Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. --Chris (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trash money[edit]

The article is about an unknown band. It's nomination is self-explanatory. -WikiFairy 11:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)- The only Wikipedia Fairy![reply]

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




















































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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner[edit]

Although an authoritative source on the making of Blade Runner it is not itself historically notable, and short of writing a book review there is not a lot to be said in the article that isn't already said in just two lines. Cain Mosni 00:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Amazon sales rank is #215,918. Aplomado talk 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Rohirok 03:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable book. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn stub. Brisvegas 07:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Blade Runner. Great book, but such an article is doomed to eternal stubness. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Actually, yes, I can go with that. Specifically a redirect to the Bladerunner references section. Cain Mosni 12:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and simply add ISBN to References section of Blade Runner ... remove it from "Making ofs" in Template:Bladerunner (along with the others that are already redlinked), and there's no need for a redirect. --Dennette 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything listed in "What links here" comes from the template ... delete it there, and no Redirect is needed. --Dennette 07:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Online Learning[edit]

Learn Direct is a British company providing online courses and courseware. Cain Mosni 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep request sources, rather than delete. Propose deletion if sources not forthcoming. Cain Mosni 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedically written, and any salvageable content could be merged & redirected into e-learning. Brisvegas 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haakon 07:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is not E-learning by itself, it is a part of E-Learning. Breckket 11:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the difference with e-learning? - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If, as you say, it is a part of e-learning you should have contributed it as a part of said article. It doesn't merit distinct article status. Cain Mosni 12:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is essentially an advert (I confess it amuses me that Online Learning does not encouraging correct spelling, mine is lousy but ...). Nigel (Talk) 12:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is a massive failure of WP:SPAM and this related item Nedim Dedic appears to be vanity. WilyD 12:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stealth spam. It strikes me that just as lowercasing the second name ("John smith") is a reliable sign of a vanity page, Capitalizing Each Letter is a reliable sign of spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is stealth spam for a company with a particular delivery mechanism for e-learning. -- Whpq 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertorial per WilyD. E-learning is defined very broadly in the eponymous article. If we removed the spam paragraph at the bottom of DOL which links to Dedic, the rest is covered by e-learning. Ohconfucius 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.-Kmaguir1 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. AndyJones 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - along with the other WP:VSCA created by User:Breckket, like Nedim Dedic and Moodle Teacher Certified. FYI, the "source" for Image:Dol.jpg is bogus, so it should be zapped as well. --Dennette 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:22, 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 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenthall house[edit]

NN - nothing to merge into main article. Delete. BlueValour 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:DUMB, "Your dormitory or any suite therein."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Most individual dormitories are non-notable, and this is a high school rather than university dormitory. All of the information provided is already included in the school's main article. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable dormitory. JIP | Talk 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable location. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the school article to make it easy to find for the readers and avoid recreation. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as discussed on here, a Redirect is simply a Keep since any editor can undo a redirect. If a delete is recreated then it can be easily speedied. BlueValour 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true, but if the redirect is undone, we could point to this debate and reinstate it. If it wasn't merged to begin with (in which case we should redirect per GFDL), I can live with a delete and redirect too. While it's technically possible to undo a redirect it doesn't happen too much. - Mgm|(talk) 07:56, 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 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Inc.[edit]

Here we have another non notable webcomic, found here. There is no assertion of notability in the article, the website fails to rank on Alexa, and its previous domain (the author's personal art site) ranks at 1.3 million. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, no suggestion of historical significance, doesn't meet WP:WEB, etc. -- Dragonfiend 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. The comic features many characters from games on the Super Nintendo console. I'm wondering when the Nintendo lawyers start knocking... - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless new evidence is brought about, this is not notable. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, though I seem to recall there was either an RPG or an actual comic book with this title in the 1980s. 23skidoo 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:WEB Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:24, 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. Grandmasterka 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Wily[edit]

This webcomic is long finished so it's not exactly link spam like many others on Wikipedia, but it's still entirely non notable. It claims to be one of the big sprite comics, but only manages to come up with 80 Google links. There is a mention of its popularity found on the 8-bit theater website, here. But I don't think being one of the top sprite comics on BigPanda topsite for some period of time really amounts to something worth keeping. It's not like it was around in the early days of the internet or anything either, it ran from 2001 to 2004. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google shows nearly 8000 hits for "Life of Wily". Considering this is a title, this is a far better standard to judge google links by than the uncapitalized form of the search. Not only that, but Brian Clevinger wrote [an essay] on Webcomics which specifically mentions Life of Wily alongside his own comic and Bob & George. There's far less notable comics with Stubs than Life of Wily. Lankybugger 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've linked the essay that mentions life of wily in the nomination anyway. And I've also linked the Google search I performed. I have no idea how you came up with 8000 hits for "Life of Wily" when Google ignores capitalisation. - Hahnchen 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Try this Google search: 7,550 hits. --Metropolitan90 06:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I really don't see what I'm doing wrong, I actually checked Google.com as well, as they sometimes give different outcomes, but for both I get a similar number of hits (80 unique links). - Hahnchen 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment your figure of unique links is about right. there are plenty of Ghits pointing to buzzcomix, newbsoft and thefreedictionary included in the 8000 Ghits. Strip these out, along with the wiki mirrors and you are left with about 80. Ohconfucius 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (articles on works of fiction and web sites should describe their topics' historical significance). -- Dragonfiend 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Lankybugger. As for the Google search, searching on google.co.uk gives only 80 hits. Searching on google.com gives around 8,000, and the site is still rather extensively linked for a webcomic. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree that being one of the top sprite comics on BigPanda topsite for some period of time doesn't really amounts to anythingm but that in combination with the 8 bit theater mention and the Googlehits mentioned by the other editors is enough for a webcomic IMO. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironic delete - but weak - I'm not impressed by the quality of any sources. Alternatively, rewrite the article to be about me ;) WilyD 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of Google, as Dragonfiend said, without reliable sources or web awards, this comic did not satify WP:WEB or WP:V.-- danntm T C 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wily. Defunct comic which scores 7280Ghits, of which 86 unique. The artist is known, though, and It did apparently last 3 years, but seems to be problem with WP:V. Ohconfucius 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, on the line, but looks too WP:V, and probably not entirely notable either.-Kmaguir1 08:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Kmaguir1 Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:45, 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 per keeps being weak. —Xyrael / 13:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misty the Mouse[edit]

A furry webcomic, seen here. A Google search gives back 140 links for "misty the mouse" so doesn't suggest it's that popular. However, it has had one print edition by the furry comic book publisher Shanda Fantasy Arts so you might want to take that into account. But still, I don't think that everything which has seen print is notable, and I doubt if it wasn't a furry comic published by a furry publisher, and instead was a plain old book by a boring local press, it wouldn't be on Wikipedia, for all the right reasons. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

841 hits on Google.com. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm using unique Google hits as I always have done to cut out on all the mentions in forum signatures etc. And for me, that link gives the same result [1]. - Hahnchen 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Cain Mosni 00:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I know this web comic, and I think it's fairly notable. JIP | Talk 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I know this web comic, too, but I don't know of any info that would suggest it meets our content policies. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, writing about "things we know" rather than "things that are verifiable through reliable sources" is what is known as original research, etc. -- Dragonfiend 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this one's not notable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep primarily due to a print version having appeared. That might not be much, but it's still more than 99% of webcomics can say for themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Starblind. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources on the subject. Wickethewok 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outta sight, with an Alexa rank of around 1.23 millionth, and 9 sites linked to it per Google. Ohconfucius 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Web comics, they don't get a lot of latitude in my book.-Kmaguir1 08:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from one-time printing from a professional publisher, most likely will never be printed again, except perhaps from a few desktop printers of individual readers, if that. Plinth molecular gathered 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN web comic, unverifiable original research. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per andrew lenahan it is fairly notable Yuckfoo 22:33, 7 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 and redirect to Zebes, content is substantially similar to (and less than) the version deleted at last AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Zebeth[edit]

This absolutely nn-webcomic was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Zebeth and can be seen here. A Google search for "Planet Zebeth" brings back 150 links. But note that, as can be seen in the Zebes article, that Planet Zebeth is another name for it, and many of the links refer to that and not the comic. And none of the links found are professional reviews/commentary etc. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - according to the deletion log on the article, it's been deleted three times already. That thoroughly qualifies it for speedy. Am I missing something here? IceCreamAntisocial 03:21, 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. recreated content Jaranda wat's sup 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoasterRadio.com[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable podcast. This may have been deleted previously - see User talk:Coastermom

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

The result was closed. The nominator didn't request deletion. Article has been tagged for transwikification. - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illeist[edit]

Dictionary entry, transwiki to Wiktionary Goblin ›talk 00:54, 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 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hayne[edit]

This article regards a professional wrestler who's had a career in the lower-level ranks of the sport, had some success there, but hasn't appeared to make the jump into the big leagues - he's never had a notable run in the WWE, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, Extreme Championship Wrestling or WCW in his career. Now, I had a bit of an issue when I first saw this, but he does seem to not really be notable outside of the "indy" federations; I tagged with a PROD that was removed by the author - whose username is, by the way, the same as the wrestler in question, which suggests WP:VANITY issues. Anyhow, I noticed that this had been tagged for speedy deletion before I got to it, then was userfied by another editor - and recreated. So, when the prod was removed, I decided to get a second opinion and wandered over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling and asked for further opinions. One of the editors there prodded the article again - and it was removed again without comment. The viewpoint of folks who have weighed in on the Wikiproject suggest that any wrestler who hasn't been in the "big leagues" is not notable - so, here we are. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be autobiography. Not verifiable, marginal notability at best. Seaphoto 01:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly WP:VANITY. Terminate with eXtreme Prejudice. Cain Mosni 01:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Khoikhoi 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:Vanity. Daniel's page ☎ 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rohirok 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN - NickSentowski 05:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Only slighty more notable than a TV weatherman from Tampa, Florida, which means not even worthy of an article. CEIF © 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are wrestlers considered to be sportsmen? If so, a claim of notability is made in the article (ie he's a professional). No particular opinion on the article staying or going. Jcuk 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Well, even if we did consider wrestlers sportsmen, they're in a different realm. There are litterally thousands of "professional" wrestlers in the world, but none of them wrestle as a full-time job. Notability truly relies on their popularity, history, and inward links. In the case of Sam Hayne, he is extremely notable to the Wisconsin, and Minnesota wrestling community, seeing as how he is one of the few locals to work in Japan. On a global or national scale, however, Sam Hayne is just one of the thousands of small-town guys hoping for a break. - NickSentowski 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per being non notable, vanity, and WP:AUTO violation. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fine delete, but also look at the ACW & NWA Wisconsin pages. To begin, they are the same thing, so why have a page for each? Second, ACW & NWA Wisconsin run mostly Notheast Wisconsin. That would make them very un- notable as they are a very small player struggling to stay afloat. Also, the pages were created by people who admitted to working with & for the company. That brings up a vanity issue. So, when you delete this page, make sure you do the same to the pages of the company Sam Hayne played a very large role in making.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0 memes[edit]

Blatantly unnecessary page which consists rntirely of material that would be better off in Web 2.0, original research and a rather shakey definition of a neologism Artw 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page was recently moved from its original location (Marketing 2.0) with no arguments given on talk page. I think it should be restored to its original location. Term is valid, several blogs and websites already use the Wikipedia definition as reference. Web 2.0 is mainly a technical term while this term refers to new concepts in advertising and mass marketing.--Matthieupinard 09:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • no arguments given on talk page — A reason was given in the edit summary for the move.

      several blogs and websites already use the Wikipedia definition as reference — They are wrong to do so. An encyclopaedia is not a primary source. See Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. That some people are using Wikipedia as a primary source does not counter the argument that something is original research. Indeed, it strengthens that argument. Uncle G 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't decided if this can be cleaned up, but I think it should NOT be merged into Web 2.0 due to the original research claims. - Mgm|(talk) 11:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article makes a lot of claims that I don't think are verifiable. There might be some reliable sources for some of the info, but there aren't any in the article, and I can't find any through some quick Googling. Wickethewok 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning Delete as this is in no way reliably sourced or verified... and it is a neologism as well. With better sourcing though, I suppose this could very well be a keep... I can't find any such sourcing though. If the consensus is keep, this content should be moved back to Marketing 2.0 and this namespace should still be deleted (i.e. no redirect). Equating "Marketing 2.0" with "Web 2.0 memes" is unsupported original research and a bit daft in my opinion.--Isotope23 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that it is inappropriate to AfD this article in its current state. It was originally titled Marketing 2.0 up to this version before User:Sj attempted to re-organise it by renaming it to the current title as part of a "larger scheme" to merge with other articles of a similar nature. Apparently Sj left this unfinished, thus leaving this article in an inappropriate title with some references removed in subsequent edits. Whether the original article is appropriate for Wikipedia is another question for another day (in another AfD), but in the meantime this AfD would only be looking into the wrong content in the wrong title. --Pkchan 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Buzz marketing? They already make $100,000 more than most--do we really have to have their lexicon on wikipedia?-Kmaguir1 09:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. "ather shakey fefinition of a neologism", remwmbering WP:NEO and WP:NOT a dictionary. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:50, 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. Mostly Rainy 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wootatrocity[edit]

Non-encyclopedic woot.com fancruft. Article was deproded. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete If Cleveland Steamer can get wikied, so can wootatrocity. There's no reason not to leave this be. Nickinglis 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I don't think anybody would have a real problem with a redirect...
Note Just had to share, the deprod reason saying it wasn't WP:NEO: Etymology: stemming from wootatross, analogy to Rime of The Ancient Mariner's albatross.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of student societies at the University of York[edit]

The first paragraph is already in the University article. Why does an encyclopaedia need a list of societies within a University? There is a good bit of text already in the Uni article on its societies so I would not suggest putting this list in there; it is of no interest to the outside world that they have a bridge club (I speak as a bridge player!) and if you are a student there you would go to their website not here for detailed information. Bridgeplayer 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bridgeplayer 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic. WP is not a university Freshser's Manual, after all. TXP Cain Mosni 01:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lists of university groups belong on that university's website/handbook, not in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. --Shirahadasha 03:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I've just commented on another that I do not see deletion because it is a list as being valid but this seems a list too many. Nigel (Talk) 12:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - natural spinout for University of York. Obviously a stub, but I don't see why that's so bad. WilyD 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Non encyclopaedic, and not notable. It does not contain any student society unlikely to be in any other University. Ohconfucius 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN.-Kmaguir1 09:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To avoid the current situation where the societies are creeping onto the main page and making it massive and unmanageable. Also potential to expand and add histories of each group etc. Inclusionist. Pluke 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion move to Student societies at the University of York and place details about funding, histories and achievements on there, hence getting rid of the listy nature and making more encyclopaedic. Ideas? Pluke 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing notable about a university or student union having societies. There's nothing particularly notable about this student union's societies. WP is not a tour guide for the world's students. Individual societies might merit articles - Oxford's athletics union, or whatever they call it, for instance - in light of "Chariots of Fire" (pun noted, but not intentional). Cain Mosni 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shirahadasha. Many of these societies compete in the Roses Tournament, which is worthy of an entry, but a complete list of societies is just using WP as a directory. --Mnemeson 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student societies at universities get formed and disbanded very regularly, so the list will probably become out of date very quickly (unless it's monitored very carefully). And anyway, it's not of much interest to anyone outside the university itself. I'm sure they have their own websites for this kind of thing. If such a list helps prevent frivlous pages about individual societies appearing on Wikipedia, it would be better for the list to exist within within the York University Students' Union page rather than being a separate page. Zaxem 04:46, 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 dotz, delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adcoach[edit]

Deprodded, despite the fact that it's blatant and disgusting advertising. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:20, 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 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Progressionism[edit]

Was CSD'd as nocontext, but I think it does have some, therefore giving full AfD. [Check Google hits]; 0 total. Seems like totally NN philosophy to me, included just to promote itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable neologism. Mak (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable neologism. Looks like something made up in college one day. Article admits "Intellectual Progressionism's" own nascient status, and therefore its non-notability. Rohirok 03:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, may be a self-promotion site for Trevor Fregin. --Shirahadasha 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, and possibly a hoax - note Intellectual progressionism is a redirect to it --ArmadilloFromHell 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism and a possible hoax. Nuke the redirect if this gets deleted. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not really philosophy, and as Rohirok notes, the article itself admits the novelty of the concept. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, likely vanity. Dlyons493 Talk 22:25, 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 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Extra Information[edit]

Seems like an excuse to dump fancruft into WP. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Delete most of these items could probably be summed up in a trivia section. Danny Lilithborne 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, extra information is a synonym for unencyclopedic fancruft that didn't make it into the original article. I don't know anything about this show, so if anyone thinks anything is worth merging, feel free. Keep in mind that merge and delete is not a legitimate action per the GFDL. --Kinu t/c 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft that didn't make it into the original article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- GOOO 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worth a separate entry, or mention in the main article. The only thing worth mentioning appears to be the walkman thing. - Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If such an article should exist then it should be titled differently. However, a move doesn't seem necessary as the current content should be deleted no matter where it lives. -- Ned Scott 10:22, 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. Grandmasterka 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Roe Boulevard, Newmarket Ontario Canada[edit]

Nonnotable street, if any article exists it should be about the person, but I couldn't find anything on Google about William Roe GrahameS 01:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into the Newmarket, Ontario article. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to merge into Newmarket, but if there is enough to warrant it, and article on William Roe is in order. Agent 86 04:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 6 blocks long according to Google Maps. Kirjtc2 11:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rewrite to William Roe. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is currently no article on William Roe, who is likely a fictional piece of folklore, so a rename and rewrite wouldn't have much of a point. --Wafulz 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. If there was, I would have suggested a merge. It doesn't matter if he's fictional. If a street is named after him, he's probably noteworthy enough regardless. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:18, 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 merge everything not fluffy to Pharmaceutical companies --- Deville (Talk) 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical Companies (Developing World)[edit]

POV essay discussing Pharmaceutical Companies, but completely unencyclopedic. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not it is referenced thoroughly and there is no original work. Take a look at the Pharmaceutical Company page. Sandwich Eater 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not the concern. I know it is referenced and perhaps not original research. But that doesn't stop it from being an essay. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Pro-industry opinion piece; not encyclopaedic. Cain Mosni 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything verifiable to the Pharmaceutical companies article, which already has a section on controversies, after removing the POV problems. I note that Sandwich Eater has already duplicated one section there. A balanced article on ethics of clinical trials, discussing the Developing Countries issue doesn't currently seem to exist and would be interesting, but this article isn't a good place to start. Espresso Addict 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear how Ultimis can agree it is not original work but still an essay. I think a more focused article on ethics of clinical trials in developing countries is what I would really think would be intetresting and that there is plenty of secondary material out there to gather into a good encyclopedic article. I don't think it is sucha pro-industry opinion piece, and even if you disagree it won't stay imbalanced for long on wikipedia!! I did go ahead an move some of those bullets to the Pharm company page and could temporarily move merge this article with that page. But the encyclopedic entry for a pharmaceutical company is already contaminated with this topic, as are several other pages, like the Constant Gardner pages. A separate page referencing and summarizing the secondary sources on the background of this issue would be extremely valuable and that is what I have tried to start here. Sandwich Eater 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is a POV essay and right now I don't see much potential for expansion into an encyclopedic article. Merge of content to Pharmaceutical companies as per Espresso Addict is certainly an option. I just don't see much potential for a standalone article here.--Isotope23 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough Merge. Merge, but excise as much as possible, to rid this of so much of its fluff.-Kmaguir1 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No fork needed ... secondary sources can be placed in the original article. --Dennette 03:43, 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 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southwick United F.C.[edit]

