned in the article, are high school students.24.61.160.163 This comment deleted here; restored.

Where is the proof that the two authors mentioned in the articles are currently enrolled in high school? There are no credentials accredited to the two authors except notoriety in their respective fields, which is subjective. There is only the mention of the ideas being distributed in a university setting. Where is the proof for that?

  • Comment: As far as I can tell, there is no proof of anything, including the theories mentioned in the article, which is why those who have commented on this AfD have argued for deletion. Yes, notoriety is subjective, but passing WP:V is not. (FYI, Wikipedia policy says to remove personal attacks in AfDs, but saying that the author is a high school student does not, in my opinion, fall into that category, which is why I have warned you twice for removing the above comment.) --Kinu t/c 05:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The theories in the articles are exactly that- theories. They are new ideas derived from literary criticism, and stand on their own legs. There is no truth or falsehood to a theory or concept. The articles don't make any claims at all, just explain the use of critical tools and give examples for their possible usage.

  • Comment: Yeah, I can't tell if this is supposed to be in support of the article or in support of deletion either. --Kinu t/c 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor Judith Kahan Rowland[edit]

Vanity autobiography written by Judirow (talk • contribs). Only claim to notability is having been an "Immediate Past President of the American Conference of Cantors". Goggle hits for ("Judith Kahan Rowland" -wikipedia) = 22. Fails: WP:NPOV and most likely WP:V for lack of 3rd party reliable sources. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. GRBerry 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy since the author's name resembles the subject's. --Metropolitan90 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,merge some of it to Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, and userfy the rest if you feel like it. I am not sure about the notablity of The American Conference of Cantors but at best it's borderline and would not extend to every past president. Jon513 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy, no significance whatsoever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Crzrussian. Not a dog 01:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Checked Yahoo and found one article by her (added to article), a few mentions in UHC sources, but couldn't find mention in a third-party article in an online general media or scholarly publication --Shirahadasha 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Shuki 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'SPEEDY DELETE'--Shaul avrom 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't believe this article meets speedy delete criteria.
Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead.
In this case signicance has been asserted, and the claim is simply being disputed. So AfD is the proper course and the article can be deleted in due course if the consensus is it's not notable.--Shirahadasha 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario Wii[edit]

No sources given for any of the information given in the article. Main contributor has a history of adding unverified and speculative information to articles, asserting it as fact. This article in particular appears to contain outright hoax information. Dancter 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including Mario Kart Wii in this nomination, as it shares the same issues, with the main contributor being the same one for Paper Mario Wii. The only verifiable claims in the article are vague statements by the co-director of the Mario Kart series indicating that the next Mario Kart would be likely be for Wii. This is not enough information to justify an article. Dancter 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Mario Kart Wii to Mario Kart until there's more information for an article. SNS 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. While I am certian both will be made, neither have been confirmed or anounced yet. TJ Spyke 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paper mario and Redirect mario kart, as stated above. OccultGraveyard
  • Delete both. The Paper Mario article is an obvious hoax baecase it already has a story section and list of partners. Even if it does eventually come out the info in the article will be wrong. There is no way that is real. Its also too soon for a Mario Kart artilce because anyting that can be said is crystalbalism. There will likely be a Wii version but it is too soon for an article. --Edgelord 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Rup88 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. TJ Spyke 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be rumored, the game exists, the debate is if its going to be GCN, GCN and Wii or Wii. [37] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article already exists for Super Paper Mario, though. Dancter 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also this contains a lot info not in the Super Paper Mario article making me think it is made up. I doubt it is connected to that. While it may be possible the game could be moved to Wii this is something different. At best this could be a redirect if Super Paper Mario does change platforms but not now. --Edgelord 06:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing but speculation here. This can wait until there's an announcement. Ace of Sevens 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's fairly likely there'll be Wii installments of these two games, but until there's an announcement it's all crystal ball. BryanG(talk) 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After deleting the "likely drivers" and "likely tracks" sections from the Mario kart article (where did they get that information from?), there is absolutely no substance. Just an introduction that basically says "this game might have been mentioned in passing in an interview from months ago, but we don't know. No official announcement has been made that they're actually making this game yet" and the external links. It's absolutely useless. Get rid of it. E946 05:18, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological nomadism[edit]

Philosophy made up in vanity press-published book Tribalizing America, which was recently successfully AfD'd. Term produces 5 unique Google hits when -wikipedia is added to the search. Almost the entire article is based on that book, and borders on original research anyway. -Elmer Clark 20:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think this crosses that border and is quite firmly established in the land of OR.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been watching this article for a long time. The author appears to have built a walled garden of original research. Over the weeks I havn't been able to find any reliable sources to back this up. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rambling OR. Ergative rlt 15:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tried to research topic - no luck... Stormbay 03:23, 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 speedy deleted for having no useful content. Who says we can't speedy obvious junk? This isn't a bureaucracy. :) Friday (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Robert Crosby[edit]

Article appears to be yet another hoax article that can't be speedy deleted becuase it makes claims of notority than cannot be verified. Prod, hoax and verify tags removed by author. Wildthing61476 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Founder of a charity that doesn't seem to exist. Likely hoax, unverifiable at best. Fan-1967 20:50, 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)  11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ox of Boll[edit]

A hoax that has been on Wiki for 10 months, it is appropriately WP:Complete Bollocks RMHED 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agreed. Nice find, RMHED. Google hits for "Hys bredde was as thee Bolle Ocks" = this article. 2 unique Google hits for ("Ox of Boll" -wikipedia), both of which are are GFDL violations of Wikipedia. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heh. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cute. Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appropriately, per above. --Kinu t/c 05:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-26 09:35Z

Damian Almeida[edit]

No assertion of notability. Looks like it should have been speedied. About 24 Google hits. I will be very surprised if this can pass WP:BIO. However, I don't want to be Americo-centric and know nothing about India and its people.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under a7.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see, birthdate, parents' names, siblings' names, wife's name... that's it? Speedy A7 as no assertion of notability. Nothing to indicate subject would pass WP:BIO anyway. --Kinu t/c 05:56, 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 This project has been touted since the demise of Spaced. This article can be recreated when the project is given the green light & a press release states this.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Triviata (tv)[edit]

The page was created because the Sun (newspaper) got confused on something and stated that this long predicted Pegg project will start filming soon. However, his management have stated that this is not the case - http://chortle.co.uk/news/aug06/pegg078801.php HornetMike 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My mistake in making the page in the first place. --ChinaNailStorm 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No mistake! It was based on what seemed like reliable knowledge at the time! HornetMike 15:23, 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 keep. - Bobet 10:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white cookie[edit]