I don't get a single Ghit for 'Rimla Cola League' and it is not in the English football league system. A hopeless failure to meet WP:CORP - English men's football clubs competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system are considered inherently notable. and no independent notability unless those crumpets are very, very good! Delete. BlueValour 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This may surprise a few Wikipedians, but this article has to be deleted for a number of reasons. Try as I might, the main problem here is a complete lack of Verifiability. On top of that, this club is not even a part of the English football league system (correct me if I am wrong about this). The only reliable information I have about this club is that it will be competing in the Sussex Sunday Challenge Cup on Oct 1 2006! The webpage of this information is here: Sussex Website Because of these reasons, I cannot even verify if the club was established in 2005 or part of Rimla Cola League. If one can give me verifiable sources of this club, I will gladly change my stand. But for the present, this article should be deleted. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be a club playing at, or having played at, a sufficient level for which notability could be claimed or verified. -- Alias Flood 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and per Siva1979. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It sounds like it's a Sunday league team, none of which are notable. --Balerion 05:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Siva1979's great explanation, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Siva1979 and WP:CORP. Qwghlm 07:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ramsquire 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this club is highly non-notable assuming it even exists ChrisTheDude 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:20, 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 keep, subjects of scholarly articles and books are very notable. --- Deville (Talk) 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuckin' and jivin'[edit]

del WP:NOT, not a dictionary, not a slang guide. Dubious notability of the phrase. Mukadderat 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WINAD --Shirahadasha 04:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Also, I have never heard this term before, and I live in the South. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the phrase itself is fairly notable. Google search on "shuckin and jivin" yields 12,000 hits, and I didn't even try the full forms in -ing. This text strikes me as a fair enough beginning. If not kept, merge with jive. May want to check out Shuckin' and Jivin': Folklore from Contemporary Black Americans by Darryl Cumber Dance (1981, Indiana University, ISBN 0-25320-265-5). - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smerdis. It's a widely-used term and an interesting part of African American culture. I'm pretty sure this could be expanded by someone knowledgable with the subject. FWIW, there was also a 1972 LP called Shuckin' 'N Jivin'". Zagalejo 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a dicdef at best; urban dictionary fare at worst. Eusebeus 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important concept in American cultural history, not a new slang term. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete, if this is a part of American cultural history, it's a part I would jump at the opportunity to exclude as dictionary-esque. Not encyclopedic at all, and very close on notability. That adds up to a good old fashioned delete.-Kmaguir1 09:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm in Memphis, and like Cordesat, I've never come upon this.
This is not a dictionary term; it is a concept within African-American culture indicating a certain kind of bravado. It is not a current slang term; thus you probably haven't heard it used. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
"I haven't heard of it" is not a criterion for deletion. No one is familiar with every subject on this encyclopedia. Zagalejo 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article as it currently stands is little more than a dicdef. There ar no sources provided. If it is a part of American cultural history, this article does not appear to properly document it. -- Whpq 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this slightly different definition of "Shucking and jiving" in a an article available on JSTOR. It might be helpful in determining whether this page can be expanded beyond a dicdef.
It reads as follows: "Shucking, shucking it, shucking and jiving, S-ing, and J-ing are all terms that refer to the verbal performances of blacks when they interact with the Man, the establishment, or any authority figure. These terms describe the forms of speech and physical movements that are necessary to maintain a particular guise in a confrontation with an authority figure." ("Black Rhetorical Patterns and the Teaching of Composition", by Michael D. Linn. College Composition and Communication Vol. 26, No. 2. (May 1975), p 150).
Linn then gives an example, which is quoted from another source: "One black gang member was coming down the stairway from the club room with seven guns on him and encountered some policemen coming up the same stairs. If they stopped and frisked him, he and others would have been arrested. A paraphrase of his shuck follows: 'Man, I gotta get away from up there. There's gonna be some trouble and I don't want no part of it.' The shuck worked on the minds of the policemen. It anticipated their questions as to why he was leaving the clubroom and why he would be in such a hurry. He also gave them a reason for wanting to go up fast." (from Thomas Kochman, "Black American Speech Events and a Language Program for the Classroom". Functions of Language in the Classroom. ed. Courtney B. Cazden, et al. (New York: Teacher's College Press, 1972). p. 250.)
Personally, I think this subject has a lot of potential for expansion, as it seems to have sociological importance. There were at least 18 other references at JSTOR (excluding reviews of the book), and I would suspect that there are more sources available offline. So, what does everyone think? Zagalejo 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it violates beucoup WP:NOTs. --Dennette 03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to remind everyone that we're discussing the subject, not the article itself. The article itself is inadequate, and seems to be full of errors, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't worth including. And I still think we should include it.
We have plenty of evidence that the term is used on a wide scale; it's appeared in several scholarly articles and in the title of a major book; it's not some new slang term; and it has enough sociological importance that it surely can be expanded beyond a dicdef by someone who's knowledgable about it. Zagalejo 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up, to the best of my ability. Zagalejo 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the article is more than a definition and term is notable gets over 14,100 hits [2] Yuckfoo 08:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowe: Fightin' Around The World[edit]

South Park fancruft, only appeared for like 2 minutes in one espisote, we can't list every single fictional thing that appeared in every TV show, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Merge what ever useful content somewhere, if there is anything and Delete Jaranda wat's sup 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't waste time on merging it. Cain Mosni 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was the main focus of an episode, but that doesn't warrant an article. TJ Spyke 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless —Khoikhoi 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What's next--an entire article dedicated to tugboat "Tugger"? SP Russell Crowe and his fictional show are not a recurring theme/character in South Park. Rohirok 03:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't deserve its own article. If it appears in a future episode it can be added as part of a list of recurring elements of the show though. VegaDark 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crowecruft. Probably doesnt even deserve to mentioned in Russell Crowe itself. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nothing worth merging. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree. It is a particularly humorous satire of Russell Crowe. Merge at the very least.
  • Comment This is not a platform for satire or comment. Cain Mosni 11:50, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers[edit]

Highly incomplete list. No useful purpose not served by proper categorisation. Lots of red linked "composers" with no indication of notability. Cain Mosni 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete potentially infinite list. Danny Lilithborne 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Criteria too broad, making the list of little use. This is what categories are for. Rohirok 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. With some restructuring, this can be made useful. Alphabetical section is of little use and ought to be deleted. Rohirok 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - use categories. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry about bucking the tide here, but I think that this list is a thing readers might want to look up, and it has links to a number of useful sublists, making this a useful parent article. In addition, the presence of redlinks in the list shows that the list is not entirely redundant with categories. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See categories... Cain Mosni 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories are not the same as lists. WilyD 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Lists can show redlinks for possible additions which cats can't and lists can be sorted differently, which cats can't. So this is not redundant. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Without the articles to indicate notability, there's no telling whether entries in the list are worthy or just cruft, so you're back to categorising existing articles which can indicate their own merit. Proper sub-categorisation negates the need for sub-sorted lists. I actually held your position myself over the lists of male/female singers. Since then I've come to see the other view. Cain Mosni 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your statement that there is no telling which entries would warrant separate articles and which are cruft. If you Google a random redlink, you can usually determine pretty quickly if the composer is someone who ought to or could have an article. I made a random check with Vilko Avsenik and found for instance that while we don't have an article on this composer, the Slovenian has it. This could be done for most, if not all, of the listed composers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the list needs editing, then edit it. Don't bring it to AfD. WilyD 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - please see Wikipedia:Lists are not the same as categories, they serve a very important function that categories can't. If the list needs editing then edit it, don't bring it to AfD. Article is incomplete is a terrible criterion for deletion (given that it'd axe 99.5% of articles). WilyD 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that lists can serve a purpose, but what purpose does this list fulfill that a category couldn't? Rohirok 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • List the composers which we don't yet have articles on. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:LIST gives three purposes for lists 1)Information. In this case, the list gives birth and death dates for composers that the category doesn't, for instance. 2)Navigation. Should be self explanitory, but lists are more useful for navigation than categories are. 3)Development - this list doesn't appear to be being used for development, so we'll nix that. Overall this is still a "stub" list even though it has lots of entries, they're not developed. Good lists or featured lists have to develop each entry, but just being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although maybe make it a number of separate lists (eg List of composers born in the 16th Century, List of composers born in the 17th Century etc.) to make it manageable. Yes, Categories serve something of the same function, but Lists have their place, and I think this is one of them. Batmanand | Talk 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free - splitting up articles can be done boldly without regard for AfD (though I'd wait until we keep it formally) WilyD 17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Actually, much of this list already seems to be split up into separate lists by genre/era. See List of Baroque composers and List of Classical era composers, for example. Why keep this general (and potentially huge) list when there are more specific (and more useful) lists elsewhere? Rohirok 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The general reasoning is at WP:SUMMARY - but that may imply the need for substantial restructuring/rewriting. WilyD 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see keeping this list if it were restructured much like List of musicians. I can see how that would be useful for navigation. I don't think the list in its current state is of much use at all. Rohirok 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, it provides a navigation service nothing else does - it provides an overview of composers - it also (at least claims) to list composers not on the seperate pages because they don't compose a specific style of music - there's a lot if you dig a little. WilyD 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all above Jcuk 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that strong keep per all above including Rohirok's insightful point that we already have existing lists of composers divided by era, thus rendering this particular list both redundant and confusing? Eusebeus 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's just an alphabetical list, then it should be categorized (while the redlink comment is valid, all the redlinks should go to WP:RA anyway. It's redundant.). If it's sorted in some other manner, it may be useful, but that's not the case here. ColourBurst 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the list has information that the category doesn't and can't. Thus "It's redundant" is demonstratably false. Lists contain more than just sorting. Please see WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Featured lists to understand how lists work. WilyD 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You claim there are two things that this list serves: to create articles out of redlinks and to make redlinks, and to alphabetize the information that's in this list. The first is redundant with the requested articles project, and the second is redundant with a category. This current list is not under any Wikiproject right now, which means it doesn't get specialized attention, and on top of this it has severe systemic bias. It needs a lot of work, possibly to sort it in some way other than alphabetical order, which a category already does and is better at doing. ColourBurst 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the list also provides an overview of when all these composers lived. That's something a category can't do. Article needs work is not a criterion for deletion, but a criterion for improvement. WilyD 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Make it a valuable research tool. Categories cannot include dates, countries, genres but lists can. Also, categories don't have red links, but lists do, making them useful for people searching for an article: a red link tells them to search no further. Lists like these can make Wikipedia more valuable than any other encyclopedia. Fg2 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Without a breakdown by genre, era, etc., the usefulness of this list would be quite limited. I don't doubt that lists can serve a purpose not served by categories, but the point has been that this list as it was didn't serve much purpose beyond a category. But it can be made to be useful. I've restructured it somewhat after the pattern of List of musicians. I still think the alphabetical portion of the list is redundant and of little utility and should be deleted. Rohirok 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article is only somewhat useful, could be better is a criterion for improvement, not deletion. WilyD 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The list is "open", i.e., it is impossible to assess the number of items a priori Cinabrium 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello all. The composers on the list were originally on List of uncategorized composers, which I merged into this page about a month ago. Also, simply keeping the list as a list of lists might not hurt anything. Just see List of classical music composers. Dafoeberezin3494 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like WP:CLS should be standard reading. Dsreyn 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the names, keep lists and change name of the article to "list of lists of ...". Endless lists have no value for reader, sorting out who's notable enough doesn't work well elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but as per Pavel Vozenilek, delete the individual names, and make this another list of lists ... would also be helpful to collect the various Categories here. --Dennette 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am changing my vote to move to category:composers,then sub categories for each genre.
  • Move --speaking as an educator who just went to this page while looking for course materials, I think categories of composers are essential, but I agree that a comprehensive list of all composers is not possible. (Do I qualify? I wrote my college's fight song...) Truddick 04:04, 5 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 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin and Lacy[edit]

Prod tag placed by one party, removed by a second, and then reinserted via revert by a third person. Reason given for the prod tag was "NN company". No strong opinion from myself. Jonel | Speak 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:CORP. 'Nuff said. Cain Mosni 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of any notability for the firm as distinct from some of its members. Dlyons493 Talk 08:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN WP:VSCA --Dennette 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Dlyons493. Zaxem 05:06, 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. --- Glen 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of aliens hidden in South Park[edit]

More South Park fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to fall back on "Wikipedia is not paper" on this one. This is verifiable information of interest to South Park fans, and doesn't lend itself to merger elsewhere. Rohirok 03:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Tychocat is right. All the alien appearances can be summed up in one sentence of trivia. It's not up to encyclopedia to list all of them. Rohirok 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LOL. --Sonjaaa 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why? Jaranda wat's sup 04:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Fancruft, See also WP:DUMB --Shirahadasha 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not paper, nor is it a junk collection. Of course fancruft is of interest to fans: That's not the point, nor is it notability. Tychocat 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. NOT paper, but also NOT an indiscriminate collection. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not paper, and a organzied list is not indiscriminate, rather very systematic. No reason to delete. Note: Fancfut is an essay, not a policy and not a valid deletion reason. Just becase editors not interested in fiction decided to label stuff as cruft doesn't make it a polciy. Delete as "fanfuft" is the same as Delete as "Boring" Second Note: I am saying this as a non-south-park-fan. Tobyk777 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is also stupid cruft, it is also, essentially, original research. Adam Bishop 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Southparkcruft, and likely OR. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Sources need to be provided though or it qualifies as original research. If no sources are added within a week I would suggest relisting. VegaDark 06:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment relisting so quickly will guarantee a speedy keep. The creators have 5 days to source this while the AfD is active. If it is not sourced by the end of the AfD it should be deleted.--Isotope23 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, that sounds acceptable. VegaDark 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per VegaDark and Tobyk777. This is not indiscriminatory. I'd like to ask the people who use the term cruft (which is essentially a term covering multiple possible reasons) to be specific about the reasons to want to use. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Quite unnecessary and not at all encyclopedic. All of this is quite trivial information. Wickethewok 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... as much as I love South Park, I agree with Wickethewok... this is absolutely trivial and unnecessary. More importantly, it fails WP:V and WP:NOR and thus should be deleted.--Isotope23 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep It's easily verifiable -- just watch the episodes, they're all available on DVD and/or shown constantly on TV. However, while I've been curious about where all the aliens are (it's well-known that there are hidden aliens in most episodes), I'm not sure it warrants its own entry. HalJor 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, watching the episodes, copying down when/where an alien appears, and writing an article about it would constitute original research. An external source where someone has documented these appearances and published the work would need to be produced for this to be verified.--Isotope23 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: What!? How is watching a source and taking note of what you see original research? That's like saying that reading a novel and compiling a list of characters from it is original research. Rohirok 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, In my opinion that too would constitute original research because you would essentially be creating a primary source (i.e. a list of characters when one previously did not exist). Depending on your view on sources, this is at the very least research that draws on primary sources (if you take the view of a South Park episode as a primary source) and that is generally discouraged.--Isotope23 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is notable. Whats wrong with it?Plowright 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has 15 edits, mostly AFD. Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Article can easily be merged with the main South Park page. I don't understand why the creator of this article didn't put it under a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs)
At best maybe merge the alien hidden to the espisote it belongs, all this info clearly don't belong in the main South Park page. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and WP:OR. Would we keep List of red things (an equally random selection and just as verifiable by research from primary sources)? Yomanganitalk 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even more people have voted to Delete this a fancruft since I made my comment. Fancuft is not a policy and is not a valid reason to Delete. If you can't supply other reasons for which to delete then your votes shouldn't be counted in the tally when the admin tries to find consensus. Tobyk777 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There also people that is voting this as uncyclopedic, which I nominated as fancruft is another word for uncyclopedic, and also per WP:V and WP:OR which is valid Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't know what is ;-) Ohconfucius 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Enough with South Park--Saddam Hussein, and now aliens. Look, try to reach consensus to put it on the Hussein page, or in this case, on the alien page, or an alien pop culture entry, and I expect you'll run into roadblocks in the first two instances, but with good, good reason: this is so unimaginably nn, that even the aliens hiding haven't heard of it.-Kmaguir1 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is nothing less than trying to turn Wikipedia into an online Where's Waldo hunt for South Park fans. Merge the alien sightings into the Trivia sections of the appropriate episodes, and make a Category tag on each of them if you really must have a list. I mean, this frelling list doesn't even have links back to the episodes!! <Sigh!> --Dennette 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better than Pokemon cruft though. Flying Jazz 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utter fancruft. Sandstein 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Come on --R.A Huston 04:38, 5 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 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regent International University[edit]

I'm not sure if this online unaccredited university is ever going to be able to pass notability standards. There are also no sources to corroborate this information in the article, making it unverifiable. Slightly spammy as well. ColourBurst 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment The Guardian recently mentioned it in an article on questionable honorary degrees, stating it will provide one for a minimum honorarium of $299. Added to article. Not sure if this mention is enough to create notability. Otherwise appears to be non-notable. --Shirahadasha 04:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we have a more or less long-standing practice of keeping articles on better-known diploma mills, or at least make them redirect to some other article, because they have a tendency to fly in under the radar anyway. It is very difficult to tell a stub on one of these mills apart from a stub on one of the thousands of obscure but legitimate colleges in the English-speaking world (and the U.S. in particular). Not spotting and editing it will risk legitimizing the school, as we often get Google hits for our Wikipedia articles on diploma mills on the first page, along with the "official" pages. For that same reason, it can be valuable consumer information if we have an article clearly stating that the school is unaccredited and linking to press coverage or official pages documenting this. As many of these individual online "universities" are just fronts for one and the same business, we should, whenever possible, try to consolidate these articles. User:Arbustoo did a lot of good work on doing that a few months back, see Saint Regis University for an article that treats several infamous diploma mills on one page, based on secondary sources showing a connection. up+l+and 08:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete company registered in the British Virgin Islands that advertises on eBay and seems to have no physical presence . Not even notable as a scam - 20 distinct Ghits. Dlyons493 Talk 08:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to cite adequate third party sources - a passing mention in the Guardian article just doesn't cut it. WilyD 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Nickieee 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 20:46, 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 merge and redirect, not because I think any of this can be kept, but I find it conceivable that something in this list isn't OR and can be sourced. I didn't go through every single thing, but as it stands almost everything on this list is OR ("Oh, yeah, remeber that time in the episode about the cats when they went to get bottled water out of the refrigerator, there was a tulip on the windowsill and when they came back it was a rose! Oh, wait, you don't remember that? I do!" See the problem?). Unless there is a third-party source spelling these things out, it shouldn't be in WP at all. Like I said, though, instead of deleting it outright, I'll put it back into Friends so the history won't be lost, and anything recoverable can be recovered. --- Deville (Talk) 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of errors and inconsistencies in Friends[edit]

Honestly i think its a useful page, i dont see why u all say its made up Rank listcruft. Pretty much the definition of unencyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it was just removed from the Friends page, as detailed in the edit summary immediately before your restoration. It doesn't belong there or in its own article because it is a pile of unencyclopedic fancruft. Opabinia regalis 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you merge the individual list items into the episode pages? It seems that much of them have the same info duplicated already, so maybe it is more appropriate there. Alienmercy 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I originally removed it from the Friends article. There are a million other places for lists like this, but I don't think WP should be one of them. It's potentially limitless and original research. GrahameS 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided each can be provided with a source so it isn't considered OR. IMDB probably has some on their site. I can see how this would be interesting and useful for someone to look up for any popular show. VegaDark 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep Should sources be provided, otherwise weak delete. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft is simply what the article is. -RobJ1981 08:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ridiculous cruftiness. Should we have one of these for every long-running TV show? Andrew Levine 09:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I realize this is completely not based on policy, but it simply isn't encyclopedic. If we have separate articles on the episodes, I would support merging items there. Not sure how to satisfy the GFDL in that case. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep and with VegaDark & Arnzy on this. The idea that because it is a list it should be removed seems a rather hard position given the number of lists on Wiki. Nigel (Talk) 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not that it's a list, but rather that it's a list of little encyclopedic value. Andrew Levine 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and not meant too strongly - however there is for example a list of such errors for MASH (tv) within the article (and no there should not be one for every long running show). How much is article length/readability an issue. I could be neutral. Nigel (Talk) 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep I think some people find this type of information useful (e.g. Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon), although I think it could be presented in a more encyclopedic way. At the very least, it should be merged somewhere else, but if others have problems with that, I don't mind it having its own article. Alienmercy 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Excessive list of trivia. Wickethewok 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - should be cleaned up. I would suggest that simple mistakes to do with hair and clothes should be moved elsewhere. --Nydas 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is unverified original research. It shouldn't even be merged unless it gets sourced.--Isotope23 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is unencyclopedic. Fans can compile such huge lists of trivia elsewhere. Rohirok 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unencyclopedia, this is not imdb, the reasons abound.-Kmaguir1 09:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent set by the deletion of the similar article regarding Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Crabapplecove 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge all of these into the Trivia sections of the appropriate episodes. (Too many of them have no back-links as it is.) --Dennette 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of this constitutes things like "the prop moved between shots" or "the wardrope department made a slight mistake". There are some notable major points - e.g. Ben seems to completely disappear in the last two series or Phoebe's various family members seem to get forgotten (e.g. she doesn't seem to tell her father that she knows Frank Jr.) which does make a difference given how much is often made of her unconventional upbringing but this is of a different order to what's listed here. And a list like this tends to fill up with individual observations from the shows. Furthermore there are too many "this may not be an error" type entries - e.g. the repeated claims that the first episode may not be canon. Timrollpickering 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All statistics point out how it wasn't the most followed sitcom or its finale had x-million less viewers than "this other event". But they forget that these statistics were for US only. In the international arena Friends are a fenomenon that shaped the 90' and 00'. WP should not delete easily material related to it.