Non notable cookie, page originally was a rather subtle advertisment for a bakery. Not sure if the cookie warrants it's own page Wildthing61476 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. "Black and white cookie" gets 20,000 more Ghits than "Mallomars", it was referenced on an episode of Seinfeld, and even if it is better known in New York or LA, regional foods qualify as encyclopedic. SliceNYC 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up. A type of cookie I've heard of despite not being that into cookies; types of food generally rate an article if enough can be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. You should keep this because other foods and food chains have Wikipedia articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.253.251 (talk) .
  • Keep - I've reduced this to a stub by removing a lot of POV cookie-praising, it is now fit to keep. I'll see what else I can do to expand it as well. --Daniel Olsen 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination I can be wrong, I take it back, and the cleanup is a great job. Wildthing61476 01:10, 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 this and co-nominated article Deville (Talk) 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TvTome Adventures[edit]

No reliable sources, only a dozen Google hits. Completely non-notable flash animation series. Also nominating Characters of TvTome Adventures. Delete per WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This page and and the character page is the result of hours of effort by mutiple people. The site it's hosted on gets 50,000 hits per day.--Mewchu11 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site its hosted on... That would be like keeping an article on a Geocities website because Geocities gets millions of hits a day... Please see WP:WEB for criteria for web content and WP:RS/WP:V for information regarding require verifiability. Wickethewok 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • but it's not Geocites, it's a small collective of sites that all contribute a significant percentage to that 50 thousand.--Mewchu11 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficient, IMO. PERHAPS that collective could get an article together, maybe. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep TTA is one of the best efforts of a flash series I've actually seen. Alot of guys can make really good single-productions, but for a number of people to work on an interactive long-standing series? That's almost as hard as producing your own cartoon show. This flash is immensely-watch and immensely popular not just in the place it's hosted or the message board it's linked to, but all over the internet, a phenomenon that can be attributed the same power as Snakes On A Plane, 8-Bit Theater, and other notable online entertainments that are hosted elsewhere but cited about here. This is Wikipedia, ladies and gentleman. You document information of significant impact here, and this is significant enough. Remove it and you'll have to say the same for all the online comics and such-like, of which their fans will fight tooth and nail against. Thank you much, and if A Man In Black is watching... *Grins and waves* Hi there. 204.215.200.80 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an excellent example of flash spriting. Sprite comics have their own section, and in that section there is a link to the main site this project is displayed on. This series is no different then having a cartoon series posted here. There are other web-toons strewn throughout Wikipedia that are sleeper hits, just as this one is. I vote for staying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.144.155.183 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep TTA is a great site, and I believe it should be kept here. It is a great example of spriting and the fruits of Kirbopher's labor, spriting skills, and scriptwriting. Should someone's labor go unnoticed just because one person believes it shouldn't be? Simply ridiculous. 5:24, 26 August 2006

Last Living Soul 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) -Last Living Soul[reply]