Comment[edit]

If this page is to stay I think it needs some serious overhauling. Things like a prop moving between shots, a stagehand coming into view or even an actor's hair getting longer/shorter due to consecutive episodes being filmed apart really should go on the individual episode pages if anywhere and this page should be kept for major inconsistencies across the series (e.g. the way their ages and birthdays jump all over, the way some of Phoebe's family appear and disappear or that we see Chandler seemingly introduced to Rachel for the first time on three separate occasions). I'm also not sure the "this one-liner contradicts that one-liner" type errors are terribly noticable, or for that matter "this actor gets mentioned in one episode but plays a character later on" when the show itself shows there are people who are dead ringers for each other around (i.e. Ross and Russ). Timrollpickering 03:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Inglis[edit]

Google brings up a few hits for this person; apparently she has written some articles for nursing journals. She still appears to fail WP:BIO in my opinion, however. If the article is not deleted, would someone please, please rewrite it from scratch? It's totally inappropriate. IceCreamAntisocial 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Stubify Article is totally inappropriate vanity, agree needs rewrite from scratch, but between her nursing and her politics she seems to get enough media and web mention to be borderline notable.--Shirahadasha 04:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Googling doesn't bring up much information other than the fact that she does some interviews/writing for a journal or two. ~40 ghits, many of which are unrelated. In any case, there is excessively little information on her. Wickethewok 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google gives her 149 entries. I'm sure she's lovely, but I don't see how she passes WP:BIO --Mnemeson 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOV (sorry, Danbarton, but beauty is not in the eye of the beholder on Wikipedia). Yomanganitalk 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per yomangani.-Kmaguir1 09:14, 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 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandasia[edit]

Contested prod. Adspam for non-notable local business. Opabinia regalis 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as local business spam without sources. Oh yeah, I don't think being associated with Asian Boston is necessarily a good thing. ColourBurst 04:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "non-notable local business"? So a notable business is okay to be listed? How does a "non-notable local business" get notable? Are you saying the little guys are not worth your bandwidth? Or that "Chinese" business isn't worth your bandwidth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandasia (talk • contribs)
    • This is an encyclopedia. It has policies and consensus-based guidelines that other editors use to determine whether a subject is worthy of inclusion. Instead of making further generalizations about some potential racist motivation for bringing the article you created to a deletion discussion, please familiarize yourself with WP:CORP, WP:RS, and WP:V. WP:VANITY and WP:SPAM may apply, based on your user name being that of the subject of the article. --Kinu t/c 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how does a one-man show like Asian Boston qualify to be listed here any way? By stirring up controversy? Can't we do the same starting with this article's screenshots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandasia (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, no evidence that this business meets WP:CORP. No reliable sources indicating any mentions other than business directory listings. No prejudice to change recommendation if proper citations are added. --Kinu t/c 05:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and also because it's vanity (check name of article creator). Danny Lilithborne 06:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, WP:V, RS, etc. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam, vanity, advertising, non-notable, you name it. -- Merope 14:12, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Watch[edit]

Not notable enough (From an academic perspective, this article has NO significance AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY). It is a personal website and blog hosted by Robert Spencer. The blog is only in the top twenty thousand (precisely 20,653) most visited web sites on the internet (However, this is contested, as Ranking Dot Com locates the blog as ranked about 50,000). We do have personal websites by people who are much more notable and who have less opposing views than Spencer, but there is no wiki-page for their personal bolgs and websites. Reza1 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is also another option of merging Jihad Watch into the Spencer article. --Reza1 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Around 20,000 on alexa is pretty darn good for a blog. Googling "Jihad Watch" and "Spencer" gets you around 300,000 hits on Google. I would say if we are going to have any articles on blogs, this should be one of them. --Brianyoumans 05:27, 30
    • Well, yes, in that sense it is notable, but in an scholarly sense, it is actually not. Aside from these, the radicalist websites often make the news. This fact does not qualify them as good articles for Wikipedia. --Reza1 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)**Articles don't necessarily need to be scholarly. Just factual and referenced. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • But Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. On issues related to Islam, wikipedia should merely use scholarly peer reviewed academic works. --Reza1 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This site's Alexa rating is comparable to the websites of Juan Cole and Daniel Pipes as well as National Journal's The Hotline - all of which are widely considered notable on wikipedia and in the US media at large. It's significantly higher than sites like MEMRI and Congressional Quarterly which are similarly notable. I would suggest that Jihad Watch's ranking means that it is widely read enough to warrant at least a stub or a section in the Robert Spencer article. GabrielF 17:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed Tobyk777 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brianyoumans. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And devellop in to a full article--CltFn 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasonings. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brianyoumans. Note to closing admin: This AfD was initiated by a user who was in a WP:3RR dispute on the Robert Spencer article. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: Please have a look at the RfC section of the talk page of Spencer. I passed 3RR because others were removing well sourced material written by academic scholars. Still don't know what does this have to do with this AfD. --Reza1 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Violation of the 3 revert is not taken lightly (how did you pass 3RR?). If Jihad Watch is the personal website of Spencer (who is notable) and you are using him as your basis for the AfD (see your opening statement of why delete), others like myself may question your intentions. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, you haven't study the case yourself and I don't see assuming good faith on your part. Those who were opposing me were removing well-sourced material and violating this policy. You do lightly take these violations, but when it comes to 3rr, you are so quick to point it out. --Reza1 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you explain what you meant with this question you asked on Spencer’s talk page. Apparently, Spencer’s book titled :"The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" bothers you, and you want it censored?? I am really questioning your reasons for this AfD. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know what the point of this discussion is. My arguments for merging or deleting the page are there. Regarding your comment: You haven't followed our discussion there. I never wanted to have that book censored. There is an article on it. There are academic scholars such as Carl Ernst and Khaleel Mohammed who seriously question Spencer's scholarship ([3]). It is not my own point of view. Let me put it simpler: find a respected academic scholar who supports Spencer. You can’t. I contacted Prof. Norman Stillman about his opinion on the works of Spencer. He replied back to me: "I have not read any of Mr. Spencer's works and, therefore, am unable to make any fair judgments. Since he does not publish with academic presses and the titles do sound rather polemical, I have never felt a need to examine them." See, a respected academic scholar of Islam finds the titles of his book polemical. Spencer argues that my books don’t have any flaws. Really? Then why doesn’t he publish them in university presses? --Reza1 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It would be reasonable to assume that Spencer doesn't publish his books via university presses because he wants people other than college students to read his works, suspects the university presses would be lax in promoting the works, and/or because he doesn't want the particular universities owning said presses any share of the proceeds.--Mike18xx 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because, Reza, their is a massive Global Conspiracy to silence critics of Islam and to prevent them access to anything but the most fundamentalist and right-wing news outlets and publishing houses. Waaaaaaaaakkkkeee Uppppp, Reza.
  • Delete, sort of per Brianyoumans' keep, but taking the position that no blog should be included on wikipedia unless it can be sourced multiply elsewhere (Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, etc.)-Kmaguir1 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, As an author stated in the discussion page, currently there is one single point of view, to a very suspicious blog which indicates that it is unquestionable and true. This idea will not be tolerated for other websites, e.g. JewWatch wiki entry i.e. stripping out the critisms and stating it is factual. Thus far, this article seems to be a mere attempt to gain extra hits to a Web Blog! Furthermore, The JewWatch website is NOT a blog, yet this is. I strongly feel this entry should be deleted. It hold zero significance other than stating there is a Blog out there, linking it, and once entering the unquestionable, uncritizable "Blog" being bombarded with blog enteries stating repulsive things about our fellow-man! (LewisRyder 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • KEEP. There are thousands of Wiki articles that are less "notable"; and if an editor has discovered that an Alexa ranking is obsolete, he should correct or eliminate the references, not recommend the entire article for deletion. Furthermore, neither JihadWatch or DhimmiWatch are Spencer's "personal websites"; and neither are designed like personal blogs.--Mike18xx 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having a Wikipedia entry for a blog is not an endorsement of the material on that blog by Wikipedia; it is merely an acknowledgement that the blog is notable. If there is a controversy over whether the blog contains truthful material, that might be good material to put into the article, but it is not a reason to not have an article. Brianyoumans 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, it is a personal blog, top 50000 or so is not notable!! Keeping this will only fuel others to place their blog on here, just to get more viewers. As noted wiki is fueling many hits to that blog, and moreover it holds nothing to a wiki user! If i create a blog which is in the top 100000 may i place it on wiki!!! (193.113.200.156 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete This entry is not up to the quality standards of others (see, for example, Engadget), and contains no noteworthy information. At a minimum, it should be merged with the Robert Spencer entry, as he runs the blog, and the blog contains a section on him, but nobody else in particular. --Yalto 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weblogs entries should be added sparingly. As of now, JihadWatch stands at the 21,370th most popular blog on the net.[4] That doesn't classify, by any standard, as notable enough to be added.

--Kitrus 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you are misunderstanding how Alexa works. It is the 21,370th most viewed web address, not blog. Sites above it include stuff like, say, ford.com (3,978). The site for the American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org, is ranked #32,110. 21,370 is a pretty amazing rank, actually, for something that is basically a personal site - it must get a LOT of traffic.
  • Delete - I forgot to vote myself. --Reza1 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At least delete the article in its current state, its become a revert war, which makes the article itself change in almost entirety many times over the course of a day or two. The article itself doesn't provide much, it basically just says that this site is out there, if that's all there is to say, then there's no point of it being on Wikipedia. The article is a mess and should be blown up and redone, or blown up and just mentioned on the Robert Spencer article. --Seventy-one 08:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most notable blogs on the Internet. If we're going to have articles on any blogs at all (and I know the orchestrators of the War on Blogs would love it if we didn't, but Timecop doesn't get to make the rules), this should be one of them. Also, Alexa only measures those users ignorant enough to use Internet Explorer or another spyware-susceptible browser. Those who actually secure their computers are not counted. Rogue 9 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kindly spare me of stating that it is notable. It is arguably in the top 50,000 websites (not using Alexa), shall all 50,000 websites be placed into Wikipedia encyclopedia? It would be a mockery if that happens. Someone has yet to state one benefit of this wiki blog entry. I have been racking my brains to think of any benefit to any researcher, academic etc. which resulted in me having to eat some painkillers as there was no feasible benefit of a relatively unknown blog being placed into an encyclopedia. Oh, and "googling" gives no information about notability, I have googled the word "The" and got 14.1 billion hits, but I will not be writing an article about "The" and linking it to my personal blog (which is in the top 100,000 but is of no use in an encyclopedia). (LewisRyder 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment We actually do have an article about "The." I don't see anything wrong with all of the top 50,000 websites or so having entries here. We've got 1.3M articles right now - 50,000 of them being websites doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Bibigon 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have articles on most of them already. We have articles on large corporations, important organizations, etc. - all of whom have busy sites. Brianyoumans 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blog holds no grounds to be on Wikipedia (203.214.46.252 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. possible bad faith nomination. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:From his user/talk page, the user who nominated deletion appears to have no history on Wikipedia which does NOT involve critizing Spencer. --Unsigned coment by User:Mike18xx
    • Comment: I see this as a shameful bad faith comment from an admin. --Reza1 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the Admin you are referring to is me, I did not make the comment. It was an unsigned comment placed (most likely inadvertantly) after my vote. For the record, you also appear to have criticized Bat Ye'or, so the comment is somewhat innaccurate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Robert Spencer having opposing views is irrelevant. Bibigon 16:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brianyoumans and JungleCat Avi 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. 6SJ7 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, the fact that it's a blog is irrelevant (and frankly probably stems from 'old school' reactionary geek bias), plus the idea that this will lead to some sort of slippery slope is ridiculous. Whether or not you think this guy--or anyone who runs a blog--is an airhead doesn't make a damn bit of difference. --Rankler 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't use this website as a source, but it's well-known enough to merit an article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article needs to be rewritten to be encyclopedic. Or, it should be merged with the article about Robert Spencer. --JuanMuslim 1m 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Robert Spencer. Evolver of Borg 08:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No WP:RS but notable - if you like, notorious. Needs some work, though. --tickle me 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, influential weblog.Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This Wikipedia blog entry appears to be created by Jihadwatch.org members, specificaly Ann Crockett (user AnnCr ?) where upon the Jihadwatch.org blog states, "wiki was one of the first places I tried to reform" an Example the wiki "battle" outlined by the bloggers. Very interesting.... so much for the single point of view, or neutral point of view theory. The bloggers appear very intent in making sure only one single point of view is made clear, and that Jihadwatch gets as many hits as possible. See the revert wars for substantial evidence, and the rude and derogatory remarks mustered from the possible apparent bloggers. Moreover, so much for the "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"... and the above reasons for deleting a website blog log in an encyclopedia.
    • And the "Muslim Guild" of Wikipedians is all about exploring alternative points of view, eh wot? --Mike18xx 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being an academic who has visited Wikipedia for several years researching social sciences, this Wikipedia entry holds no significance as an Encyclopedia entry. (RupertDoughlas 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. This Wikipedia entry holds NO significance AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY--Reza1 20:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this very insignificance is an honest and true reason you've submitted a nomination for deletion? Come on now; who do you think you're kidding? (Anybody can pop "reza" into Google.)--Mike18xx 18:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given Reza1's enthusiastic response, I suppose someone should point out that the above comment was RupertDoughlas's first Wikipedia edit. Brianyoumans 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do whatever analysis you want. It will prove your "BAD FAITH" assumption at the end of the day. --Reza1 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is amusing that users feel that people who post their "first post" are somehow devoid or irrelevant... and anyone who shows just an IP address are "sockpuppets", clutching at straws? (LewisRyder 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
        • I should assume good faith here, but there appears to be some socks floating around. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we should discount altogether comments from new editors; I think that comments from established editors carry more weight, because they presumably have more experience in judging Wikipedia articles, and because they are less likely to be sockpuppets of other editors in the discussion.--Brianyoumans 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the intense interest in this AFD, including the participation of so many new users, is itself evidence that the article is notable! :-) --Brianyoumans 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But we are wrting an "Encylopedia". --Reza1 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Brianyoumans et. al. the essence of your “compelling” arguments thus far encompasses; (1) ‘The blog is in the top 50,000 therefore should be advertised on Wikipedia.’ (2). ‘People have discerning views about an encyclopedia entry that simply points to a blog and according to Alexa feeds off the wikipedia link so it should be left as an entry.’ Anything further to add to this overwhelming barrage of points? (LewisRyder 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment I'm going to stop responding to this AFD - I think it is probably going to fail, and I have other interests on Wikipedia. I hope that those who are trying to "kill" this article will co-operate with others in making the article better, and cease trying to simply get rid of it. Personally, I haven't read Spencer at all, but if he is in fact an Islamophobe and is disseminating false information, then this is certainly something that should be discussed in the article. --Brianyoumans 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Brianyoumans, if you review the Wiki history on this article, users, such as Mike18xx and others will not 'allow' any discussion in the article about the blog giving out contentious information. Anything which has a neutral point of view, or more than single point of view will be reverted in haste. This leads to the question, why is this blog present in Wiki.(LewisRyder 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
          • Lewis? You're not telling the truth--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some examples; 22:18, 29 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (RV LewisRyder vandalism) ; 17:12, 24 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Lewis? Your "trick" of accusations of vandalism directed toward those who've largely written the topics you're accusing them of vandalizing is becoming tedious.) ; 08:15, 24 July 2006 Mike18xx (Talk | contribs) (Wikipedia is not a link-repository for ever bitch-moan-whine site that is unsatisfied with the traffic Google is sending it.) etc. Not being able to add any other point of view, or add neutrality leads to abusive comments and a swift revert. So, what is the point of this so called notable encyclopedic entry?? (LewisRyder 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
              • Citing selected past edit commentary instances of my reversions of your vandalism (and calling you for the counter-propaganda tactic of accusing original article writers of vandalism while engaging in it yourself) does not constitute defending your claim of "Anything which has a neutral point of view, or more than single point of view will be reverted in haste," since the article is already neutral-view in that it accurately described the ideological stance of its topic. Your argument, now, is essentially that the article should be deleted because other editors won't entertain the changes to it that you desire, and that's bad faith.--Mike18xx 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Anyone may examine my edits and edits from others that have been reverted and judge for themselves!! My argument is clear, the entry should be deleted because; 1. It is a single point of view. 2. It is not a neutral point of view. 3. It is a mere blog. 4. The entry appears to just be an advertisment link to the blog (check Alexa link-ins). Anyone care to add on to this endless list. (LewisRyder 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - If we are to add this blog, we'd have to add entries for the thousands (20,000) websites that are ahead of it in the Alexa ratings. This is clearly a case of partisan editors with axes to grind trying to flood Wikipedia with as much anti-Islam propaganda as possible. I'd be curious to know what proportion of Wikipedia's server space is dedicated to entries like this...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) This user also spammed. [5][6][7][8] JungleCat talk/contrib 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that it's disallowed. Nice investigative work, by the way.--Kitrus 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That pesky "anti-Islam progaganda"...tsk, tsk, tsk...--Mike18xx 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, Mike, it's not propaganda if you agree with it.--Kitrus 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. Isarig 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable blog , mentioned throughout the internet . I got 3,570,000 hits on google for "Jihad Watch" [9]--Amenra 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have about 3 million google hits for my name, that does not warrant me creating a Wiki entry, and then linking it to my geocities website, or my Blogspot as it does not deserve a right to be an encyclopedic topic. (LewisRyder 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Entering "Robert Spencer" into Google generated 938,000 returns. Entering "Lewis Ryder" into Google generated only 1,400 returns.--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about Jihadwatch.org entry not the Robert Spencer entry. Entering Jihadwatch.org into google yields a pityfull 300,000 hits which is less than half of what my name yields. (LewisRyder 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
300,000 is "pityfull" and less than half of 1,400? ...OooooK...--Mike18xx 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to the "Keeps" I have been asking many times to the reasons behind the keep. As overviewed above, some authors do not wish to inform me, while others maintain it should be kept as the blog is ranked in the top 50,000 / or because Wiki fuels hits to the alleged discriminate blog. Moreover, the key editors for the blog entry are certain that it should only have a single point of view (see reverts), and that it should only be edited by apparent Jihadwatch website developed (e.g. AnnCr) to maintain a neutral point of view. Surely this is a farce?!!. Kindly provide some real reasons why this blog should merit a wiki entry. (LewisRyder 09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Some editors, if they were to suggest in Talk that their opponants were engaging in "farce", would have administrators landing on them like a ton of bricks for being "incivil". How is it that you manage to avoid this, Lewis?--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
answer Individual editors have given their reasons for their votes. --Amenra 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Reason? No given reason to be in an Encyclopedia. Some authors stated it should be revamped, others that it should remain as it fuels hits to the blog, or that being in the top 50,000 or so it is somehow famous. 50,000 is no way notable... it is like being on the 50,000 rich list, mostly unknowns. (LewisRyder 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
All of the reasons provided by the nominator are erroneous (e.g., JihadWatch is not Robert Spencer's "personal website", etc), and that in and of itself is enough to sustain a keep in this particular instance. There's also the general matter of yet another Islam-relating article coming under attack (first, there's random vandalism, then more organized campaigns, such as this one), with all of the usual suspects drawing up the familiar battle-lines.--Mike18xx 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, although I never did state it was a "personal website", but thanks for the fabrication. So the reason for a "Keep" from you is because it is not a "personal website"? Are you serious!? And the single point of view, non-neutral point of view, the mere fact it is a unnotable blog, and that Jihadwatch "news editors" etc. have been instructed to make sure of this warrant a good entry into an Encyclopedia? (LewisRyder 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You are conflating yourself with the 'nominator for deletion (not you, but Reza1), in your earnest desire to accuse me of "fabrication". As for the rest, your contention that Jihad Watch is "unnotable" is simply laughable when the site is routinely mentioned in various media, as can be easily demonstrated by the most cursory of searches.--Mike18xx 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly inform me which media outlet speaks about Jihadwatch, they may speak about Mr. Spencer regarding his 'books' but I have not seen/heard any discuss a blog. Your premise that the blog is notable is still established around a online search engine which is preposterous as varying search engine will rank websites differently, nonetheless the number of hits a string has should be no basis to creating a encycolopedic entry. (LewisRyder 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You kindly should do your own homework, but I aim to please. ...not that it matters, however, since in this editor's opinion these are bad faith straw-clutchings to defend a bad faith nomination. I think we're just about done here.--Mike18xx 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a web search, not entries relating to Jihadwatch.org on Fox News I.e. "Google Yahoo! Search MSN SearchAsk Jeeves" as the site says. So, as I stated, kindly inform me which media outlet speaks about Jihadwatch. (LewisRyder 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm bored of these "moving goalpost" games.--Mike18xx 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose LewisRyder would like to explain these type edits lately. Doesn't look very productive. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect, the two articles on Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch are both pretty short and are closely related. If the article on Jihad Watch grows to be too large, they can be split again. --- Deville (Talk) 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi Watch[edit]

The address for the blog is http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ which is linked from the Jihad Watch. I have also nominated Jihad Watch for deletion here. My reasons: Not notable enough. It is a personal website and blog hosted by Robert Spencer. The blog is only in the top twenty thousand (precisely 20,653) most visited web sites on the internet. We do have personal websites by people who are much more notable and who have less opposing views than Spencer, but there is no wiki-page for their personal bolgs and websites. Reza1 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and Merge - Dhimmi Watch is on the Jihadwatch site; the Dhimmi Watch talk page contains a number of comments saying that it should be merged with the Jihad Watch article, and I agree. I think it definitely deserves a redirect and merge; googling "Dhimmi Watch" and "Spencer" gets you 190,000 hits.Brianyoumans 06:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect these closely related articles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. There are thousands of Wiki articles that are less "notable"; and if an editor has discovered that an Alexa ranking is obsolete, he should correct or eliminate the references, not recommend the entire article for deletion.
  • Furthermore, neither JihadWatch or DhimmiWatch are Spencer's "personal websites" and neither are designed like personal blogs, so the nominator's stated reasons for deletion are all inaccurate.--Mike18xx 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons given at the Jihad Watch AFD. Rogue 9 08:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge - See above --Kitrus 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge - see above Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is its own website , regardless of where its hosted and it focuses on a specicic topic of related to Dhimmi.--Amenra 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge per above. BhaiSaab talk 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect and Merge. Forgot to vote. --Reza1 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge per above. --Aminz 06:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to jihadwatch.org --Irishpunktom\talk 14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to stand alone on its own. InvictaHOG 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to jihadwatch.org --Truthpedia 23:06, 7 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 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartLabz[edit]

Spam for a totally NN WP:CORP. [Check Google hits] (|-- UlTiMuS 04:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for a software development company, they have a very weak reliable sources presence. Fails WP:CORP, possible WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I tagged this as an advert, and thought I'd wait a few days before AfD---but, you beat me to it. Completely nonnotable. ---Charles 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:07, 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 speedy deleted as nonsense. bd2412 T 04:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Keitholocism[edit]

Non-notable self-proclaimed religion with one ghit [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:35, 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 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Saylor[edit]

Notability appears suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 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, seems to meet WP:WEB, but article needs massive, massive cleanup. --- Deville (Talk) 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaadz[edit]

Website that makes no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. Only references cited are pages on the site itself, and some blogs. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alexa ranking of 7,987; almost 2 million Ghits for "Zaadz". NawlinWiki 11:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Won Best Conscious Community award in VegNews Magazine's VegWebby Awards 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr2k (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Website featured in What is Enlightenment magazine: "From MySpace to OurWorld."[10]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvoltron (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. The reason we cite Google hits is because the number is indicative often of notability, IF the hits show notability. In this case, there are 2.4 million Ghits, BUT the hits are mostly the site's membership dutifully recited by Google's spiders (i.e., "smith@Zaadz"). I see a couple of articles cited above - I will note What Is Enlightenment magazine is a quarterly webzine, hum, maybe. But VegNews magazine's honor is not what I'd call a nationally-recognized one. There is a link to what appears to be a Wall Street Journal article, but the story only mentions Zaadz in passing (their CEO was at some meeting that was covered by WSJ, and the website gets no other mention). The website therefore fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles, nor shows nationally-known awards, nor is the content distributed by a site well-known and independent of the creators. Tychocat 04:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what tripe, per Tychocat. Three keep votes here, I don't know where this is coming from.-Kmaguir1 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The VfD nomination and some comments missed the fact that "What is Enlightenment" is a print publication celebrating a 15-year anniversary, and they highlighted the Zaadz article on their cover - hardly trivial. There are thousands of passionate people contributing to the Zaadz community, which I think means it merits serious attention. The Alexa score demonstrates much more interest than the vast majority of Internet sites, impressive after such a short existance. You can expect places like this to be underrepresented in the mainstream media, who see them as competitors on various levels. --NealMcB 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, remove sections which make it look like an advertisement. See Facebook for an example of a good SNS article. Ashibaka tock 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup per nealmcb and Ashibaka.--Crossmr 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What propagandizing crap! This is hucksterism from a hucksterising social website THAT PAYS BLOGGERS, like ~C4Chaos www.coolmel.com to product-place their website in his blog. It is not merely that what's written is non-objective fiction, it is vastly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. --172.193.254.8 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of their practicies, it doesn't dimiss the coverage and site rank. We're not here to pass judgement on a given subject, see WP:NPOV.--Crossmr 13:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, site appears notable. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 6 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 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographic hypocoristics[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Not Wikipedia:patent nonsense, but probably a joke. Was prodded by me, but prod removed for unknown reason. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:06, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of TriStar Television[edit]

It's not so much that it's about logos, but Tristar Television was not exactly a prolific and long lasting division to warrant a page about their logos (which are basically shortened versions of their movie logos/sequences). It's just not really necessary, especially that there are already separate pages for Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television and Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television, and pages about the divisions of all 3 of the companies, which are basically merged now anyway. This just seems to be clutter. Renosecond 06:06, 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. Per the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, the exceedingly weak deletion arguments and the strong support for keeping the article. Editors wishing to merge this to Hold On (Tim Armstrong song) should discuss this on the talk page. A merge may be a good idea for now, depending on the timescale of release. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Poet's Life[edit]

Album by someone from a notable band, but distributed only over Myspace. Dubious A7 candidate, so I decided to bring it here. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete fails WP:Music article was previously nom'ed for speedy, and deleted as non notable. Article is now reposted, and probably should have been speedy delete as reposted material. Article is blatant spam.TheRingess 06:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that speedy criteria only applies if the article went through a full AFD. If the article was deletion by speedy deletion or by proposed deletion it cannot be deleted as reposted material. In the future it would be better to tag it for the reason the article was speedied in the first place because that would have a betetr chance of success. --My old username 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I really don't understand how this article is blatant spam, other than the fact that it's about something one could conceivably purchase. Which would make an untold number of articles on albums, cars, hamburgers, etc. spam as well. Dina 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't understand how this fails WP:Music; please explain. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 06:45, 30 August 2006
  • I was the one who speedied this first, but the claim to A7 is not strong on second look. It's an album article, not mainly on the musician or group. The musician was (is?) from a notable band. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article adheres to notability outlines and in no way fails WP:Music. The repost was an accedent on my part and I take full respocibility. Tim Armstrong is a notable, and arguabley the most influencial musician in modern punk rock history. Although, the album is a virtual record, it is a record none the less. The album has a predetermined number of tracks, and possibly a predetermined order, which is as of yet unknown. This article's story, and the album is still unfolding, and it remains to be seen if the album will only be available online. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 02:45, 30 August 2006
  • Strong Keep for starters, the album will NOT be distributed only through MySpace, that's just where the information came from. Epitaph Records' website has an entry for the album, and you can download a song there. Joltman 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Separate album (assuming it is new/different material, not just a re-release) by a notable artist. Weak keep due to freeness and lack of secondary sources at the moment. Wickethewok 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please don't have this deleted. It's still an album being distributed by epitaph.com, not just through Myspace. This article is good and so is the first song off the album. Keep it.
  • Strong Keep -- Tim Armstrong and the bands he's been in Operation Ivy (band) Rancid Transplants and Dance Hall Crashers are all quite famous in the ska/punk scene. Op Ivy gets 965,000 Ghits and if you check [here] you'll see that information about this band is linked to from several articles about this period and its music. I may be showing my age here, but seriously -- Op Ivy and Rancid were huge in the late 80's early 90's alternative music scene. And, as others have stated, the "distributed over Myspace" in the nom was based on a misread. I think a new solo album by a member of several notable bands is in no danger of violating of WP:MUSIC. Dina 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or failing that merge. I think we can all agree that Tim Armstrong is notable, and bear in mind the following from WP:MUSIC: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." -Elmer Clark 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based solely on the notability of the performer if nothing else. A lot of artists are self-releasing music or doing so in "non-traditional" forms. Just because it's being issued solely through MySpace, or a personal website, or iTunes can no longer be used as criteria for disqualifying such releases, I'm afraid. It's 2006. 23skidoo 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reopened this debate because it did not meet the speedy keep criteria (still one delete vote). Kusma (討論) 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, album does not exist yet, WP:NOT a crystal ball. If you want, merge to the only song on the album that exists so far, and make a full article later. Kusma (討論) 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kusma. Merging to the song article works for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He's notable, album seems to be new songs coming out by the month, I don't think WP:NOT:crystal ball applies. --kingboyk 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the album itself isnt notable, even though the artist is. HawkerTyphoon 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could be better (e.g. sourced), but albums from notable artists are generally notable, and I do not want to delete simply because the album is being distributed through non-customary channels.-- danntm T C 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albums by Tim Armstrong are always noteworthy, not a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Tim Armstrong doing something off the wall again, what a surprise. He's never gotten scads of mainstream media coverage, but it would be nice to get some references outside Epitaph. Shell babelfish 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Speedy Keep as per all other keep votes. Cjmarsicano 01:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was dele7e. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7chan[edit]

Non-notable board, per original invalid CSD. [Check Google hits] Deleted twice, once for attack, once as nonsense. I abstain as this is an administrative nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why previous deletions should punish me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordvervex (talk • contribs) .
    • They don't. But they establish a relevant history of the article. Note that both deletions are recent. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't this be speedied? TheRingess 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the regular way, no. It's not part of the criteria. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable ripoff. Danny Lilithborne 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons Danny stated above.--andrew 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point but were they just spam? I want a real artical. Lordvervex 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. If one of the basis' for deleting this article is that the site is a "non-notable ripoff", then why is 4chan still here, as it is a ripoff of 2chan? Notable is in the eye of the beholder really, people who frequent this site may believe it's notable. I don't think the creating user's past should come into play here, and if it does I'll gladly look over the article and repost it myself. Tempestdevil 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference, though, is that 4chan is notable. 278,000 google hits compared to 600. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. A look at the google search brings up blogs and other wikis, no real articles. --Daniel Olsen 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google does not bring it up because it has only recently gained popularityLordvervex 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why most people here would consider it inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • point taken is there a time limit to when things are "appropriate" or do I just create an artical every week?Lordvervex 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here I refer you to WP:WEB again. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not know of any imageboard that fit that criteria. Lordvervex 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first I thought that this was appropriate, to create an article on 7chan. On second thought I can see now that it was a bad decision given Wikipedia's policies for notability. I submit that I should have tried harder to make myself aware of such policies before thinking I could just jump in. "Ripoff" is however a completely bogus basis on which this article should be deleted.--Mars 012 07:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I lose...Next time a poor guy makes this just post the "criteria" first and save him some time. Lordvervex 07:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete, fails WP:WEB (it's not 2chan or 4chan). Also contains unencyclopedic original research. Potential vandal magnet. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not that it will help, as they will just make new one. Stronger measures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.51.254.240 (talk • contribs) .
    • There's the protected delete, which prevents recreation without admin intervention. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't "just a rip" I am a "channer". I have visited many image boards, (IIchan, Fchan, 4chan, Zchan, Renchan, 420chan ext.) and I can say that this is an important movement.Lordvervex 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If the web site is, as you claim, important, there will be many people independent of the site publishing things about it. Uncle G 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- GOOO 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, verifiability, no reliable sources, and all of the unusual forum problems, such as no content of interest to anyone not already familiar with the forum. Random sample: "A CRITICAL HIT!! Throw rock." Ohh, I see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 1,000,000+ for this website. --Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.114.92 (talk • contribs) .
  • For everyone's amusement, here is the "reference": [11]. Are you kidding me? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before this deletion, I had no idea "imageboards" exist. If in six months, or more, the "up and coming" site you speak of is going to be such a hit, then you could make it. --andrew 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a very good point almost no imageboard fit's in the criteria laid down by wikipedia, but this sight has had almost 100,000 posts in the 7 days it's been up

Lordvervex 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete So let me get this straight: an imageboard that was opened less than a week ago, somewhat incomprehensible contents if you're never heard of imageboards before (and somewhat incomprehensible if you have), the only "reference" is a random web page with a vague statement, and a BJAODN where that was copied? I have to say that so far, there's no justification at hand why this site should warrant an article of its own. Welcome back when they're actually famous. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eek, I should only read stuff when I'm on coffee actually. I welcome myself to this year. =) Still, I can find no proof of notability either way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikifur has an article on it already. 64.34.168.70 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete this rubbish. AndyJones 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Plus the article is a copy and paste of this wiki's article based on earlier editing dates. Anomo 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are the same because we worked together as a website for the information. If you want me to rewrite it I will, that is NOT a good reason for deletion.68.39.114.92 06:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 68.39.114.92 you go around vandalizing the place removing even references to where the material was copy and pasted from. That's against the rules. Anomo 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Credema 06:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI am glad this isn't a vote 68.39.114.92 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 7chan deserves an article, but wikipedia has this WP:WEB that is really picky about websites. 4chan has a huge traffic ranking. While google is against 7chan. See google-watch.org as it explains it. Right now 7chan needs server upgrades to handle the load so it can go faster. Anomo 07:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research with heavy doses of vanity. The references that are given are not reliable or verifiable, elwiki, or are a joke. There is also no evidence of notability outside of the website. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete non-notable, fails at Alexa Rating and google hits, Original Research, unsourced, extremely poorly written, seriously, I see no reason why this article SHOULDN'T be deleted. -Nightmare X 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough yet and per Anomo's comment (i.e., taken from Tredpedia, although it could be rewritten it's still not notable enough). -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPMy kitten just died, I have only have two reasons I am still alive, lot's of pills the docter gave me and this artical. You want my blood on your hands? Lordvervex 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
check my username - it wouldn't show up on my hands - Blood red sandman 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (-original research+vanity)66.74.146.125 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strng Delete per the million and one reasons above - Blood red sandman 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yes, I said merge. Into the 4chan article. It's pretty obvious to me really. 4chan is quite notable. Pretty much any anime/game fan who uses the internet reguarly has at least heard of it, from my experiance. 7chan is a spin off, and a mention of it as part of 4chan's history, from what I'm reading, seems like the best course of action. IF, of course, the case is actually true as written. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, it's a couple of dozen 4channers who got angry at the mods actually doing something. --Guess Who 00:47, 5 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 all to the Survivor shows that they were in -- Samir धर्म 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan McDevitt[edit]

Early elimination from a notable reality TV show and hasnt established notability since leaving the show. Realitycruft. I am also nominating 2 other contestants below for the same reasons.

--Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those articles at the moment, clearly met WP:BIO by establishing notability outside of Survivor. If a "contestant" or as the hard core fans say "star" disappeared off the public radar, and never heard of again, it would prove a strong case for a history deletion/redirect. One case as per [12], [13] and many others that were redirect/merged to their respective seasons --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until the person does notable things after the show, they don't need an article here. Lex van den Berghe should get an AFD, he was on two Survivor (regular and all-stars) shows and didn't seem to do anything after the show except be in a small indie band. That's certainly not notable enough (unless the article is missing important details of his post-Survivor life). RobJ1981 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they did nothing after the show, just redirect to the show and be done with it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The zoo is a great place, but only a few of the animals are notable. Ohconfucius 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nod Mad Jack 21:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - this will discourage someone from creating the page again in the future. If somone wants to add to the section in the main article it could be forked off at a later time should it get to large. With all these reality tv "stars", the community here may need to come up with some criteria offshoot of WP:BIO, similar to the way WP:PORNBIO was done.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata 22:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIT Brick City Singers[edit]

RIT Brick City Singers was nominated for deletion on 2005-01-13. The result of the discussion was not given by SimonP, who closed it. For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIT Brick City Singers/2005-01-13.