  • Let the record show, I am only saying this to show how asinine the grounds for this article's potential deletion is. First, its claimed that the TTA article does not have reliable sources. I strongly beg to differ: The main site, the forum/message board, and Chris Niosi's deviantART profile and gallery contain all the information and details that make up the article. If you were unaware of this, you were either too lazy to look through even part of the links in the article that led to those places, or you don't seem to care whether you have legit reasons to delete this article (which wouldn't be the first time on this site). Second, you claim that because there are little Google hits, the article should be deleted. Once again, had you looked at the main TTA site itself, you would have noticed that almost the entire subdomain has almost nothing that a Google search would pick up, specifically, the fact that loosely 90+ percent of the site is done entirely in Flash. In fact, the only page that isn't is the FAQ page. Therefore, the only way most Google searches would be able to find the site is if the search query had "TTA", "The Series", or some words or phrases from the FAQ page, and even then, given how broad the results of all but the most precise search queries would end up being, many people would more likely than not have moved on to a different activity by the time they find the Google link. Last, TTA is labeled as a "non-notable flash animation series". In the first point, nice grammar. Please enlighten me as to why Wikipedians use "non-notable" as apposed to something that doesn't sound like it came from a high school drop-out, or at least is in a standard dictionary, like perhaps "unremarkable"? Or why not just use a phrase like "not notable", or maybe just "in violation of Wikipedia's notability criteria"? And then there's the glaring fact that you neglected to capitalize "Flash", but I digress. Apparently, you do not seem to know that notability is relative. In case you need a reminder, something that is "relative" is something that is difficult to or otherwise incomparable to something else. For example, there are a large number of people who have heard of and/or seen the Homestar Runner cartoons. In fact, I have met a lot of people off the internet who have seen some of them and enjoy them. Yet those same people have not heard of 8-Bit Theater, Ctrl+Alt+Delete, VG Cats, Penny Arcade, or are familiar with webcomics in general. The same applies here. Just because you haven't heard of TTA does not mean that anyone else has. As it has been stated before in this discussion, there is a large following of the series and of Chris Niosi, not just on its forum, but with many other (and, according to Wikipedia, notable) individuals and groups (Matt Wilson for example). From what I can see, there is only one person who nominates articles for deletion. That being said, if each article nominated for deletion was deleted just because the Wikipedian that suggested the deletion hadn't heard of it, then it would eventually get to the point where all of Wikipeadia would be deleted. I think I have made my point by this time. Were you able to follow all of that, or did I use too many big words for your brain to comprehend? Cukeman 00:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why Should it be deleted? Countless other flash series/webcomics are on wikipedia. Madness and Bob and George are a good example. Danos 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that all above accounts except for Mewchu seem to be single purpose accounts. Wickethewok 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent strategy, good sir! You see someone that can match wits with you and ignore him! Cukeman 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been a member of this web based database for an extended period of time. I am not a single purpose account, I was simply unaware my account had not been signed in. Despite the fact that two people have argued, and one had made an angered attack out of frustration does not hinder the points made. Despite the fact the sprite based series was not exceedingly well known does not mean it does not have a following, or is situated in truth. Infact, I, among many others, use Wikipedia to look up information on things we don't know too terribly much about. Isn't that the entire point of an encyclopedic database? To find out information on things you may otherwise be unable to get data upon with ease? Sean Matsuda 14:05, 27 August 2006
      • Ok, number 1, i havnt used my account RECENTLY, but that does not make it a single purpose account, and number 2: even if it is, they are just voicing opinions.... correct me if im wrong but you dont have anything against THAT do you? Danos 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could one of you guys please tell me how this meets WP:WEB or WP:V? Wickethewok 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, to boil it down to the simplest terms, all you want is proof of existence as a source of information prior to being HERE in WIki (Verifiability) and proof of having some sort of reaonable impact according to your code (Notability), right? Fair enough. I will begin with Verifiability. Simply spoken, anything that has an existence prior to being mentioned here, on Wiki, is an external existence that can be looked up and found to exist somewhere else but here. If I look up TTA on Google, the first thing I'm going to find is not its Wikipedia entry. It has a site, and there is information and media, therefore it's verified. The link's right in the page. Have a look and enjoy yourself. NOW, I will hit notability. Heh heh heh... I've been looking around this place, especially at flash cartoon references and online comics. You've got quite a list here. I'm impressed. There's a whole lot here that I haven't even heard of. I guess, knowing that, I'd certainly want their pages to remain afloat if I wanted to look up stuff about it without hassle. The case you're creating would eliminate that for TTA, thus creating a gap of information. TTA is, largely enough, no different from popular sprite comics or flash cartoons that you have listed there. Actually, I'd say it's better than some. Are you trying to say Peanut Butter Jelly Time is some how more important than an excellent show with a plot? Hardly... That banana's just a repeated meme. And having lost an arguement about a meme here earlier (See A Man In Black about "Objection!"), the thought that that would deserve to be here - nay, alot of the other stuff here - more than TTA strictly confounds me. To me, it would stink of hypocrasy. And that's my arguement. Have a nice day. 204.215.201.47 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
  • Wikipedia articles require reliable sources to show verifiability. This is not negotiable. Wickethewok 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this article's source unreliable? The person directing the editing, and verifying the information is the man who wrote and flashed the entire series! How could you get any more reliable information then that? The people that do touch ups and the like are fans who have watched the series, and are close with the author, therefore knowing the series storyline to a T. I fail to see how our sources are unreliable.Damian 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person is not a reliable source of published information. If you read WP:RS, you will find that people are not publications. This animation series does not meet WP:WEB, which requires secondary and indepedent sources of information outside of people involved in its creation. Wickethewok 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I don't buy that, Mr. Admin. Your definition is ever so slightly askew, and if this whole site operates under that principle, then you are the caretaker to a swiss cheese factory. I wonder what else is missing around here or is mistaken under this narrow mindset. Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable data-source under that guideline. It speaks of an 'incredible' hubris. With no insult to your duties as an administrator, I think you should revise your standard. It lacks versatility. 130.49.145.77 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
    • Actually, WP:WEB says, and I quote, "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria..." As such, as long as TTA has at least one of those three items, it's defines as notable. The third criterion is read as follows: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Unless I am mistaken, Fireball20xl, the host, constitutes as "distribution of the content", and all staff members of the site are completely independant of Chris Niosi, unless "being friends with" is a reason to say otherwise, which is preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukeman (talk • contribs)
  • Straight from WP:V: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This subject certainly seems to fall under that category. With regards to WP:WEB, I would say that being featured on Fireball20xl is trivial - there are many webcomic/art hosts out there - clearly not every one of their artists is notable. Wickethewok 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Points to previous comment.) Dodging the issue of the site's shortcomings in reliability does not make you right. By quoting an inefficient and outdated standard, you are not actually proving anything. You have a responsibility to make available the flow of information both important and not. As long as it isn't total crap, it should be alright. Reliability means that it's not hearsay. That's all. Putting a halt to this is like shirking responsibility. You're not thinking of right or wrong, because there's certainly nothing wrong with this page or site attached. You're being rather petty just because you don't think this has any impact on people. Except, of course, that that cannot be true if it is maintained and kept intact by the people who like it. Lemme tell ya. A bunch of fans may not necessarily equal the power of your Admin status, but your status as that Admin does not make you right by default. Go hunt after something with harmful content and REAL questionable material. This isn't the droid- Errr, page you're looking for. 130.49.145.110 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
    • On the other hand, surely you can admit that it's quite difficult to have a third-party with something as an animation series. You claim that the forums that holds the TTA forum is not third-party, you claim that Psyguy, the webmaster of Fireball20xl (who, at the time he began hosting Kirbopher, only hosted his friends who needed and wanted a host), is not third-party, and you claim that (and this is a very wild guess here) about 5,000 people (including TFS forum members, deviantART and Sheezy Art members, and a couple miscellanious forums) who all support the information in the article is not third-party, so what is third-party? Or are you going to stop giving partial bullshit and give us pure bullshit (and if you think I'm being uncivil, I haven't gotten started)? Cukeman 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third-party would consist of separate publications, from something like Wired, IGN, or some online news source. All information has to be previously published for it to be a part of Wikipedia per WP:OR. Basically, a third-party source is a publication that would be generally considered accountable and trustworthy and is not associated with the subject at all. Mind you this is not an attack of any kind on the members of the website or anything - I mean, would you consider ME a reliable source of information?  ;-) Wickethewok 21:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but that's only because, yes, you are now giving us pure bullshit. Cukeman 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you feel Wikipedia policies should be changed, I welcome you to bring your opinion to the talk page of that particular policy page in question. Wikipedia always welcome new input and ideas to policies, even though they may not necessarily be enacted. Wickethewok 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you that stupid?! We've been given our opinion for the past half-week! Open your frikkin' EYES or use your damn BRAIN! Cukeman 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm merely stating that AFD is not the appropriate venue for policy debates. This is the enforcement of policy rather than the creation. Also, please refrain from insulting other editors, including me. 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cukeman, seriously layoff the personal insults. They do more harm than good for the cause. Insulting someone doesn't prove a point. --Mewchu11 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but they sure do help me out. XD 'Kay, I'm shuttin' up now. Cukeman 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You raise points that may or may not be valid depending on strict following of the rules. If you honestly think this applied to everything you say it does then I request that you delete 99% of Category:Flash_cartoons. I can honestly say that out of all those articles, I could count the ones that had a reputable 3rd party source on one hand or maybe even one finger. The point I'm making is that you seem to be relying on either an unclear, unenforced, or unenforceable rule. What makes this article your target? Even if it falls under your blanket terminology why delete articles with actual effort put behind them when Total vanity pages are still amok? Also even well known series shouldn't be safe from your "reason". So I say to you this: Kill them all or leave it alone. --Mewchu11 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Comment Yes, this is what I have been speaking of. You, the Admin of Wikipedia, may not be actually making a personal attack, but you are, in fact, creating its evil cousin known as "gross negligence". Under normal circumstances, your reasoning would make sense, except that the situation is not cut and dry, not black and white. I will say a person is not reliable information. One person. Several dozen? Tons more? Different story. What you don't realize here is that we live in an age where people with a common goal can create something from nothing by sheer force of will and desire alone. Therefore, a people (as in many more than one) can have a notable, verifiable, reliable effect on things. Mewchu, here, sums up everything I've been saying. TTA belongs here as much as anything else, in fact more so than alot of other stuff. I wager roughly one-third of the information made here is a waste of time by being total trash in the first place. Furthermore, I have not seen a satisfactory answer to quite a large number of good points made here. So, on top of Mewchu's statement, I place another. If you feel the need to delete this place in the line of duty, that's one thing, but to come here and open a discussion and then pay almost no real attention to what's being said is not acceptable. If you're going to discuss something, discuss it. Make your counter-statements heard systematically and well-thought in response. Thus far, I find little in this debate to dissuade me from my arguements. 204.215.201.101 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre, Displeased.[reply]
  • I would like to get more opinions from other editors outside of those of us currently in debate. I would suggest that if the closing admin finds validity in both sides of the argument, they relist this to attempt to form a consesus. Wickethewok 06:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, and one shot accounts voting in favor doesn't make it any more warranted. --ArrEmmDee 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, pay attention. You see all the nice big paragraphs with opinions expressed and claims made in full relevance to the topic at hand? This is not a vote. This is a discussion. It even says so up top, so don't even use that word in reference to this subject. 130.49.145.125 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
    • Uh, no duh? You're acting insanely uncivil-- of all the deletion discussions I've read on level with articles like these, yours has to be the most heated. If I ever had an article I didn't want deleted, I doubt I'd be insulting the intellect of Wikipedia administrators and the average Wikipedian like you've all been. ArrEmmDee 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that's only Cukeman, and I don't condone what he's been saying (at least not HOW he's been saying it). Just because he's being inflamitory doesn't mean you shouldn't read everyone else's thoughts, I've been trying very hard to keep things intellectual and agreeable in MY entries. Honestly I can't do anything more than that--Mewchu11 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my defense, Wickethewok was not thinking or being objective, as he completely ignored half of our arguments. Furthermore, if "be an ass-kiss to the people in charge or shut up" is the rule of the road as opposed to "open discussion, in the sense that we are all equal here", then, well, you may as well delete any article nominated for deletion, since the defenders of the article can't really say anything to defend their argument. All I'm doing is being more forceful in my opinion and my showing how the way Wikipedia is run is not on a level playing field, so to speak. Cukeman 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Cuke, I'm getting the message across just fine while still maintaining my bad attitude and not even stepping on the staff guy's toes. However, that does not mean I have to be all nice about it, which I won't. This is not my beutiful house. This is not my beautiful wife. Same as it every was...and so on. What my big issue is, right now, is that my opposition can't formulate an opinion without pulling out a red herring, making a hasty - very hasty - generalization, or avoids the statement at hand when faced with rebuttal. How utterly aggravating to find a communication on the part of the aggressors... 130.49.145.116 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
  • Delete, it's an article about a series of Flash animations, so you'd expect it to show up on google, yet it gets 39 unique hits (from wikipedia mirrors and message boards). The site it's on has an alexa rank of around 40,000, yet the traffic ranking shows that this particular series gets less than 1% of those hits. There's no notability shown above, just lots of shouting, and there are no reliable sources independent of the site that even mention it. - Bobet 10:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you might want to try reading the discussions again, because we have made adequate rebuttals to all of your arguments. Cukeman 14:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I felt you had, I wouldn't have made the comment. - Bobet 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice try, but no dice there. A rehashed argument that's been debunked can't possibly hold any meaning here. By default, your words can't be true if it's already gotten shot down. You either have to come up with something new or come up with some sort of rebuttal. Recycling it doesn't make it better. Face it. You have no real reason to go through with this. It's all fluff, showmanship. I can think of plenty of reasons to keep TTA, as I have already, but not one single reason to drop it that makes any sort of rational sense. 204.215.200.37 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) The Lord Massacre[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)  11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve and Hough Entertainment[edit]