Oddly I seem to be falling back on this unfinished VfD. In any case, fails WP:MUSIC. Only record is self-produced. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article attempts to assert notability but fails; and, from personal experience, despite trying to keep up-to-date with collegiate a cappella groups, I have never, not once, heard of these people in my life. Maybe in five years after they get on BOCA. ~Marblespire 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article. Useful addition to Wikipedia. Fg2 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. About 50/50 on notability, but the way the article is written, it puts its ducks (credentials) pretty neatly in a row.-Kmaguir1 09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm an RIT alum (class of '84), but I hardly think that quarterfinalist in anything qualifies as worthy of an article. --Dennette 06:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can not see how this article falls within WP:MUSIC.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. If I wasn't personally familiar with the group, I'd have no problem suggesting deletion on the basis of WP:MUSIC. Thus, I cannot in good faith do otherwise here. Powers T 14:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete another former RIT student here... not noteworthy. If not deleted at least merge into main article on RIT.  ALKIVAR™ 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Lies Over the Hill[edit]

It's unclear whether this book is a hoax or is just unverifiable. There are 17 Google hits, none of which establish that this book exists. There are no books of the title on sale at Amazon.com, and neither the supposed author nor the title appear in the Library of Congress catalog. Erechtheus 06:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, per WP:HOAX, WP:OR, WP:POV, and probably a few more. --Daniel Olsen 07:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KFP 12:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Victoriagirl 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mon. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it lacks even an ISBN. Fails WP:VERIFY. --Dennette 07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since 1980 or so, virtually no notable books have been released without an ISBN. In fact, I can only think of one example, Stephen King's Secret Windows. There's no evidence this is an exception to the rule either. It might even be unpublished (or a hoax). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Andrew Lenahan. Zaxem 05:10, 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 redirect to Renaissance (demogroup). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cramer[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO, possibly vanity. Could be replaced by a redirect to the demo group. Pascal.Tesson 07:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. --KFP 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Redirect submitter who suggests redirect should have just made the redirect rather than waste time with an afd.  ALKIVAR™ 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please redirect per alkivar makes most sense Yuckfoo 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, so I have redirected it and merged the bit of content. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 6 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 clear enough consensus to keep, also IMO sufficient media coverage to be notable. Computerjoe's talk 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse racing[edit]

It has 59 total hits on Goggle. That certainly isn't enough for this small sport to be on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 08:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • After being pleasantly surprised and amused by reading mobile phone throwing, I was hoping this was another plausible silly sport. However, getting 0 Ghits for "mouse racing" "mouse jockey" indicates this article is likely to be OR. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many hits does something need to be on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcow (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30 09:14:51
    • What an article needs to be on Wikipedia is sources, sources, sources. This article cites none, and the Google searches coming up empty means that editors cannot find any for themselves, either. Uncle G 09:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I get 636 Google hits including a version where mice race boats from TIME.com. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Heh, that's actually an article from 1946. But Time magazine is certainly a reliable source --Xyzzyplugh 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it proves it's not just a recent fad. All the more reason to keep, especially in combination with the sources below. - Mgm|(talk) 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It does seem to exist, although there may be a more common term for it. Here's another source, from People Magazine:[14]. Can't find anything about miniature jockeys, though. Zagalejo 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are a couple more sources: Gambling Magazine article, Geraldton Guardian article. Zagalejo 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources Using Lexis-Nexis's major newspaper search, I received 58 unique results for "Mouse racing," most of which are relevant to this topic. They seem to take place in the US (especially popular in St. Louis and St. Petersburg), the British Isles, and Australia. I'm pretty confident now that this can make a solid, interesting article, and if it's kept, I'll committ to cleaning it up in the future. Zagalejo 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More I'm finding more articles using the World News options. The races take place in New Zealand, too, and it seems like they have attracted the attention of the RSPCA. (Here's a free article for your consideration). Zagalejo 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's next? Horned toad racing? Dodo racing: can non-existent creatures beat one another? Per Mordecai.-Kmaguir1 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people had been racing horned toads on three continents for over six decades, wouldn't it be notable? I don't really understand your argument here. Zagalejo 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: no, it wouldn't be notable if people had been racing horned toads on three continents for over six decades.-Kmaguir1 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cite appropriate sources. -- Whpq 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN "sport" fails WP:VERIFY. Come back when it's as notable as Cow tipping or Dwarf tossing. Even as a "business buzzword," it's not in the same class as "putting lipstick on a pig" or "chasing butterfies in the dark" as a metaphor for futility. --Dennette 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statements in the article aren't sourced at the moment, but the sport is verifiable. We're discussing the subject here, not the page as it currently exists. Mouse races have been around since the 1940s, and probably earlier, and they're played throughout the world. I have nontrivial newspaper and magazine sources to back that up.
Here are a few of the newspaper articles I found, in case no one believes me:
  • Glen Sparks. "IN THE GATES: ON YOUR MARK, GET SET, SQUEAK!". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. January 29, 2004. p. 1
  • Clare Garner. "Life in the fast lane 'is cruel to mice'". The Independent. December 27, 1997. p. 2.
  • "Mice for racing plan condemned". The Irish Times. December 27, 1997. p. 4.
  • Yvonne Martin. "Pub offers beer with a whisker chaser". The Press. July 17, 2001. pg. 1.
And there's more where that came from. Note that these are all from the last ten years.

Zagalejo 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've re-written the article and included sources. It's only a couple of paragraphs long, but it's a start. So, take a look, if you wish. Zagalejo 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zagalejo has really cleaned this article up and I think most of the objections have been dealt with. I encourage anyone who voted delete to take another look. --Aranae 17:40, 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 06:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Enterprise[edit]

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. This company fails WP:CORP and precedents indicate that this should also get the boot. Pascal.Tesson 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everyone is "one of the top suppliers". I want sources! - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only Nexis hits are for a company of the same name in Omaha, Nebraska. Uucp 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Spam. No sign it meets WP:CORP. Note single use account created the article. Ohconfucius 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over the race of Ethiopians[edit]

There exists no such "controversy over the race of Ethiopians," as it does with that over Ancient Egyptians. The users who created and expanded this page are venturing into OR territory and creating a controversy where one does not exists (not to mention using incorrect information in doing so). If they want to include information on Ethiopian population genetics, there are already articles for that, namely People of Ethiopia and Demographics of Ethiopia, both of which are legitimate places for that information (and already do contain such information, at least the Demographics one). ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There may have been such a discussion among 19th century colonial scholars, but there is certainly no such controversy today (except probably among marginal racialists). Discussions regarding the race (even the term "race" is not very useful today) of Ethiopians was constituent to the now scientifically obsolete Hamitic myth. Disputes motivated by the fixation on race by certain Wikipedians mustn't be allowed to allude the existence of a general controversy.--Ezeu 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Talk about creating a non-issue for pov-pushing purposes! "Ethiopians" is not even the name of a race. Very poor scholarship here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This article is straight out of the 19th century. You don't have to be an anthropologist to know that this is full of obsolete uses of words like "race", "Negroid", and "Caucasoid". — MikeG (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Batmanand | Talk 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if such a historical controversy existed, it might merit a brief mention elsewhere, but the article as it stands is useless. Warofdreams talk 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is undeniably a bizarre article. As Codex Sinaiticus pointed above, there is no one Ethiopian race; Ethiopia is a known crazy-quilt of ethnicities, religions & other complications. It also fails to note other documented motivations for thinking that "Ethiopians" were Caucasoid -- the best example being the Italian defeat at the Battle of Adowa. (Many European & American journalists could not believe that a bunch of, er, foreigners could defeat a European army.) Lastly, this article misuses a Fair-use image, & its creator used 2 proven sockpuppets to further develop it; those details make it hard to assume good faith over this article. -- llywrch 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I find it ironic that Yom is the one who nominated this article to be deleted because it was his constant ranting and raving about a the controversy over Ethiopians on his talk page and elewhere that got me interested in the subject in the first place. A simple google search of Ethiopians and Caucasoid reveals a wealth of information on the topic. I created this article because I'm genuinely curious about whether Ethiopians are Caucasoid or not and was hoping to attract people who know more about the subject than I do to make contributions. Genetic journals in every major universities reveals dozens of major professors doing research on the race of Ethiopians, so if you do delete this article, you're doing so for personal reasons that have nothing to do with wikipedia's standards. There's also been marjor anthropological discoveries in Ethiopia that have revolutionized the field and have been covered very recently by CNN and major science magazines. Perhaps you could change the title to something more politically correct like "anthropology of Ethiopians" but racial issues concerning this one population are important enough to deserve their own article.--Whatdoyou 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I neither ranted nor raved on my talk age and elsewhere about a "controversy over the race of Ethiopians." My only discussions on the subject were when Cluckbang, who was relatively uninformed (thinking Ethiopians were the descendents of Sabaeans, which archaeology and genetics do not bear out), asked me about the matter on my talk page, whom I calmly answered. The studies on Ethiopians' genetic histories is not evidence of a controversy; you'll find many such studies on Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc. The reason why more studies exist on the population of Ethiopia than of some other Sub-Saharan African countries is because it was probably where modern human populations developed, and is therefore crucial in the study of genetics. Research into a topic does not a controversy make. "Anthropology of Ethiopians" would be a more appropriate title, but there are multiple diverse groups in Ethiopia, many of whom have yet to be studied; until the article becomes huge, there's no reason to split a genetic discussion from the already existing sections at People of Ethiopia or Demographics of Ethiopia. Note that this article is very clearly to support your own POV about Ethiopians, using dubious terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" instead of actual lineages (note that such balances are used by defining some lineages that arose in Ethiopia as "Caucasoid," so as to deny genetic influene from Sub-Saharan Africa in places like Greece and Southeastern Europe). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I just added a genetic tree by Cavalli-Sforza which shows quite clearly that Ethiopians are Black/Negroid/sub-Saharan (whatever term you prefer) though obviously others differ. I don't create articles to support any POV. I create articles because I have genuine interest in subjects and want to have a convenient resource that summarizes all the relevant data and is constantly being updated by those in the know. The reason why I feel this article is needed is because there's just too much genetic, craniofacial, and anthroplogical data to fit into articles like People/demographics of Ethiopia, since these articles are focused on broader issues than just race (i.e. culture, religion, etc). And I didn't create this article to create a controversy. The controversy title was simply modeled after the controversy over race of ancient Egyptians article. I found that title to be quite funny, and thought it would be even funnier if it was turned into a series. Change the title if you want, but is not possible to preserve an article entirely dedicated to the complex and massive body of literature concerning the race of Ethiopians? This dispute comes up over and over again in many articles and creates many edit wars which is why a comprehensive reference to the subject is needed--Whatdoyou 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article reads like a really bad 18th century geography work, with caucasoids and the like. Move on, people.-Kmaguir1 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it was a very real controversy, as many references can attest, and should be discussed in historical context. FairHair 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Modified only Delete revised by me Ngwe 04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (See comment below Ezeu's): (Original comment): FairHair is right that this topic deserves an historical article, provided that there is enough specific secondary literature to keep it from being original research. It should be an adjunct link to a main article on the history of racial thought, which is bound to be or to get large & result in spin-offs. The text would need to be junked and totally rewritten. Ideally the title should indicate that the controversy was historical. The introduction must state clearly that it is not a matter of serious contemporary controversy and that the racial ideas with which it was argued are now rejected by most scholars as incoherent and methodologically flawed. Otherwise teachers of African history & anthropology will have to waste additional hours undoing Wikipedia-derived misinformation (already a serious problem for African studies). New text should reflect not only historical context, as FairHair, says but restricted to explicating the historical ideas in context. The current article weirdly combines utterly outmoded racialist concepts with ideas that are treated seriously today by some human population biologists and physical anthropologists (though rejected or doubted by many others). This combination amounts to original if idiosyncratic research.Ngwe 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever there is to say about this supposed controversy can be mentioned in the People of Ethiopia article. A separate article is not warranted. The main problem with this article is that it is a fork created specifically to forward an agenda based on obsolete racialist POV. The title and the content alludes a dispute that does not exist, and is inherently missleading. It is easy to argue for an article to be kept, while suggesting that it be radically edited. The end result is often that no one actually radically edits the article, and when they try to, they meet strenuous opposition from the creators of the artice (who often fight hard to maintain the POV), with the result that the "original if idiosyncratic research" stays more or less as it is, and continues to spread disinformation. --Ezeu 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded by Ezeu's & Mark's comments on what will actually happen. The search engine point had not occurred to me. Ezeu, when I first tried to respond but ended up closing the edit window without saving, apparently, I called the article a self-parody, esp. the idea that one could define race by skin color as "black", or "negroid" (from Spanish for black) and then by use of other putative racial distinction criteria, end up in effect with the proposition that Ethiopians are black whites -- whoa dude! I do not think there is any current controversy. However, the historic intellectual contortions of racialists in the colonial era to try to deny or minimize the "blackness" of Africans whose achievements they counted admirable by their own ethnocentric standards ("Hamitic hypothesis" etc.) is a significant historical phenomenon that needs to be in Wikipedia. I suspect you are right about the forking of this article as it stands in suggesting spuriously that a controversy exists today, & agree that Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting such dicredited views in the present. Being new to Wikipedia, the distinction between such forking and the principle of creating new pages on sub-topics if a big topic gets too big is not always clear to me. So I accept what Mark says below about the way to approach a redefined historical topic. But I do think FairHair is right to point out that the historical phenomenon is a legitimate potential Wikipedia topic, provided the sources to which he/she refers are not all primary documents, though FairHair does not deal with the presentism of the current article. Ngwe 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I largely agree with Cclowe's argument above, but I do think the article as it is is irredeemable and should be deleted. If someone wants to create a different, well-sourced, and verifiable article on the notable historical controversy, he or she is free to do so, but let's not leave the present highly problematic article up any longer only to be picked up by Google and other content scrapers. There is enough misinformation in the world, let's actually try and delete some. — mark ✎ 19:02, 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 Keep. per WP:SNOW, I'm renaming this thoughJaranda wat's sup 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 500 home run hitters of all time[edit]

Please keep this page. I find the information on this page very useful! David


A great deal of hard work that has gone into this page; however, the page is useless. This information is readily available on any number of web sites and in any number of books. It does not add to the experience of wikipedia and it is annoying that it is has been placed on the see also section for so many baseball related pages. It is more the work of one or two people, rather than a true community page. Wolverinegod 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the risk of sounding counter-intuitive, keep per nom. The information is verifiable (per nom), and appears to be encyclopedic to a baseball ignoramus such as me. I'd be tempted to say that 500 is an astonishingly large number to have, but baseball fans seem to be pretty statistically-minded. The fact that the information is readily available elsewhere has nothing to do with anything, since that simply means that it's verifiable (if the info weren't readily available, I'd be thinking about nominating this). The fact that it's been placed all over the baseball pages is entirely beside the point too, as the nominator or anyone else is more than capable of removing it from places where it's not useful. The fact that it's "the work of one or two people" is also irrelevant, as not all articles here will ever be "true community pages". Additionally, if the information is readily available, it doesn't take more than one person to port it here. BigHaz 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable and encylcopedic. Remove inappropriate see also links. MLA 10:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but pare down on the OR element that is before you get to the actual listing. 205.157.110.11 11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something like this is the reason for Wikipedia. We're a collection of useful information. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well to further my point: just because an article "can" exist doesn't mean it "should". This article reports on something where there is no "criteria". What exactly is "useful" about this listing. Anyone who hits a home run can be added to the list, and therefor, there is no realistic control. Where as, in order to be listed in order to be named as a member of the 500 home run club or people to climb mt. everest, you have to meet a standard. Further to the point, this article would need to be referenced so often that it becomes pointless to attempt. See Wikipedia:No original research. Just because something is verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is), does not mean it needs to be included. Putting a link to the see also section is technically admissable because it is often placed on a players page. Wolverinegod 12:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article reports on something where there is no "criteria". — On the contrary, the criteria, per the article, seem pretty clear: Being one of the top 500 baseball players of all time, ranked by the number of home runs achieved.

      Anyone who hits a home run can be added to the list — False. Please read the article title.

      verifiable and "encyclopedic" (which i don't think this article is) — You are now contradicting yourself. You stated in your nomination that "This information is readily available on any number of web sites and in any number of books.". Uncle G 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep verifiable, well written, encyclopaedic. While 500 may be a surprisingly high choice of cutoff, there's no point in excising information from an article just because it's surprisingly deep. WilyD 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as said above it is verifyable it just needs to be cleandup at the start. Tarret 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article is fantastic, frequently updated, and DOES NOT have an equivalent anywhere else on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.175.119 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30 13:19:21
  • Keep - But the list could probably be trimmed down from 500 to like 300 or something for the sake of readability and scope. I mean Al Martin and Derek Bell make this list. Isn't there a clause in WP:LIST that says, "No list may include Derek Bell in it"? No? There should be... Wickethewok 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Maybe instead of "articles for deletion" we should rename this section "articles for Operation Shutdown"... SliceNYC 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily. I can understand the notion that the list should be pared down a bit, but I agree with WilyD pretty much wholeheartedly. We've already AFD'd (is that a word?) a list which purported to list the Top 1000 home run hitters (a list which I think I might actually be on, along with Steven Hawking), so there *is* a limit to what is realistically encyclopedic but this list doesn't meet that criteria. I say leave it as is, it's very well written. In the interest of full disclosure I am an occasional contributor to the page and have been adding links to the page from the subjects on the list. - RPIRED 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hardly listcruft, which is the only reason I can see to delete, so keep. Batmanand | Talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BigHaz. The list is factual and seems well-maintained. Could the beginning prose use a little cleaning up? Sure, but that's no reason to delete a solid, encyclopedic list. SliceNYC 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. Bigtop 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters; the "of all time" is superfluous, and the list seems geared to (exclusively) MLB hitters, because I didn't see Sadaharu Oh (868 professional career homers) or any other achievers outside of MLB such as the Japanese or any Latin American leagues, or any batter's school/little league accomplishments listed. Carlossuarez46 23:31, 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 Deleted - Author Requested deletion --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Family[edit]

This was originally put up for a speedy but there were objections so it's here. It reads too much like a geneaological record. And frankly, outside of the Napoleon connection, I don't see notability here. Woohookitty(meow) 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Family History OR. 205.157.110.11 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V as well as a host of other arguments. WilyD 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical index. Agent 86 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is all non-notable (being related to someone famous is not notable, this is actually quite common). --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty sure I tagged this {{db-group}}... Ryūlóng 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author has requested deletion. Ryūlóng 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author and I have deleted my page on my own. You people are morons if you think being related to Napoleon is "common". There are only three families in the world who have that relation. I published this article to make knowlage avalible on an influental family that is not widely known. It holds a place in world history. Anyway you can stop voting of whatever your doing here because I have removed this article so go ahead and further delete it if you want I'll take my information somewere were people care about history.Vaio12 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not take offense. We just have rules as to what's notable or includable. We are not a collection of indiscriminate information. The problem with including a family like this is, as it has been said already, many are related to famous people. Almost everyone is related to someone famous. We can't include all of them. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have misinterprited the focus of my article. I didnt right about this family because they are related to someone " famous". I wrote about them becaues they are one of the wealthiest families in the world and one of the most powerful in this nation. Just recently they have been emerging into the society world and I thought it was a point of interest in who they are and were they come from. Yes they have relation to a historical figure but they also weald great influence in new england and around the country despite being relitivly unheard of on a large scale. That was the focus of my article. Just as you have pages here about the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Kennedys and other less wealthy but more well known families. I was tring to ad to the knowlage of these " Dynasty " families that are so secretive and isolated in this country. Vaio12 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. Well. I'm going to restore the vote on the page. There is no reason to end it. You might persuade people to keep the article. You never know. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote as the author I request that my article be deleted imediatly.Vaio12 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll delete it. I really wish you'd reconsider leaving though. But. If you can't accept something like this, then maybe this isn't the place for you. Have to roll with the punches here. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:58, 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 redirected to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, as it was in January. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUNETA (aeropagitica) 08:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDSA[edit]

Trademarked product name, no assertion of why it's notableNawlinWiki 11:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SPAM WilyD 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like an advertisement. The Epifanio de los Santos Avenue article should get a redirect from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr2k (talk • contribs)
  • Delete looks like an ad as well. --Palffy 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect In fact, the article actually was originally a redirect to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue; guess whoever wrote this article isn't Filipino, doesn't understand it's significance and/or just didn't care. But yes, the current article is definate spam; I'd recommend just reverting it back to being a redirect to the EDSA highway (being the only notable EDSA). –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per NeoChaosX. Zaxem 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely an ad. Delete for that and the services section of WP:CORP. Kevin_b_er 08:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DG-SD 200 PVR[edit]

This is a mostly Finnish language user guide for a digital video recorder. Delete or transwiki. KFP 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia not being a how-to guide or "hints and tips" collection. --Wafulz 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wrong language, not encyclopedic. Not sure if Wikibooks would take it. Transwiki if they do. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article isn't even in English - and what is doesn't seem encyclopedic. Zaxem 05:14, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BioErotica[edit]

Protologism, only 12 unique google hits on bioerotica, all coming from wikipedia or from the one article at globalsecurityreport.com, which has an alexa ranking of about 6 million. Doesn't meet WP:V. Note that the BBC news link in this article is not on this topic Xyzzyplugh 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, zero nexis hits. Uucp 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tiberius McMahon 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User's first contribution except for own userpage. Punkmorten 09:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the phrase does not appear to be in use at all, aside from wiki and its mirrors and the aforementioned globalsecurityreport.com. Fails WP:V, and appears to to be a madeup word that nobody uses. -- Whpq 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:15, 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 Speedy delete A7 and G7 (per below). NawlinWiki 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin K. Smith[edit]

I would have gone with db-bio, but there are some claims of "critical acclaim". [Check Google hits] Google tends to disagree. Also, the included picture seems like good evidence that this is just an amateur wanting an article about himself. Fails WP:BIO therefore delete (|-- UlTiMuS 12:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Im 'Smith' and even I agree with the above user's statements. Mrcoolbeans
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO Zephyr2k 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There seem to be several Martin K. Smith's and most of the few Google hits ain't this guy. -- RHaworth 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD 7 --Wafulz 16:15, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jump (movie)[edit]

"Joe Jump" on google gets few hits, and no relevant ones. Therefore, this is either a hoax, or just plain crystal balling per WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 13:16, 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 06:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Indiana Plane Crash[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash original nomination closed as merge. Talk:Indiana_University_Bloomington#2006_Plane_Crash_Merger - Destination article discussion is against merge. Not a notable plane crash, and WP:NOT a memorial. Delete. – Chacor 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge-I dont know why no one merged this article a while ago. Storm05 13:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the merge was rejected by editors at the destination article. Therefore, simple delete - a merge won't work. – Chacor 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per first AFD, and fact that the only sensible merger location is inappropriate: "transient current events have no business being part of an institution's article".--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. What happened was tragic, but does not appear to have affected the university or the Bloomington community, apart from those people who lost a loved one. -- Merope 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Recentism. Batmanand | Talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless the event’s identity is seared into the public memory in a way that ties the event directly to the name of the institution (such as the 1970 national guard shootings at Kent State), then a transient current event that happened in the rural countryside outside of a college town has no business being mentioned in the nearby-university’s article. The plane did not crash on campus nor have any other direct link to the institution other than killing five students. I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one other accident (e.g., horse-and-wagon mishap, car crash, construction accident) that also killed 5 IU students/employees within a certain radius of Bloomington at some point over the years since IU's founding in the 1820s and that other accident doesn't warrant its own article nor appear in the Indiana University Bloomington article. Recentism. Perhaps someone’s blog or personal website would be a better place to memorialize the 2006 Indiana Plane Crash tragedy outside of Wikipedia. If the editors of 2006 Indiana Plane Crash opt for that choice outside of Wikipedia, they should please remember to copy 2006 Indiana Plane Crash’s content while it still exists. —optikos 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Optikos and the original AFD. Wikipedia is not a memorial, either. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kee Tov[edit]

Notability not established CobaltBlueTony 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Information in the article meets WP:V. Google search also shows more than a 1,000 hits as well. Moreover, it is notable in a local scale. This camp accomodates more than 700 Jewish childern in California. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge, but don't know where). There is recent precedent to avoid pages for specific camps, but that pages for groupings of camps (sponsored by a certain organization or having a certain affiliation) are reasonable if that information cannot comfortably fit in the pages of those sponsors/affiliations. That decision was for the regional and national overnight camps sponsored by the parent organization of the one for the page at hand here. Those camps have much broader geographic appeal, are of comparable size, and some have several thousand ghits. "Best Jewish Day Camp in the East Bay" feels like pretty slim notability. The page has very little that sounds specific/unique and interesting to this camp for anyone but those directly involved. It's heavy on the details to the point that it sounds like an ad or the camp's own website. Maybe we need a California Day-Camps or a URJ Day Camps page? DMacks 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Camps are usually businesses, so WP:CORP would apply, but this appears to be clearly part of a religious organization, so WP:ORG might apply instead. The article has no evidence or assertion of meeting either standard, so delete. GRBerry 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry. JoshuaZ 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- GRBerry 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN biz. Not even a school. No published works of any kind about this organization. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per User:DMacks and the precedent cited. We recently decided to have a single section on Reform camps in URJ#Camps rather than having articles on them individually. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to apply that precedent here. Although this camp is operated by a Reform congregation rather than URJ itself, there's no reason not to have another section in URJ#Camps on synagogue-operated Reform camps consistent with the format (which could also indicate the congregation operating them, location, size, other very brief information). If this camp is notable it can get a brief paragraph in addition to a mention in the list. --Shirahadasha 04:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Summer camps are generally not notable! Vegaswikian 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more evidence can be found to suppoert noteability -m Blood red sandman 15:04, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reset button technique[edit]

Seems like a fan-made neologism. No sources cited. Googling returns less than 30 unique results [15]. Most Ghits are mirrors or the occasional unrelated message board post. Delete as unverifiable and as original research. Wickethewok 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete [16] seems to mention it but its reliability is in question. The phenomenon is never called "reset button technique", just "reset button", but that article was already taken, so the creator must have used this as the alternate title. ColourBurst 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought about that too, but my understanding is that the two terms are different. Reboot is used to purge all continuity away (like Heroes Reborn in Marvel Comics). Reset Button only wipes away the continuity of a single episode or segment, like some science-fiction shows. ColourBurst 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term itself may turn out to be a neologism but the concept is clearly real enough, with a dozen or so examples already cited by the article. It looks to me like all it needs are some references (ie, web links could be found for the aforementioned examples of the concept), and possibly a better title, and it'd be fine. --Saucepan 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The phenomenon is real, and I have no doubt there are proper sources out there to document it. The writers/maintainers of this article ought to be given a chance to find them. Rohirok 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but rewrite and move. We should have an article about the "reset button" type of plots, but it shouldn't contain sentences like "Effective use of this device depends on the audience being unaware of the continuity status, or successful suspension of disbelief that continuity is or will be interrupted, and the eventual communication of the status of continuity to the audience." Chunks of this article are blatant essay/OR. I say keep for the topic, but don't keep the article as is. Also, it should probably be titled Reset button (plot) because it's not really a technique so much as a plot device. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to more appropriate name, and retain. This is a pretty widely used term, not only by fans but by critics. Sources should be sought to improve the quality, but that could be said for 90% of articles. I oppose merging with reboot (continuity) which is an entirely different concept. Espresso Addict 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think literary criticism can do better than 'reset button technique'. See no evidence of notability.-Kmaguir1 09:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What notability standard are you applying? Also, notability is just a guideline for ensuring verifiability. This is definitely verifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More certifiable than verifiable, the article has only 30 google hits, is a dumbed down pseudo-literary critical term. And if notability and verifiability were not distinct to some degree, then the speck of dust on my F7 key could be placed on wikipedia as long as I had a couple of friends over at the house who had seen it.-Kmaguir1 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used term when discussing television series, comic books, and science fiction in particular. 23skidoo 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A certain Keep. This is a common enough term; used on 'TV Tropes' as standard, uncontested term, referred to in bestselling 'Planet Simpson', and while there are few hits for the string 'reset button technique', a significant proportion of the hits for 'reset button' refer to this phenomenon - it is simply that the word 'technique' is not normally applied. As an example, there are 43,600 google hits for ""reset button" trek", virtually all of which refer to the technique in the context of star trek, a regular offender. As for 'dumbed-down', such a label speaks of an artificial barrier between high culture and pop culture, which is quite against the principles of Wikipedia. I would counsel moving to reset button (narratology) or reset button (plot device). Matthew Platts 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Reset button" is very common to describe cheats made by shows to maintain episodic structure. I have heard it many times before seeing it on Wikipedia. The lack of Google results is probably from searching the whole term "reset button technique". Eleland 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a real phenomenon that is widely used Yuckfoo 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Me likee! 203.153.230.101 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, if the other articles ever exist in the future, they can be placed here --- Deville (Talk) 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportfolio[edit]

Neologism. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Replace There is a British sports magazine by this name, which may deserve an article. Also, I found a number of hits on prominent English newspapers using the term to refer to a professional photographer's portfolio of photos of athletes. A page mentioning those things would be fine. The existing page is nonsense. Uucp 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or replace per above. Apparently it's also a computer bag made by Apple. --Wafulz 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:17, 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; there not really even anything to merge which is not now contained in glassing --- Deville (Talk) 04:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle knife[edit]

Neologism; Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a how-to guide. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism that fails WP:V ... my Grandmother used to call these something else... WilyD 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find no sources that call these either bottle knives or beer knives (The article cites no sources at all and so is no help.), and we already have an article on glassing, which is what this article is actually about and which is something that can be verified. This is an unverifiable name for something that we already have a proper article on. If it were verifiable, I'd opt for redirection. Delete. Uncle G 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to glassing. Artw 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it says things I didn't know. FairHair 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • bottle knife is a southern and south western united states term for glassing. a redirect or merge or some combination would be a good idea. Sources are hard to come by for things like this, asking a bar tender at a rowdy local bar is probably the closest someone can come to a source. Coffeetable
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as immensely silly if nothing else - Blood red sandman 15:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year 200X[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. While interviews are up, one is from what is essentially a blog and the Nintendo Power mention is most likely a passing mention, not a full article with the band as the subject. So in essence there's no notability asserted. ColourBurst 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I am a member of this band. When I put this page up, I had yet to read the band policies. I would like to note that the Nintendo Power article was, in fact, a full article with the band as the subject. It was accompanied by a full interview which was posted on NintendoPower.com. The band has also been the subject of other interviews, which I can post. We have an upcoming full-lenght album, which has yet to be recorded. However, I would be wrong not to admit that we still would not completely meet one of the criteria for addition. That being said, if this entry is deleted, I would wait until we did match a criterium before re-listing. MindPollution 7:39, 1 September 2006
  • Delete. Maybe when this album that the article says they are "currently writing and rehearsing" comes out, they'll become encyclopedicly notable (if it is successful). But right now that's not the case. Zaxem 05:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't yet meet WP:BAND, but welcome back when it does. --Satori Son 15:35, 7 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 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebiz.Com Pvt Ltd[edit]

nn company. [[User:Ponu|pune ] 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Palffy 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Seems no more notable than any other pyramid scheme site. (Any site promising "Financial Freedom" is usually a dead giveaway.) Fan-1967 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. Melchoir 04:21, 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 A8 by User:RHaworth. ColourBurst 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetMonastery Network Security (P) Ltd.[edit]

nn company. Ponu 14:02, 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 Speedily deleted a1, a3, only content was "More is comming soon". NawlinWiki 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSP.NET[edit]

nn website or company. Ponu 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, there's no content in the article. ColourBurst 14:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per ColourBurst. --Palffy 14:45, 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 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light publishing[edit]

nn company. Ponu 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Palffy 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the scores of small publishers from around the world. Their website has an Alexa ranking of 1,913,048. Not much impressive inbound links. A sample of Amazon.com listings didn't yield any bestsellers. (And no having books on Amazon isn't notable.) - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 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 merge. I'm just cutting and pasting the whole article into the "defunct shows" section, because the instructions as to what to do require too much admin effort, which is why this AfD has been open for a week past the normal closing time. Anyone wants it another way, {{sofixit}}. Mangojuicetalk 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Past Programs Broadcast by Associated Broadcasting Company[edit]

WP:NOT. Ponu 14:07, 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 merge to SAGE KE. - Bobet 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouroboros (weblog)[edit]

Blog formed in August 2006, this month. Hard to believe it has become notable in such a short time. Punctured Bicycle 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no Alexa ranking (unsurprisingly). NawlinWiki 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please specify violation of Wikipedia terms of use, ideally with a link to the specific guideline. (I am the article originator; as I'm just getting started on Wikipedia, I'd like to avoid starting articles that are in any way inappropriate, so that's not a rhetorical request; your help and advice very much appreciated.) It's not clear from the deletion policy that either broad influence or Alexa rank of the subject is a criterion for maintenance of such an article. Subject is a website similar to & descended from a now-defunct website (SAGE KE) that had major influence within a specialized field and continues to have a Wikipedia entry. As with SAGE KE, Ouroboros enjoys wide readership within its field. Minor correction to nom: subject site originated in July 2006. Mycophage 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First look at WP:WEB, which is a guideline for web content. I suspect SAGE KE has a Wikipedia article because it was created by the AAAS, but I'm not sure. ColourBurst 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for this, that's just what I was looking for. I was unaware of this document when I initiated the article. Mycophage 03:54, 1 September 2006
    • Comment: If the facts are as you describe them here, Mycophage (that the weblog is a continuation of a notable website) then I'd suggest that the appropriate thing to do would be to merge the information from Ouroboros (weblog) to SAGE KE under an appropriate new section header, and then redirect the Ouroboros article to point to the SAGE KE article. Right now, assuming that the Ouroboros weblog is notable just because it's the successor to an existing notable website is crystal-balling, but it's certainly part of the history of that website. And if at some future point, the weblog can be said without hesitation to be notable in its own right, the information can be spun out from the website's article again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, having had a chance to look at the weblog in question, it seems to me that it's stretching the truth to say that it's "descended from" SAGE KE. From thefirst post it looks like this is a new weblog, created by someone who was not associated with SAGE KE but a reader of it. I'm afraid that so far there's no evidence to suggest that this is even a notable development in the history of SAGE KE. Weak delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge into SAGE KE. This does not merit an article until it establishes its own notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Smerge"? I'm unfamiliar with that term. What does it mean? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It is short for speedy merge. ColourBurst 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Smerge After reading the web content guidelines, it's clear to me that independent noteworthiness is important for a free-standing entry for a web site, so I would tend to agree. Or just delete; if the site ever does become as impactful as SAGE KE then some future inspired fan will re-initiate :-) Mycophage 03:56, 1 September 2006
  • Comment If the site originated in July 2006 then the article is factually inaccurate. Punctured Bicycle 06:06, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamparding[edit]

This article was prodded, but User:Dutchkop wrote a reason for keeping on the article (much like is sometimes seen with hangon). I'm interpreting this as a deprod attempt and listing it here. The original prod reason was 'protologism' (by User:RHaworth), and the 'deprod' reason was 'I feel that this reason is not a good reason to delete this creation on Wikipedia. As PROTOLOGISM is itself a new word (only created a month ago) and LAMPARDING has been referenced to a valid news media article and needs time and debate before it can be deleted.' (by User:Dutchkop). Procedural nomination, no vote. --ais523 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That argument is wrong on at least one point: "protologism" has been around for over a year and a half.

    The article purports to name a play in football. The football club magazine article that it cites is the sole association of this name with this specific play that appears to exist anywhere, and one of only 3 occurrences of this protologism that I can find. This is not something that has demonstrably entered the corpus of human knowledge. original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Second use reference of the word has been added and further examples of use of the word at the FIFA World Cup in 2006.
  • Delete. Neologism, only coined today apparently. Batmanand | Talk 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism with no citation of reliable sources about the term, as required by WP:NEO. GRBerry 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This article should be deleted on the basis of Protolgism as it has been in use since 16/10/04 as referenced in the article itself. The word "Lamparding" has been commmonly used by football fans of the Premiership since this point.The Grinch 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Liverpool FC website isn't really a fair source for Chelsea FC players.
  • Delete not enough sources, not high-enough quality sources. Melchoir 04:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The association between Lampard and scoring via deflections is well known throughout English football, it was only a matter of time before a term such as 'Lamparding' would come into common 'footie' parlance. Also the use of the players name in such an instance has precedence in such cases e.g. The Ossie Ardiles flick or the Cruyff turn. Gerrardsitchyear 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The term now has a second reference point [19] along with a second (and less demeaning meaning) "thinking outside the box" freddies_dead
  • Do Not Delete The term is in common use in the English Language, and within the English media. There is no basis for removal and is a specific reference77,78,81,84,05 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete There is also further precedence in the term "Pele Kick" which is the over head or "bicycle kick" The Grinch 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: A person is entitled to his thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.174.124 (talk) .