Quoting: Steve and Hough Entertainment is an upstart independent film company that utilizes myspace videos and youtube.com to get it's unique humor out to the masses. That pretty much sums up why this fails WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 21:23, 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, and it seems as thought Nautilus Institute has already been merged to Nautilus, Inc. Deville (Talk) 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus Institute & Nautilus, Inc.[edit]

Reads like spam, not notable, and I already copied all the data to Nautilus, Inc., who looks like they may be notable. Just a spam fork, by look of it... and not needed. · XP · T · 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Adding Nautilus, Inc. if I can. Neither are notable, even when merged. Tagged that one too. · XP · T · 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep on Nautilus, Inc., the well-known manufacturer of exercise equipment. It's a corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange with over $600 million in annual sales; it presumably satisfies WP:CORP by a good margin. Note that the corporation also owns Stairmaster and Bowflex, two other brands which Wikipedia has articles about already. "Nautilus machines" gets over 29,000 Google hits [38], and the French Wikipedia has an article about them too: fr:Nautilus (machines). Merge Nautilus Institute to Nautilus, Inc. --Metropolitan90 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: XP, there was actually no need to take this to AFD. In fact, after merging Nautilus Institute to Nautilus, Inc., you should just have made the former a redirect to the latter to preserve the edit history of the merged material (per the GFDL). And you can withdraw the nomination of Nautilus, Inc., if you wish. up+l+and 05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nautilus Institute to Nautilus, Inc. SweetP112 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies for hosing this one by accident; merge/redirect natuilus institute to the parent · XP · 20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've redirected Nautilus Institute. Sorry for the trouble, I guess this one can be closed by anyone. · XP · 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep genericized tradename for exercise equipment. Clean up, for sure, but notable as a household word. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete this and co-nominated articles. Deville (Talk) 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I found a couple of other articles of exactly the same type created by the same editor; I deleted these as well --- Deville (Talk) 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certified eCommerce Consultants[edit]

Extremely close to pure article WP:SPAM. Full of jargon and contextless content, smells like copyvio as well. Standby, I'm nominating the sister articles as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 4 more from the same family:

All are full of the same unsourced jargon spam. Delete all (|-- UlTiMuS 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note the ICECC redirect, which should go/stay with the rest. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Dr. K K Lam I teach E-Commerce at City University in Hong Kong and this body provides great support to our students along with certification. It is legitimate and deserves a place within Wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.103.182 (talk • contribs)
    For the record, this account has done two things: make this comment here, and insert linkspam on another article. I'm disregarding this comment, obviously --- Deville (Talk) 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, no doubt about it.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The no doubt universe[edit]

Non-notbale fan website. Prod and speedy removed by author. Wildthing61476 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - and if it's not deleted, it needs a complete rewrite as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan site that doesn't need a place on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as with many qaulity fan websites for No Doubt the site is not currently actively being updated due to lack of band activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magicmike24 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Fan site of no real importance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 29 unique Google hits: [39] and this, for an entity that's entire presence is online; Google link search gets 5 hits [40]; and the site has an Alexa rank of 2,833,518 [41]. Nothing close to meeting WP:WEB.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no WP:RS indicating that site meets WP:WEB. WP:NOT a directory of every website ever. --Kinu t/c 22:18, 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 merge, as carried out already. Petros471 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Anastasia Lowe[edit]

Procederial nomination for deletion from a contested PROD. Yanksox 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Article neads substantial cleanup to comply with WP:NPOV, but doesn't deserve to be completely killed. --Daniel Olsen 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cleaned up a little. She's notable enough for me, maybe not by WP:MUSIC, but she is related to several notable musicians and the namesake of the last song by June Carter Cash. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep June Carter Cash wrote a song about her, which I think was a single. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe she should have some fame outside of who she is related to. As far as the reference to June Carter Cash singing the song about her that could be put as a footnote in a June Carter Cash discography article. If anything it appears on google that the song may be more well known than the actual individual. Results for TAL herself are links to her father-in-law's webpage and her myspace page. Finally if she is a notable singer, etc. where is her discography? If this article isn't deleted it severely needs to be rewritten to the point that half of the article doesn't contain her lineage. Jaedza 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Is the song (rather than the girl) famous enough to have its own page? If not, a bullet point on June Carter Cash is enough. Dybryd 08:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could live with a re-direct. PT (s-s-s-s) 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline; I'd really consider moving to June Carter Cash or Nick Lowe. Then again, given her pedigree, she'll most likely be famous soon enough if she has any talent at all. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article is merged it might be most appropriate in the Carlene Carter article since she is biologically the closest person to TAL. The way it reads is that Nick Lowe adopted TAL and is not her biological father. I think it would be a great idea and I would be willing to research the family life of Carlene Carter. According to the bio that is on the aformeantioned page she had two children of which TAL must be one of them. Oh on a side note I calculated her birth date on the basis of the fact that Carlene Carter was born on 26 Sept 1955 so we can assume that TAL was born between 26 Sept 1971 and 25 Sept 1972. It may be nice to note this on this article or the article it is merged into I don't want to put it outright because I don't know if it violates WP:NOR. Jaedza 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into either Carlene Carter or Johnny Cash family
  • Merge and redirect as per above suggestions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and merged this with Johnny Cash family, I'm not familiar with AfD procedure, but I felt that this action was the consensus, or at least uncontroversial, and this AfD is 10 days old already. Let me know on my talk page what I could have done better here. Alcuin 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TAL is a grandchild of June Carter Cash and Carl Smith and a child of Carlene Carter she has no connection to Johnny Cash biologically. This needs to be merged into Carlene Carter's article. Jaedza 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Johnny Cash adopted Carlene Carter after he married June Carter, and raised her as his daughter. There's even an anecdote in the liner notes to The Essential Johnny Cash by Nick Lowe about Cash threatening his life when Lowe suggested that Carlene and him should share a bedroom at the Cash's house (before they were married). No, they're not biologically related, but TAL is Cash's granddaughter nonetheless. Alcuin 20:26, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bertholf[edit]

Possible vanity article. Note username of article creator (Robertholf). Google search only gives about 50 hits. This user also created a series of interlinked articles that look like small startup companies (Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Zeppo Search). I'm not sure any of this meets the notability requirements. JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clear vanity, noting the username. (|-- UlTiMuS 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:VANITY, no WP:RS indicating this subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu and WP:V. Although there is some assertion of notability, there are no third-party sources whatsoever, much less reliable ones. -- Satori Son 00:25, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Network[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. About 90 Google hits. See also: Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Search, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. 1 Google hit. See also: Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Search, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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 delete. - Bobet 10:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. About 50 Google hits. See also: Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Zeppo Search, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppo Search[edit]

Series of non-notable/vanity/advertisement articles about a small company. About 10 Google hits. See also: Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity, Zeppo Network, Empowered Internet Solutions, LLC, Rob Bertholf. JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACSIP[edit]

Delete. Google search for ACSIP produces 15,500 hits [42]. Two of which are about this organization [43]. Fails WP:NN because there are no outside sources about these articles. The two google hits are the organization's website and a mirror. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Two google hits is thus icing on a could have been {{db-group}} cake.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 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 Big Brother (USA season 3). User talk:The_supersonic_seahawk 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Reyes[edit]

The article doesn't have any information in to suggest that she's notable for anything outside of Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not notable, does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. And yes, most of the similar ones should be deleted also, that is not an argument for keeping this one. —Centrx→talk • 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to unpromising ghits - this article is higher than BB mentions themselves, which is usually a bad sign for notability. Also, the others should be nommed under this AFD as well.(|-- UlTiMuS 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - big-brother-cruft. From what I can see, the subject of the article is only credited with being runner-up on series 3 - and the winner of that series doesn't even have an article, so how can Danielle Reyes be notable enough? Her notability is not asserted in the article - a key requirement of WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - and WP does not need articles on every single big brother contestant (as in appears things are starting to go). If really neccessary - merge appropriate content with the applicable BB seasons. Martinp23 22:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, unless she does anything else notable. A redirect would be good to deter recreation by newbies. The JPStalk to me 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Signficant involvement on a hit show, in two seasons. Unless we apply a double standard to reality TV, versus other types of TV shows, there's no justification for deletion. Wikipedia should be more inclusive than just the stuff (like Star Trek) that most Wikipedians personally like watching. --Rob 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete realitycrufts per JPS. I've previously pondered this one and consider her pretty borderline. The fact that she was invited back counts in her favour, but it's doesn't contribute to her life outside BB. 334 Ghits out of 17,300 for "danielle reyes". Easy to miss important stuff, as the hits include a vast majority of porno sites, blog entries, and a number of others related to BB. Then there are also a number of other Daninelle Reyeses, including varsity basketball player, Notre Dame dancer, Wisconsin U person, and daniellereyes.com, which is a girl's amateur nudity site. Ohconfucius 09:13, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrabux[edit]

Blatant advertisement for non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Was speedied once, but created with substantially different content, so it technically does not qualify for G4. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:57, 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)  10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimospy[edit]

Non-notable wabsite. Contested prod. — ERcheck (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Eskimospy Article for the following reasons.