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe de Oliveira[edit]

Does not meet WP:V Nv8200p talk 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A google search for "Felipe de Oliveira" and the word skate returns 157 results. Only one of these (the third result down) appears to be relevant. It contains very little information about Oliveira. Google news shows no results. While this one sentence article is verifiable through this single relevant source, I am of the strong impression that Oliveira is not notable per WP:BIO. Srose (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable...insufficiently sourced. Anlace 22:20, 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 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Akiyama (programmer)[edit]

No inidication of notability, simply being a game programmer doesn't merit an entry — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Palffy 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He certainly worked on some massively notable games, but other than that there doesn't seem to be much more than can be (verifiably) said. It's a little tricky googling him since there's a wrestler of the same name, but "Jun Akiyama" +squaresoft brings 183 unique hits, and all the ones I checked were production credits lists for various games. Final Fantasy is an enormous and dedicated fandom, and every minute element of the series has been carefully detailed and examined... thus, the fact that no substantial information about Jun Akiyama seems to exist suggests that he's outside the interest level of even the obsessive fans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May merit a mention in another article, but does not meet WP:BIO as currently written. - Wickning1 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't logged in.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paxtakor Toshkent[edit]

Improper spelling of the club name and one with the correct spelling already exists (see FC Pakhtakor Tashkent). Palffy 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as likely misspelling (or delete). studerby 15:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have simply redirected this rather than nominating it for deletion, but as we're here, might as well Delete it as it's unlikely anyone will ever mispell it just that way. --Xyzzyplugh 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Robotforaday 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, at least 500 Google hits excluding Wikipedia, and amongst them the respected RSSSF, would qualify this as a likely misspelling (or perhaps an alternative spelling). – Elisson • Talk 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - a Google search suggests it is a common spelling used on sites other than WP. Qwghlm 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per User:Johan Elisson's argument. Poulsen 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Johan Elisson. --Pkchan 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Johan Elisson. -- Alias Flood 02:04, 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 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-Chief (novel)[edit]

Non-notable book, probably a vanity book, ZERO Google hits — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Google hits... Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I have no proof, I think this article is a fake. You get like 6 hits if you Google this guy's name, and the book generates none. It could be non-notable, but most books generate at least a good deal of hits. --Nishkid64 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author yields 6 Ghits none of which belong to a publisher. Book isn't on Amazon or any other online bookstore. A worldwide bookfinder4u.com search for out of print books yields a poetry collection by an author with the same name. No mention of this book at all. - Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I should have mentioned that it was never published in English and probably will not be. The Russian name for the book is Главнокомандующий (Glavnokomanduyuschiy), which in English means "Commander-in-Chief". The writer's name in Russian is Николай Гуданец. Here is a website about the book: http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/157967/. It is in Russian, but you can use Babelfish or some other translator to try to read it (won't be perfect, but at least it's something). User:ChronoLegion 31 August 2006
    • Still Delete: Well, it might be something for the Russian Wikipedia, but not this one. We can't read Russian (well, at least I can't) and until we can verify it, I say it should go. Just my opinion, of course. But if the book was successful enough, it'd make a splash in the media (and be translated into other languages), which it hasn't. I can't think that this is but a small, self-published book by a fan of the game. If it does survive this voting, the information that it is only in Russian should be added to the article (you can still edit the article while it's being voted on, just don't remove the deletion notice). — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For everyone's reference, here is the "translated" description of the text (if you know Russian, please feel free to tidy it up):
"Aliens appeared on the Earth suddenly. They did not start any negotiations, they offered no terms, they simply converted our planet into their hunting reservation, in which the the game are innocent people. Certainly, humanity did not want to be subdued to this lot. Only one person can command the defense of this planet - Russian General Berezin. The commander-in-chief. But even he has trouble figuring out where the main enemy is hiding... In the novel, written in the best traditions of science fiction, Nikolai Gudanets succeeded with luster in showing his inherent craftsmanship and fantasy."
    • The book sold 13000 copies (ISBN 5-04-088141-X). While this is by far not a bestseller, I seriously doubt the writer simply wanted to write fan fiction. As mentioned previously, the novel is loosely based on the game. He simply decided to borrow a few elements from the game (e.g. Elerium, hovertanks, plasma vs. lasers). Besides that, the story is quite original. The reason it is probably not translated into English is because they may have wanted to avoid any possible lawsuits from whoever owns the X-Com brand. User:ChronoLegion 31 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tillmann[edit]

Apparent hoax. See article talk for research and reasoning. Creating user notified. studerby 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax per analysis on talk page, good catch! NawlinWiki 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it wasn't a hoax (though it likely is), the person isn't notable. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:V at the very least. Yomanganitalk 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for out-of-print books also didn't yield any relevant results. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just thought I'd note that this exact article has been speedied before. KOS | talk 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thought I'd add though that according to Russian article on Mafia that there was someone named John Tillmann that did have a run-in with a mobster in Moscow back in the 1990s, could it be the same person?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce[edit]

I prodded this article as short, non-notable and not likely to be expanded. But then it got deprodded with the claim we need note that we normally keep all colleges and universities recorded. Im not going to get into that argument but if thats the basis for keeping this article then there should be twice as many articles here on WP then there actually is! Basically the article is tiny and fairly useless as it simply lists the name of the college and location - something that is easily taken care of in a list of such colleges (someything I personally would approve); here it is just taking up space. As to expanding it? Well the college website and various google results give no info on it's history, scale or size, rather it is a lot of POV advertising for next years courses - good for the college site but no good for us. I am all in favour of recording the existence of colleges like this but in this form - as loads of short useless articles - it is very clunky, I doubt many people will find this. Instead there should be a list of all these colleges (with the notable ones getting their own articles) and if someone does that great! For now I really feel this is article is uneeded and should be deleted Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is a stub is not a criterion for deletion, rather a criterion for expansion. WilyD 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above does not accurately represent my stated deprod. I said that "we normally keep all colleges", not that we need them. PROD is for non-controversial deletions, and since we normally keep all colleges, deleting one is controversial and unsuitable for prod. I did this as part of my daily PROD patrol. I have not yet formed an opinion as to this article, nor am I likely to until I do my daily AFD patrol for today's noms tomorrow. GRBerry 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- GRBerry 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It hasn't been expanded since April, meaning the author has no intention of adding more to it. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not criteria for deletion, especially considering articles are hardly ever edited by one person alone. --Wafulz 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It is a college of teritary education, and that by itself makes it notable. School notability guideline. It's also listed in by the University Grant Commission [20] which accredits colleges and universities in India. A cleanup or stub notice is not sufficient grounds for deletion. And why is the article unneeded? Having a cleanup tag instead of a getting it deleted will attract more people to improve on the page. We're aren't running out of space that we should delete stuff as the nom claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp. Batmanand | Talk 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 3rd level is intrinsically notable Dlyons493 Talk 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment out of interest (and in no way a dig at all your opinions) but how is listing the name and address (essentially) of a college like this in a seperate article is to me pretty pointless. I am not against stubs they are highly useful but to expand this requires someone with first hand local knowledge and sources - I cant do it over the net (or I would have instead of proding it in the first place). SO how is this article useful to the encylopedia. The only use it has is for someone looking for colleges in that region of India and even then they would have to look through the categories to find it - how many people do that! It wont appear in a search for something like colleges in india. Instead for now whay cant its name and location just reside in List of universities in India until the article can be created with some meaningful content. At the moment it is simply a dead end... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, like many stubs, it's not all that valuable. But that's not a criterion for deletion. If you're making lumber, you don't smash all your acorns because they can't be used to build coffee tables ... WilyD 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp. _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge This is a college within the University of Delhi. This makes it a portion of a university. As it has no meaningful content, in my eyes, it can just be smerged to University of Delhi#Colleges under the University of Delhi. That may someday get big enough to need sub-articles, but right now it is predominantly a collection of redlinks. GRBerry 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge, I would support that merge then. You see it wasnt even clear from that stub this was the case! A merge keeps the content without having this stub hanging around :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging is not the solution. You must be aware that an article of this nature would attract contributors are causal anon contributors. By deleting the page (based on lack of information), you are actually preventing them from recreating an article. By leaving it in a 'cleanup' state, you're inviting them to improve the page. I also smell a systemic bias here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias? Come again? You mean negatively against the article? hmmm. I do sort of see where your coming from now :D Although I still dont see what meaningful content can be got from this article even if it is added to. I see your point about casual contribuotrs and I also agree (hving looked again at that list page) that merging is a worse option :D. I still think that this would be better under a general article about the dehli colleges. There are a few good articles there, Delhi College of Engineering foir instance, but that is a much larger (from what I can gather from vaious sites - mostly the colleges sites) and has been running longer. I cannot find any info about the history or makeup of the commerce college at all! IMO the they should all get a section on a page called Colleges under the university of Dehli with the smaller colleges (such as this) just getting a section of those few paragraphs and the larger ones getting a short section and a link to a main article about it. In that case leaving this current page as a redirect so people know it is there would be a good option!!!!
    Yes, a little negatively biased against the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some additional information on how to prevent this. At this moment, extra meaningful content may not be present, but does it mean that it can't exist as a standalone article? There could be many reasons why GSCoC attracts less attention here than Delhi College of Engineering. Some possible answers to this are: 1. What are the number of contributors from Delhi who can expand on this? 2. What about the nature of contributions coming from these users? There may be a few thousands, but they need not contribute to the educational domain or their alma maters. (I have never contributed to mine) They may perhaps focus on topics as diverse as chess, cryptography, Islamic architecture, or oceans. 2. Assuming that a former or present student/staff of the college has contributed to the article, the question to be asked is: What is the level of tech savyness from the college? Most contributions in wikipedia come from people who have 24x7 access to the internet. Thus, in many places across the world, engineering colleges are likely to produce more wikieditors than a humanities-oriented college (something like this is mentioned in WP:CSB). Lastly, I'm not sure why it is called for merging the article into the university article. Many universities in metropolitan cities in India have several hundred colleges affiliated to them which actually take care of enrollment. The function of the university in this case is to set the syllabus, exam paper, and award the degree. The college does the rest of the work: enrollment, lower level paper correction, teaching, fees etc. This may not be the case in many parts of the world, so that's why I have raised the suspicion of being a little systemic biased. And Tmorton166, it's ok to vacillate, that is a natural process during a discussion. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was the first to suggest merge, I feel I should chime in. I hope realizing that I also removed the prod will address some of the concern about bias. I do think that the article is currently of poor quality; here [21] is the form it was in when I deprodded - it was a sub-stub then. As now slightly expanded, it might rise to the stub level. But there isn't anything there that couldn't work in a table with columns like degrees, founded, student size, staff size, etc... That the college is currently adding a building isn't really encyclopedic content; given the way India's economy has been going I expect most business and technology schools are expanding. To contrast the article the business school at my alma-mater, and one that I can see part of the campus of if I walk to the window, look at MIT Sloan School of Management. That is a very good college article, which I'd never bothered to look at before writing this comment. If you go to the university article Massachusetts Institute of Technology#MIT schools, you'll see that only 2 of 6 schools have an article, as well as 3 of 30 departments. (I don't know which is the better comparison.) The merge I proposed, if the merged target carried out, would leave the various colleges of the University of Delhi with more comprehensive coverage than the schools of the university that is both closest to me and my alma-mater. Systemic bias isn't the issue, an article that isn't worth keeping is the issue. GRBerry 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it doesnt hapen like that in the UK, but I did get the gist of that from the article. I would refute that I have systematic bias. I regularly write for Wikinews (as an IP for several months and as a username for the last week) averaging around 2 articles a day on topics across the world- systematic bias is something I have learned to avoid from that :D :D I still dont feel this college can have alot of notable content for the moment. Perhaps deleting it is a tad strong but I do like the idea of a page (seperate from the university page itself) with all the colleges getting a short subsection. Then the college names redirectin to that. Of course the colleges with already larger article could get their own page and just short 'intro' on the lists page. The name Colleges under the university of Dehli is really just an identifier and a way to group them all together. That way we get more meaningful content in one place (what oif someone wants to compare colleges for example) with the ability to fork any information away from the 'main article' if it becomes of meaningful length. I realise this isn't technically normal policy but I think it would make it all look cleaner and friendlier to someone who is here to read WP as an Encyclopedia (something i thin k us regualtr editors dont consider often enough!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending adding of facts/sources Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nichalp -- Lost(talk) 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Tertiary institution. Piccadilly 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per GRBerry. Hornplease 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Then anyone can expand or merge as needed. --Usgnus 17:54, 4 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. --- Deville (Talk) 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Leep[edit]

Comment to whoever closes this: nominator (CEIF) and one voter (WEVZ) are blocked for being socks of Spotteddogsdotorg --CFIF ☎ 12:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article does not contain enough biographical info about Roy Leap. Thus the article MUST be expanded with valid information, or else it will go in the wikitrash. Wslupecki 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Article does not assert notablily of subject other than saying "Leep was well known in the Tampa Bay area" and that is it, other than a mention that he was weatherman for a TV station there, something that isn't all that notable. If he played a part in the history of the television station, a few lines on the WTVT page are due him, but he is not worthy of his own article. CEIF © 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge Yet another unencylopedic article about a TV weatherman from CFIF. The article doesn't establish the person's notablity and a Google search reveals most of the links are to the TV station's website or some obsessive fan sites about WTVT's good old days. WEVZ 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article says he's notable in Tampa Bay, but being notable in one city is not the same as being notable nationwide. Only ~500 hits on Google, as well. --Nishkid64 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the TV station article, if there is one. If not, Delete. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The TV station article does not have a separate biography section on all of its past and present employees. There's just a section with names of former TV station personalities. --Nishkid64 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously not a notable person. There is more to the world than the sleepy American backwater of Tampa, Florida, and that greater world knows or cares little about this little forecasting peon of a television weather presenter. It isn't like he is Michael Fish. Leep doesn't even seem to have done anything of note, unlike Shefali Oza. This article should take a flying 'leep' into deletion. Lost Knob 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn`t done anything of note my ass....his weather team had the first radar used for weather..not something Shefali Oza did. Tampa, Florida is not a sleepy american backwater, but as usual, you troll and do absolutely no research. --CFIF ☎ 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had the bloody misfortune to spend a month in Tampa for a fortnight. Lost Knob 02:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Moland Spring 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not establish notability and has no national television exposure, unlike meterologists like Jeff Berardelli, Al Roker, or Tom Skilling. If, and only if, he made any significant contrbution to the history of the station, he should get a 'graph on the station's page. TV Newser 12:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article put up for deletion ONLY for the purpose of trolling and stalking. Certain users have been following me and deleting every single article that I have worked on. --CFIF ☎ 13:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please and relist later too many incidents of sockpuppets here so discussion is tainted Yuckfoo 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CFIF. There is ample claim to notability here, coupled with what now appears to have been a bad faith nomination. Abort and retry again later if need be. RFerreira 23:07, 7 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 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General ATM[edit]

Looks essentially like advertising to me. PrimroseGuy 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsouced apparent SPAM WilyD 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite and expand in an encyclopediac way. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like advertising and not notable per WP:CORP Zephyr2k 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. --Nishkid64 16:25, 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 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballrush[edit]

WP:NOT for things made up on the school playground; author removed prod tag without improving article. NawlinWiki 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and violates WP:V as there are no reliable sources on this. --Xyzzyplugh 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, it's Roofball without the roof. Yomanganitalk 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Demiurge 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such games are rarely, if ever, noteable. - Blood red sandman 15:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elegal (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation page serves no purpose, as there is nothing to disambiguate between. Wikipedia has no articles on any of the topics listed. Instead, this contains links to various webpages which use the word Elegal. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Xyzzyplugh 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, looking at the history of this thing (it started as Elegal, and contained nothing much but a link to a blog), this was created purely to advertise a non-notable blog. --Xyzzyplugh 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (love the "misspelling of the word illegal" though). Yomanganitalk 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and take the redirect page Elegal with it too. Nothing else but the AFD process pages link to it. GRBerry 00:38, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Zizmor[edit]

Not notable. Only claim to fame are ads in the New York City Subway. CEIF © 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Looking beyond the subway advertisements, he wrote a few books and seemed to be known well enough to have 4,000+ ghits. Zephyr2k 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to that. According to his website he was featured in Harper's Bazaar and The New Yorker, both very notable magazines and likely to be verifiable from a more independant source. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insipidly weak Keep. Despite his books and his advertisements, he achieves remarkably low score of 305 unique out of 4140Ghits. The Gothamist described him as "the only dermatologist New Yorkers know by name if only because of his subway ads". Does appear sufficient to pas WP:BIO for name recognition in the nation's financial centre. Although he has written a number of books, many have no rank per Amazon. Those which are, however, do not even tickle the 2 millionth mark. His website has no Alexa rank. He may have achieved greater notoriety by having been charged with fraud, and having also been fined and put on probation for lack of due care. Ohconfucius 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Among other thngs, he was featured in a PBS documentary about quirky people in New York, plus I see his ugly mug on the IRT every day. TV Newser 13:22, 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. G7 page was created by a nomination with history open. – Avi 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day - History[edit]

Was prodded and removed. Possible hoax, seemingly not notable, is this something enyclopedic? Looks more like a back-door advertising gimmick Avi 16:01, 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, CSD:A6 attack page. – Avi 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Kesting[edit]

Complete rubbish Alex (talk here) 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an article made only to serve as an attack page. Srose (talk) 16:04, 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. I don't like "Sweetest Day" either, though. DS 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day[edit]

Was prodded and removed. Possible hoax, seemingly not notable, is this something enyclopedic? Looks more like a back-door advertising gimmick Avi 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A google seach returns over a half million results. Many of these are reliable, albeit dedicated solely to romantic topics. I once sent a Sweetest Day card. It's a "Hallmark holiday" but in midwestern states it does bring in a lot of revenue in for flower, candy and card shops. I'd say that makes it notable, if only for the economic benefits for certain industries. It may also be notable for the controversy surrounding it. I wouldn't oppose a merge into Hallmark holiday. Srose (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of sources on this, it's apparently a minor holiday being pushed by various greeting card and candy companies. --Xyzzyplugh 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the hoax tag to the article because the Herbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of Sweetest Day is a hoax in my opinion. Primary source information from The Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper published October 8th, 1921 and October 8th, 1922 shows a very different beginning to the holiday. Here is a more factual account of how Sweetest Day began: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612 . (I realize that this version needs further editing/removal of caps/formatting) I do not believe the category of Sweetest Day should be deleted; it should just be reported for what it is: an 85-year-old hoax. Miracleimpulse 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I agree with your hoax tag. There is a difference between "hoax" and "popular mythology". The popular mythology of the day is that Kingston created it as day to honor orphans and shut-ins... and that version of events has been widely reported. This should be in the article (see WP:V verifiability not truth). If there is an alternate version of events that can be sourced (i.e. the Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper article, this could be included as well as an alternate, sourced, version of events. The article space is big enough for both versions without making any judgements as to which is true.--Isotope23 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:V and yes... this is real. It's a "second Valentine's Day in the fall" celebrated in 4 midwestern states, and it is fairly prevalent there (as are the allegations that this is a "Hallmark Holiday"). Midwesterners are strange folk.--Isotope23 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being from Illinois, I can tell you that Sweetest Day was never heard of before about 1989 when Hallmark began marketing Sweetest Day cards here. Miracleimpulse 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweetest Day is documented in Maud Lavin, ed. (2004-10-04). The Business of Holidays. Monacelli. ISBN 1580931502., in Scott C. Martin (1997). "Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays". Journal of Social History. 31. (which describes it as "a ploy by the confection industry" as a reincarnation of Candy Day), and in Bennett Madison and James Dignan (2002-12-28). I Hate Valentine's Day. Simon Spotlight Entertainment. ISBN 0689873727. (which says that "Luckily, Sweetest Day has failed to attain the global stranglehold of the abhorrent Valentine's Day."). The main problem with this page is an accuracy dispute. Deletion is not the means for solving that. Keep. Uncle G 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a (semi) real holiday, albeit only in the Midwest. There are usually displays in Hallmark stores and radio ads for a week or two before Sweetest Day. This is where I first heard of it. --Transfinite 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having the article (esp. as it stands now) is not advertising for the candy and card industries. NawlinWiki 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've lived in 3 of the 4 states listed in the article, and I can attest to the fact that this is a real phenomenon (I hesitate to call it a "holiday," as it is a sick invention of the flower, candy and card industries--then again so are much of the practicies in the modern versions of Halloween, Valentine's Day and Christmas). It's a real fake holiday, so to speak. Rohirok 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an advertising gimmick, but then so are all the other Hallmark holidays that have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I live in Wisconsin, and i have accually celebrated this day. It is an emerging holiday here in the mid-wast, that seems to be getting more and more popular by the year. I've even seen the Holiday mentioned on calenders distributed widely through the US. The accuracy of this article, however, is debatable.
  • Keep I work at the Vermont Teddy Bear Company for a couple of holidays a year. Sweetest Day, while not their largest holiday, is at least big enough to hire on extra part time help to the tune of about 50-100 extra bodies. So it's known and has effects far outside just Wisconsin. Dismas|(talk) 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a nauseatingly successful Hallmark holiday here in the Midwest, and eminently verifiable. --dtony 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, it's a holiday is it? Is it religious? Nope. Is it official? Nope. Is it notable apart from that among a wide swatch of the population (Hallowe'en, Valentine's)???? Nope. NN.-Kmaguir1 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is demonstrably notable because it has been noted, by people independent of its creators (whomever one asserts them to be): 2 books and a journal article. See above. Uncle G 08:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, show me some wiki guidelines on holidays which say that a non-religious, non-official, non-notable holiday, and I mean this strictly--not just what has been mentioned--should be included. I wouldn't even have problems including fictional holidays, like "Festivus", from Seinfeld which I'm sure is on wikipedia, because that's notable, but its notability stems from the fact it was on Seinfeld, not from the fact it's a real holiday. I take the position that holidays, real holidays, not just those invented, as this one is, by corporations and without involvement from the people, at a religious or state level, must include celebration or commemoration--I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. If it were fictional, it'd be notable as a joke. But as real, it's about as notable as "Win a Hawaiian getaway week". A few pop culture references do not a holiday make--they may make something else. But as long as it's an entry whose purpose is presenting a holiday, delete. If they want to call it other than a holiday, they can add it back.-Kmaguir1 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Official?? Is there a governing body that I'm not aware of that presides over holidays? Dismas|(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take the position that holidays [...] must include celebration or commemoration — I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. — Then please read the article. It actually tells you how this holiday is celebrated or commemorated.