1. The article named eskimospy was recently updated and does indeed contain useful information and links to other articles of useful information.

2. If you disagree with my first reason, edit Eskimospy and add information you believe should be included -- a stoodent at wilson 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Fails WP:WEB miserably (even says "a minor website" in the article). A candidate for {{db-repost}}? In any case, get rid of it. -- Scientizzle 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a freewebs page and claims to be "a minor website". What else needs to be said? -- Kicking222 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scientizzle and Kicking222. ... discospinster talk 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as above - it was already speedy deleted, and even though 71.228.148.208 removed the minor --ArmadilloFromHell 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eskimospy article It is a great and moderate site for everyone and this is just advertising. He may not be done with the article, so give it some time.

--User:69.244.37.20 12:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the above message originally had a fake signature
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)  10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco Dragonville[edit]

[Check Google hits]; only 6. Little context and no real way to verify this NN WP:CORP failure. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's just a store. ... discospinster talk 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But not for the reason given as Tesco is the fourth largest retailer in the world. Piccadilly 13:33, 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 and protected, since the article is material that has been put through AfD and deleted twice more since. - Richardcavell 12:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ingvaldson[edit]

vanity WP:VAIN. No proof noteworthy. Content not suitable for encyclopedia (see section:Conflicts etc.. Possibly an attack page. It appears this article may have been Speedy Deleted previously, then re-created: previous delete page.

Ling.Nut 23:12, 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 deleted as db-bio (G4 only applies to prior AfDs). Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan4e[edit]

Prod removed by original author, giving full AfD. [Check Google hits]; only 1. Totally NN blogger, fails WP:BIO. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Obvious vanity WP:BIO. - RPIRED 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: same content exists on author's userpage, so no point to userfy either. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete actually; CSD G4 repost. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Delete as per my original tagging. ... discospinster talk 00:02, 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 per CSD G7. --- GIen 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Dragon Showdown[edit]

Prod contested by original author without any explanation. From what I've searched, the show doesn't appear to exist. Zero Google hits, and [44] doesn't exist. The articles List of Samurai Showdown episodes, Son Inomi, and Son Inomi's Jutsu were created in some attempt at a walled garden, but they weren't de-prodded. If they become de-prodded, I'll just add them here. To be painfully specific, I believe this article is in violation of WP:V and WP:NOT, and probably WP:HOAX too. Wafulz 23:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

I'll grant that he's not doing it as a hoax, he's doing it as his "idea", his "future animated series". But yes, delete, since WP:NOT a crystal ball. DS 23:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the creator of the article. Hey, you can delete it if you want. 'Cause I've already saved it on my computer so (tongue sticks out). And I don't care about your stupid WP:NOT thing, so you are just wasting your time. No hard feelings but you guys are so predictable. Like hall monitors.

Oh, and User DS, don't be bolding "delete" in front of me! Man, learn some manners! I am going to find a page that understands me. Not like WIKEPEDIA, the home for stupid delete monitors. Shesh! You and your dirty rules! Caterpillars are nicer than you guys, but Dragonflysixtyseven is a nice guy in some conditions unlike stupid Walfulz canadian!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiomi (talk • contribs)

  • Comment It's far easier to delete an article than to create it- we're not really wasting any time. However, if you repost it, it will be deleted and probably protected. Also, the reason he bolded "delete" is because we're supposed to- this way people can quickly see our opinions. Try to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not random webspace for you to create personal pages. You can use Google pages or geocities for stuff like that. Anyway, I'll be marking your articles for speedy deletion now. --Wafulz 16:25, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FaxTalk[edit]

  • Delete. Advertisement; meets neither WP:CORP or WP:SOFTWARE. Google hits for the first six pages are all download/purchase sites. Prod removed by article author (User:FaxTalk Sales). ... discospinster talk 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Check out the username: FaxTalk Sales (talk · contribs). Total spam in consideration of this. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blatent ad. ♥ FaerieInGrey 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if this appeared to be spam or a promotional item. This was not my intention. The FaxTalk name has been used since 1989 and was one of the original PC based fax applications and I thought that it was important that the term be listed. I re-read the submission guidelines and understand your concerns and position. User:FaxTalk Sales
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 as per WP:WEB and WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Online[edit]

Seems to fail under WP:WEB and WP:V. A google search of Terra Online brings up no relevant hits on the first page. Wafulz 00:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

This Article should NOT be deleted. As it is a legit website. An Anime community. It should be showing up on google.com within days. Please be patient before deleting this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoma (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Delete all. Website appears to be brand new, no presence on google or alexa. Home page still under construction. Get notable first, then get a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for promoting new ventures. Fan-1967 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

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

Thank you. -- Fan-1967 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not arguing about whether your site is legit or not- I'm saying that it must pass the guidelines set in Wikipedia. Particularly WP:WEB for the site, and WP:BIO for the people. Both also must pass WP:V- all articles need to be verified by reliable sources, which are independent third party publications. All subjects must also be considered notable to merit articles, but notability is essentially an extension of verifiability. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)--Wafulz 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir, Terra Online has been a popular website for a while. It had just shut down about 2 years ago, and it is merging back up. The reason it is not on google is because the URL has changed. This is just a temporary URL for now. Give it some time. (Exoma 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment In this case, it still isn't allowed because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Basically, you can't write articles about topics that "will" be notable. You gain notability, then you gain independent third party coverage, then you get an article. --Wafulz 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Terra Online is already quite notable though. But let me get this straight...once this website is on a website, for example, like google, then it would be able to obtain an article of its own? Even if numurous users already contribute to the article without being on google? (I don't mean to change the subject, but I saw you're a leafs fan. Good job, sir. Leafs will be definatly making it to the stanley cup this year, now that Patt Quinn is gone.)(Exoma 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • No, we judge websites by how many thousands of links there are from other sites, which show up on google. And the numerous users on your site need to be in thousands, not a few hundred. Fan-1967 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More accurately, we use size as a guideline more than anything- large websites are more likely to get non-trivial third-party coverage, win notable awards, or achieve some other form of fame or notoriety. Even large websites have been deleted before for these reasons. It's outlined in WP:WEB --Wafulz 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The creator of this article is a known pedophile and uses Wikipedia as a venue to attract potential victims. The story of his "legit popular anime forum" can be found at http://www.perverted-justice.com. Moral issues aside, his website is non-notable and does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. He has also abused Wikipedia by deleting opposing discussion. I suspect he may be Iranian as well. Benjaminspychaj 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Recently-created account; only edit outside of these articles was creating Aliks Sauvè, which looks bogus - amongst other things, the books cited don't seem to exist. (I'm puttting it up for deletion now.) I also can't find any references to this site (or any of the individuals involved with it) on perverted-justice.com. -- makomk 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:WEB and WP:WING. --Kinu t/c 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Fan-1967 - makomk 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Terra Online was shut down two years previously because of the claims of its shady practices with illegal pornography distribution. There used to be many articles posted about it all over the Internet but time has removed them. Tony Schaaf is also an edited name of a real sex offender from Tacoma, Washington. I am searching WASPC for his real identity. KyleWeiss 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)User's sole contribution[reply]
    • Comment Enough with the personal attacks against the site's creators- time doesn't erase criminal deeds or controversies from two years ago. This is not relevant in the slightest to the discussion and I would prefer if you (and any others lobbing these accusations) would just not contribute if this is all you're willing to put forward. --Wafulz 05:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots: I am Derek Boe a.k.a Punky. I don't know where ANY of you are getting your information about our website.

Our website was shut down two years ago because our project team faded away from the site. We never had anything to do with illegal pornography, or child molestation charges.

We weren't "Shut down" we simple fizzled out. No one higher up pulled the plug. You sir, are an idiot in using false information to attempt to shut down our wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PunkyPenguin (talk • contribs)

Please be civil in this discussion. There are only two users (arguably one under two accounts) making these accusations. The reasons that we are discussing the deletion of the page are stated above in my nomination, and also from others who have voiced their opinion in favour of deletion. The whole porn/sex offender thing is irrelevant and most likely trolling. --Wafulz 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahahahah, oh man. The users Kyleweiss and bennyspychaj are users that are repeaditly trying to ruin my reputation. Please ignore them. I am no pedophile. As I am only 17 years old, and do not even look at ordinary pornography. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoma (talk • contribs)
I figured as much. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)- it makes it easier to identify your comments. --Wafulz 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. Piet 07:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. Until some reputable magazine can testify to the site's cult following, it will remain not notable per WP:WEB. Even if the website achieves that recognition, the listing criteria for its founders would depend on their respective achievements. Ohconfucius 09:29, 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 The article has no sources and is just speculation. The article can be recreated when a press release with official title and contents/participants details is issued.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Album 2[edit]

This is a speculative article about Jay-Z's upcoming album. I believe it violates crystal balling and WP:V- it even says in the article that the album title is unconfirmed. Once it's released, I can see it having an article. Wafulz 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It'll almost certainly become notable soon enough, but not yet. BigHaz 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this should stay. It provides information on somthing that at least we know is happening even if the entiraty of it is unfonfirmed. Since it is said to be due out in October, why not wait until than to see if this article is good or just a waste of space. Deleting it now would do little good considering that there are a few proven facts in that article, though they are not cited. Have the guy or someone cite it first maybe. --The2pacfan47 06:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In that case, it would be better off as a sentence or two in the main Jay-Z article for the moment- there isn't much information available, and we don't have a title, meaning we can't even name the article properly. --Wafulz 14:18, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Jackson[edit]

article was created by the person himself for hyping purposes. does not appear to be a notable person or notable enough to be included in wikipedia Wikiyoman 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article's sound. The challenger is likely a political hack interning in the MOVEON local school board committee looking to make a name for himself (or herself--not that within MOVEON there's much difference). Of course, this could be wrong, and so we await for the anonymous poster to demonstrate his/her unbiased nature and pure intentions by listing for the Editors what must be a myriad of other article he/she has, without interest, challenged. Mars-Sekhmet 06:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again, using wiki has a POV vehicle to wage what seems to be a political war is not within the keeping of our highest standards. These personal attacks are atrocious.
  • Keep Claiming Eric Jackson isn't notable enough for Wikipedia is like saying Jimbo isn't important enough. You are attacking Jackson purely because he's associated with Rod Martin (other users: please see where this same user is trying to have Martin's article removed). You're on a personal rant and you need to be banned. Jawed3 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikiyoman seems to be systematically going after specific people. He has made Aman Verjee, Rod D. Martin, and Eric M. Jackson candidates for deletion, as well as removing key information from the Stanford Review article, all in the same night. It just happens that all these people/things are related in multiple ways, including doing a political book together. The lack of good faith is obvious, and this all-but-completely anonymous user has some kind of gripe with these people. As to this article, Jackson is obviously notable. DelosHarriman 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: Jackson would be notable if all he'd done was be a vice president of PayPal (when it was a startup). Now he's also the publisher of the Minuteman book (Corsi and Gilchrist), which means he and his authors are in the news constantly. Get real. DelosHarriman 17:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Jackson is notable as one of the major people behind PayPal as a startup. User: Wikiyoman's only contributions to Wikipedia are to remove content. 203.218.141.70 04:19, 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 Keep Deville (Talk) 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Verjee[edit]

not notable, appears to be written by the person himself for vanity purposes Wikiyoman 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the only reason this guy's going after verjee's article is he doesn't like bush. it's obvious. he also went after verjee's co-author and his publisher. duh. Jawed3 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I first became aware of Mr. Verjee when reading one of his books. Far from irrelevant, his ideas are so impenetrable and argued so convincingly, his political opponents are screaming with fear. Wiki's rabid mouth-foaming attacks betray any true interest in the Wikipedia community. Mars-Sekhmet 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The attacks using Wiki has a POV vehicle seem to get deeper and deeper. Allowing Wiki to be used as a personal vendetta tool would destroy the integrity of this website, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest vehicles of freedom of speech and information on the internet. UABVulcan 13:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this vote contains no reasoning or justification. Personal attacks on people you disagree with and encomia to the Internet are no substitutes for logical argument.
  • Keep user:Wikiyoman seems to be systematically going after specific people. He has made Aman Verjee, Rod D. Martin, and Eric M. Jackson candidates for deletion, as well as removing key information from the Stanford Review article, all in the same night. It just happens that all these people/things are related in multiple ways, including doing a political book together. The lack of good faith is obvious, and this all-but-completely anonymous user has some kind of gripe with these people. As to this article, Verjee is obviously notable. DelosHarriman 04:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, there is no reasoning or justification in this vote. Rather, there is an accusation of a personal agenda. I am not the person who is questioning Verjee's or Jackson's notability, but it seems plausible to me that the only personal agenda is to remove non-notable bios from wikipedia.
  • Sitting on the fence user:Calton has this one listed as likely self-promotion, and if you look at its history, he is very likely right. And it used to have a picture full-screen size until I cut it down to the usual. On the other hand Googling him produces a whole load of references - but when you look at them, there's nothing much except the books in numerous booksellers' catalogues, and a self-contained cycle of mutual reference involving some of the other people user:Wikiyoman and Calton express concerns about. That's tricky: how big would a ring of people who were only ever referred to by each other have to be before they became notable? seglea 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verjee would be notable if all he'd ever done was be head of strategy for PayPal. There are a lot of bios on here for lesser stuff than that.DelosHarriman 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verjee is obviously notable. I understand seglea's point and it's reasonable up to a point, but these are people who've really done some important things. If they talk about each other there is a certain echo chamber thing, but that doesn't change what they've done, and plenty of other unquestionably notable people could have the same thing said about them. Samdmd 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline delete. Based on the information to hand and the result of Gsearches, he is pretty borderliine candidate per WP:BIO per Delos. The sum of his achievements could perhaps justify his inclusion. His edited book 'Thank you mr bush' has an A-rank in the 572k; his authored book "Man of Destiny: The Fall And Rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger" is in the 2.2 millionth. No sign of multiple independent reviews of either. There appears to be a consensus view here at wiki that editorships do not confer notability. However, if it could be demonstrated that these roles have very considerable influence, that could just about swing it for me. Ohconfucius 08:38, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod D. Martin[edit]

  • Delete This page is filled with claims about Rod Martin that are not substantiated. References to a biography that a politician provides for himself do not count as substantiation.
  • Keep The anonymous challenger's hot-tempered vitriol, intemperate language, willingness to misrepresent and over-represent "evidence," and persistent attacks against Mr. Martin and persons and organizations related to Mr. Martin demonstrates for the Editors that Mr. Martin must, in fact, be QUITE relevant and of growing influence. Such bile is not wasted on the weak and irrelevant. Mars-Sekhmet 06:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any arguments to make that Martin is notable? Your personal attacks ("hot-tempered vitriol, intemperate language, willingness to misrepresent, persistent attacks, bile," etc.) do not show that Martin is notable. Please assume good faith. The fact that there is a difference of opinion about whether Martin is notable also fails to make him notable
PayPal would be enough by itself. However, politically he's clearly relevant, in that he is the leader of a participating member of the Arlington Group[45], an tight little organization of pro-family orgs led by people like Jim Dobson and D. James Kennedy which gets regular private briefings at the White House and has gotten a lot of negative press for its inside leaks from Karl Rove.[46][47] It seems obvious to me that the public would want to know who these people are and (horrors!) even what they say about themselves. Unless you're trying to cover this sort of thing up.... Samdmd 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source that demonstrates that Rod Martin played any management role at Paypal. He is not mentioned in any PayPal histories that I have seen. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. Furthermore, being one of the fifty or so members of the Arlington Group is not inherently noteworthy. You are not seriously contending that all the groups listed on the Arlington Group's website are noteworthy, are you? (TeenMania? New Yorkers for Constitutional Rights?) Finally, he is not the leader of a consequential organization, he is the programmer for a self-promoting website. You seem to continue to avoid the point that no claim that the website makes about its own achievements is independently verifiable. The verbal games you are playing here illustrate why Wikipedia needs to be more than a group of articles that refer to each other; rather, they need to refer to something real and verifiable in the outside world.
  • Delete self-promotional, clearly written by the person himself for vanity purposes. not notable, missing references. claims to have been "special counsel" to PayPal co-founder without citing proper sources. Wikiyoman 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Driveby slayings of people's biographies belong in mafia movies, not wikipedia. I expounded on the discussion page as to why we should keep this article. I believe I'll just leave this vote as another reason. UABVulcan 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to of satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) and I see no proof of being a vanity article, other than this user's accusation. There are some bits that are unsourced, but that is satisfied with a {{fact}} tag not a deletion. --Wildnox 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has obviously satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the article has been under repeated attacks by vandals for days. The "special counsel" matter was cited to the publisher of his book (which is itself noteworthy), the publisher's website is clearly a valid source, and the president of the publishing company itself was a central figure at PayPal at the time Martin worked there. There is no reason for this discussion except the initiator's dislike of Martin. Samdmd 03:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes things that are not true. The "special counsel" matter, contrary to what you say, is asserted nowhere except on Rod Martin's website! Being the second editor of a book is not inherently notable. Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.
  • Keep This complaint is stupid. Jawed3 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the original article. I didn't write it for anybody's vanity. Anyone who can't look at who he's involved with and why they're important isn't paying attention.[48][49][50] Also, one of the complaints on the talk page is that he isn't mentioned in some books about PayPal, but I'm looking at the 300-odd page history of PayPal by Eric Jackson right now, and neither are any of the three founders of YouTube, all of whom were important at PayPal (and are obviously very important now). So what's their point? Some kind of jealousy thing? It's crazy. DelosHarriman 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Many of the claims about Martin are not verifiable, period (CNP membership is secret) and others are unimpressive (Martin having his own website is not notable as such.) The reference to the NFRA might be notable if I had ever seen that the NFRA actually has any influence on politics, in the same way (say) that the Republican Party does. The claim that Martin was a senior executive at Paypal is not substantiable except by Martin's own website. The Martin entry is sheer puffery, a vanity entry set up by Martin or one of his buddies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.59.130 (talk • contribs)
Obviously this anon editor has never been to California, where the NFRA state affiliate is the largest Republican group in the state.[51] And while former employees are not noted on the PayPal website, Martin's job title there is listed on the World Ahead Publishing site[52]. As to CNP membership, it sure has a lot of information out about it for a secret group,[53] and anyway, Wikipedia's rules require good faith acceptance of autobiographical information unless there's a good reason not to accept it. Not liking someone is not a reason. DelosHarriman 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Martin's alleged job title is NOT listed on the World Ahead Publishing site that is footnoted. As usual, DelosHarriman is simply making things up and hoping he will not be caught. The membership of CNP is secret; its existence as such is not. As usual, DelosHarriman is confusing two things that are entirely different. Finally, what is your citation for the idea that we are required to accept politicians' claims about themselves and not apply any scrutiny to them? Please provide the wikipedia rule. This has nothing to do with "not liking" Rod Martin, and I do not respect your attempt to divert attention away from the rule that content must be verifiable.
  • Keep for Martin. He has a very long list of achievements. He, being a fairly hi-profile individual, will be under considerable scrutiny, which would tend to valildate his achievements. Ohconfucius 09:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_25&oldid=1081094437"