          A few pop culture references [...] — There are no pop culture references in the article.

          real holidays, not just those invented — Most of the holidays that you categorize as "real" were in fact invented. Many religious holidays, which you accept, were invented, for examples. They were just invented longer ago than 1921. All secular holidays, such as Arbor Day and Labor Day, are invented. Your espoused criterion that holidays must be "real" and not "invented" is an entirely faulty one. Your actual criterion appears to be who the inventor of the holiday is. You're happy to accept holidays invented by churches, legislatures, unions, and television programme scriptwriters, but not holidays invented by greetings cards and gift companies. That's a highly subjective judgement, and not a particularly consistent one (given the inclusions of scriptwriters and unions). Notability is not subjective. It is a failure of our duty as encyclopaedists to exclude things from Wikipedia that we personally don't like, or think shouldn't exist. As encyclopaedists, we should be looking at what the sources say. The sources discuss this holiday. Uncle G 10:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable and verified. Batmanand | Talk 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holiday is celebrated in Ohio. My parents say it was created by Hallmark to sell more cards. IS verifiable holiday.Trevor 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It isn't really "notable" or important, and I understand why many would just as soon not give it more publicity. Still, it exists as fakelore and a marketing phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed in Chase's Calendar of Events, a standard reference work on holidays and observances. Gamaliel 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists and is advertised plenty, I always hear about it that time of year. Nate 01:25, 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 06:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

goaste[edit]

Non-notable website, doesn't meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking of 4,000,000+, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet WP:V Xyzzyplugh 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and is a non-notable website. --Nishkid64 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that site meets WP:WEB. Once deleted, recreate as a redirect to goatse.cx as a plausible misspelling. --Kinu t/c 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Kinu. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am neither the creator nor a contributor to this article, but I am a fan of this website. One reason why the Alexa ranking may be so low is because more often than the goaste.cx link, people often link to the site using the original location (it is hosted at [22]), and people sometimes link there rather than to the shortened URL, due to some people misreading it as goatse.cx and choosing to not click it for that reason. Of course, this creates a problem, as typing davidguy.brinkster.net/goaste/ into Alexa provides traffic ranking for brinkster.net. Being such a big fan of the site I feel I would not be neutral or realistic in my vote. I can, however, offer that little piece of information regarding the Alexa rank, however useless it ultimately may have been. --Dreaded Walrus 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the reason for the low Alexa rank, it still fails WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:58, 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 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Minds: The Michael Enslow Project[edit]

An ad for a non-notable book. A "cult following" is claimed, yet the title receives only 5 ghits - four Wiki related and one ad. Lesser Minds: The Michael Enslow Project is apparently the only title published by Dancing Man Productions, a company with no website. A press release posted at www.transworld.com directs those interested to the author's website and email address. Victoriagirl 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KFP 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zephyr2k 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any store selling it. If he sells them himself, we don't have sales figures and claiming to be a upcoming novelist when you're not backed by an agent or publisher makes for a good bout of vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 09:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my nom. Victoriagirl 22:21, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving dimensions theory[edit]

Violates WP:OR, a google search reveals that "moving dimensions theory" is basically a neologism created by some physics cranks with no real, academic backing Batmanand | Talk 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For reference, here is a previous AfD. --209.171.52.224 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR as above, not to mention a direct cut and paste from http://www.gatago.com/sci/physics/2886563.html, and it sure smells a lot like bollocks Akradecki 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually the physicist who is proposing MDT is quite accomplished. Above an editor claims that MDT "smells a lot like bollocks." This is a highly qualitative opinion. MDT should be judged by its merits with arguments for or against based in logic and reason. I find no fault with MDT--in fact it succeeds where ST & LQG have failed. It presents an underlying physical model for QM & SR, based in logic and reason, verified experimentally. String theory has been shown to be a complete hoax, and yet it fills wikipedia with pages upon pages. ST should be deleted before MDT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Commment. (Having just reformatted your comment). You may want to read Wikipedia:Original research and explain to us why this page does not violate it. Batmanand | Talk 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a place to judge anything. It is a place to summarize information on subjects based on references to reliable 3rd party sources. WP is not a place for advancing original research or arguments for one theory or another. The 2 main problems with this article is 1) it does not cite its sources in an academically accepted manner 2) it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Theories, when not cited properly, can smell a lot like Bollocks, hence the need for careful citation!! Akradecki 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is not verified and I don't see any reliable sources for this. It seems to exist largely on forums.--Isotope23 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who did Einstein cite in his original paper on Relativity? String Theory has thousands of citations, and yet it is "not even wrong." Mobs and group-think does not a theory make. Truth and Beauty make a theory, and that is what MDT has. Although ST is funded by billions upon billions, MDT rocks the world with its simple postulate. Having said this, I understand that MDT may yet be deleted. But understand this has nothing to do with the integrity of the theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please only state Keep or Delete once.--Isotope23 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this quote from WP:OR applies pretty well.
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia --Wafulz 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moving Dimensions Theory, like wikipedia, happened because of the internet. It has been read by thousands over the past ten years, and the record will show that never once has its logic nor beauty been refuted. It was born upon the internet, and unlike the cloistered, well-funded, secret-society hoax that is string theory, it stands on its own. Sure, we could delete this article on MDT because string theorists don't want to share their massive funding, but then perhaps we should delete all of wikipedia and stick with professional encyclopedias such as Britanica and Encarta. I say let logic, reason, free thought, the internet and physics triumph over cloistered, antiquated, postmodern hoaxes. Let wikipedia reach its heights in helping to disseminate truth and beauty, while deconstructing intellectual debauchery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs)
Note editor's fourth ever contribution. Batmanand | Talk 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note identifying an author by their IP means that everyone now as a unqiue ip, even though most websites don't. It also means a total of three people use AOL.
I say we offer the author a chance to link to sources--I have seens several and I will help. String Theory, although it is now shown to be a postmodern hoax, has plenty of "sources," and yet it is a hoax. String Theory is original research, and not only that, but it is a proven lie as new books this fall and articles in Time, Scientific American, and Discover are attesting. Again, ultimately we must judge a theory on its truth and beauty, not on how hip tax and tuition funded pomo hipsters think it is, or we will be forever sentencing Socrates to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs)
I just helped the author out by listing some references and sources. There are thousands of them. The author should be given the chance to post more resources too, as without the vast amouts of NSF funding that String Theorists use to hire grad students and postdocs to pen fake papers, it seems the author has to rely on logic and reason instead of tax-and-tuition-funded hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.188.139 (talk • contribs)
None of the sources are reliable. Batmanand | Talk 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you quite understand what we mean by "sources". We're not looking for general websites that might mention MDT (or sell T-shirts). We're looking for reliable references and citations regarding the tenents of the theory. This isn't the place to propound the theory itself, it's the place to write about the theory, describe who developed it, the history, and a brief overview. All of these must reference external sources that are reliable, preferrably mainstream sources of the information that you include here. It is preferred, too, that you document these sources by useing the <ref>text</ref> footnote format within the body of the text, so that a reader who wants to verify the legitimacy of a statement within the text can jump to that statement's source. That's what an encyclopedia entry should look like. Akradecki 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of our original research policy. And I fully support Wafulz's comment. We're not trying to be mean, it's just not the right venue to publish this particular piece fo writing. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as MDT is rooted in logic, truth and bauty. The wikipedia page on string theory is filled with lies--it should be deleted first, otherwise wikipedia will come to be known as a place that values lies over truth. Just because a lot of people believe a lie, or the government has written checks to fund it, does not make the lie true. Wikipedia has a chance here to stand on the right side of time, to live up to its potential. By killing this article, you are killing the spirit of wikipedia, and the spirit of truth. String theory not only has failed, but it is now failing to fail. Once it lied, but now it doesn't even think it has to lie anymore. By killing MDT and keeping string theory, wikipedia will shout out to the universe that it prefers lies over truth. Go ahead. Make my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.242.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Note endorsement has been striken out as this is the 3rd time this user has entered this opinion. Looks like a bit of sockpuppetry going on here, too. Akradecki 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, Wikipedia values verifiability, not truth... which MDT does not have.--Isotope23 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Terribly written, and even if arguendo the topic is not generally original research, what is written is original research. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crankcruft. Gazpacho 18:45, 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 A6, attack page. NawlinWiki 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have killed people[edit]

Nominated for speedy, but not really within the criteria... nominating for deletion instead. bd2412 T 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - has Laura Bush killed anyone? Seems like an attack on her - which is why I speedied it. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I excised the Laura Bush entry as unverifiable. WilyD 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't redelete since it was restored, but I think my original speedy here was reasonable. delete in any case. Friday (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being used as an Wikipedia:Attack page against various celebs. Batmanand | Talk 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's so hard to express why I feel it should be deleted -but there's no special link between celebrity and killing people - is there a List of people who have killed people? WilyD 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It can't be that hard - you seem to have quite eloquently expressed why it should be deleted! Batmanand | Talk 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page. Broderick was involved in a fatal car crash almost 20 years ago. While details seem somewhat sketchy, he recieved only a small fine in court. Stretching that into saying he "killed people" sounds libellous to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus seems clear. Would someone other than me please re-delete this now? Friday (talk) 16:53, 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 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew E. Clairmont[edit]

Non-notable with one self-published book. Victoriagirl 16:44, 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. - Bobet 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Lee Clary[edit]

(also see discussion page)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Lee_Clary_%282nd_nomination%29

Let's leave aside for now the fact that this article was deleted by an AfD, despite heavy interference from its subject. Let's leave aside for now that after the article was deleted by due process, one of Clary's supporters tried to recreate the article under titles such as J L Clary, John Clary, and Johnny Clary. What makes it absolutely outrageous that this article exists is that this individual already has an article created by the same supporter who then created this one! The two articles even link to each other, Johnny Lee Clary and Johnny Angel (wrestler)! When I saw the attempt to promote Mr. Clary again, this time with an article focused on his career in pro wrestling, I thought it was pretty cheap, but I let it go. But now he's supposed to get two articles, when he and his supporters couldn't demonstrate enough notability in the first AfD for one article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Vote withdrawn due to improvements in article and sourcing and merger of redundant "Johnny Angel" article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4, recreated material. OK then, just plain Redirect to Johnny Angel (wrestler). NawlinWiki 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It turns out it did finally have a deletion review, found here, which was closed as "Recreation permitted; AfDing is left to normal editorial choice." However, I note that one of the arguments which was presented for reviewing the deletion was "'Johnny Lee Clary' which certainly only one such person exists, gets thousands of google hits." I have tried several times to Google Mr. Clary and I always get just 623 hits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is established by several newsworthy events with which he was involved. Former KKK leader, former WWF pro-wrestler, and current traveling preacher plus various interviews and news articles about him. Sufficient coverage to meet verifiability and incessant attempts to delete are annoying. Wjhonson 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misspelled "incessant attempts to create articles promoting Clary, a minority of said attempts actually employing legitimate methods." -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I get 646 total, 142 unique, hits in English, which to me says he's not as influential or notable as some would like to believe. Most of the hits seem to be blogs and forums and, interestingly, a lot of Australian sites. I can't really find anything that qualifies as Reliable Sources. To clarify the history, earlier versions were pretty much created by Clary himself, full of OR, POV and unverifiable personal claims. Author of this version appears to be unrelated, someone who heard Clary speak, felt he deserved an article, and launched the DRV. However, it seems the content is still overwhelmingly based on Clary's own claims. Fan-1967 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Are you claiming ABC is not a reliable source? Wjhonson 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, this ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (not the US ABC), and they interviewed him and let him tell his story, as did a number of other Australian news sources. (He seems to have done a better job of selling himself down under than he has in the US.) However, what these news reports all amount to is basically "Clary says that..." How much can be verified from a news report citing a source other than Johnny Lee Clary? Fan-1967 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is former head of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. That alone makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. His wrestling career is not notable enough to merit its own article. Johnny Angel (wrestler) ought to be deleted. Rohirok 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While notability in all areas is reasonably weak, I think that it's enough. We have a conversion story that's compelling enough to get coverage in numerous specialist (i.e. Christian) publications and on a couple of national TV shows, along with a pro-wrestling career (as unimpressive as it may be). While I might have thought each one just missed the mark on its own, when there are a combinations of factors for notability I don't think individual ones need to be as strong. WP:Bio is a non-comprehensive guideline. The article needs major clean up though. Both of the current ones read like press releases. --SiobhanHansa 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge wrestler article into it, as a section. --Uncle Ed 20:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect anything worthwhile from Johnny Angel (wrestler) into Johnny Lee Clary. Cleanup and keep the main article. By cleanup I mean remove the WP:POV and WP:OR as SiobhanHansa has already started to do. Gwernol 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poorly sourced, but I get plenty of news articles from three continents, 125 on Newsbank, multiple of which are "Former KKK dude turns minister" portraits. The wrestler article has to go though. ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Don't Merge If the argument is about Clary being notable, then please consider these things three things: See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary (2nd nomination)
Can I suggest that those who have voted claiming that he is not notable if you could read the talk page and then re-comment! Potters house 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-comment I see nothing really to change my opinion that Clary is very good at promoting himself, but the lack of external sources is still a huge problem. Fan-1967 14:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Oprah, Donahue, and the many many other people listed in the Talk page are not good sources? What is a good source then?
Vrmarshall, please note this is a discussion, not a vote. Please let us know why the article should be kept. --SiobhanHansa 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Don't Merge Clary has plenty of references to prove he is notable ReaganRebel 10:09, August 31, 2006 ReaganRebel (talk · contribs)'s third edit.
  • Keep and merge per Gwernol. He seems to be generally just notable enough to me, but if Bob Dylan doesn't get a separate article for his conversion to Christianity (which I'm not advocating for, just observing) this guy certainly shouldn't. One article will suffice. Dina 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I said in the first AfD, anyone with this man's resume is noteable. The problem is vanity, not notability. If this gets deleted again, please salt the earth with {{deletedpage}} - Richardcavell 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "So good they named you twice" only applies to New York. If he's notable, he gets one article. If not, then none at all. As we're only debating one of the two articles written on him, my vote is delete. The content of the deleted article can be merged with the other per Dina. Somebody will then prune it to a size which matches [not] Johnny's ego :-) Ohconfucius 06:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems like a deletion bot see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ohconfucius Also - why the POV? Johnny's Ego has nothing to do with it. It is not a case of whether you like the man or not but an examination of fact - Is he notable? Yes! Why put delete if you really mean merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house (talk • contribs)
Haven't you gotten yourself in enough trouble making baseless and vicious allegations about other editors, Nick? Or do you think it's okay to make personal attacks on other editors, as long as suspiciously new users and anonymous editors show up suddenly in order to claim that they think you are right in your baseless and vicious allegations? -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Keep - it needs tidy up - but has some real metal - I don't even understand why it is up for deletion in the first place 220.233.86.223 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPIn Australia as well as in the USA Rev. Johnny Lee Clary is well known and has a very high profile in both countries. As I live in Australia and have seen Rev. clary on our national TV stations on many occasions, the last being on Andrew Denton's ABC TV Show which is viewed Nation Wide in Australia. Rev. Clary is also an ordained Minister in Christian Family Churches of Australia a national organisation.Hawkeyejd 09:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Hawkeyejd (talk · contribs)'s only edit.[reply]


  • KeepI've known OF Clary for years. It's not inappropriate in any way that he is listed. You would have to delete many others if you start here. 1 September 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritakaysinger (talk • contribs) Note First edit from brand new account.


  • Comment Okay, I added cats per Dennette and attempted to merge from Johnny Angel (wrestler) per several people. I think we should close this Afd and then Afd Johnny Angel (wrestler), especially as it appears to be a copyvio from [here]. Working on the wrestling credits, it appears to me that he was not an especially notable wrestler, but then again, what I don't know about pro wrestling could fill Wikipedia. I'd like it if someone who knows more about it gave the section a once over. The combined credits of ex-KKK, pro-wrestling preacher seem to fulfull WP:BIO for me. Still need more decent references though. Dina 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Dina's merge looks good. I turned Johnny Angel (wrestler) into a redirect. That preserves the GFDL-required history of revisions, while abiding by the "one man, one article" principle. Can we close this afd now? --Uncle Ed 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I posted a message to the wrestling project asking for someone to read over my section. The plethora of wrestling organizations and "world" titles in pro wrestling is pretty confusing to someone who doesn't follow it. Hopefully if I've made any errors, someone will find them. So let's close this Afd! Dina 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). Negligible Google presence, lack of reliable sources, strong evidence of a barrow being pushed. Any neutral published biographies we can cite? Guess not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 125 on Newsbank, as noted above. (Although there are quite a number of duplicates, so it porbably boils down to 30 articles net.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKeep Johnny Lee Clary in this wikipedia text. Cleanup and keep main article. User:Tstansell Note First edit from new user

  • Keep, merge and cleanup! as per Gwernol. Stop rigging the voting by asking friends to vote to keep the article (comment to whomever is doing this). This is a discussion based on arguments made in favor or against the AfD. The votes don't really matter if you're not going to say why you want to keep/delete the article. --Nishkid64 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His high ranking in the Klan coupled with the media attention he received (and still seems to receive) as a converted outspoken critic of Klan ideology and practices more than warrants an entry on him. As for hits - in some cases I don't think too much weight can be put on them in terms of determining someone's notoriety. I'm sure there's a lot of important composers and artists who get a similarly low number of hits, but those shouldn't go up for deletion. Deputy Marshall 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean it the hell up instead.  ALKIVAR™ 14:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content. No need to have two articles when one will do. --ScienceApologist 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has made the Australian press extensively. I think that is notable enough. MyNameIsNotBob 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the artical. I have known Johnny Lee most of my life. He has done the things that he says he has. I know his heart and he is out there trying to help people through the message of the love of Jesus Christ. I may be a nobody to most of you , but God knows my heart. KEEP the artical,its true!!I have videos of Johnny on all kinds of T.V. shows.Get over it, whats all the fuss about? Ask God yourself. I promise you he will answer you if youll stop and listen. from Leonard Kimble, Calif. — Friendofgods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The material from the second article on the same person, Johnny Angel (wrestler), has been merged into this article and redirected to this one as well. There are no longer two articles, which was what started this AfD in the first place. Will some administrator please close it? (It's attracting sockpuppets, fanboys, and trolls.) --Dennette 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well done now please put a lock on the redirect to prevent it from becoming a fork again. Ohconfucius 09:53, 4 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.
What a nutter eh?! Basket Feudalist 18:01, 31 March 2013 (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 Speedy Delete A8 by User:JesseW. ColourBurst 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Zpira[edit]

Body artist and modifier, nomadic performer and documentalist of the contemporary fringes. We have speedied this twice as vanity (at Lukas zpira) but a remark at User talk:Lavoice, the creator's talk page has touched a chord with me: isn't how it s work .. a wiki system . one people put what he know, another come on the top and add some more things etc. Note that this is Lavoice's first contrib so it may well be vanity. Also given Lavoice's voice on the talk page, the article is unlikely to be Lavoice's own words but a quick Google check does not give any hit for the text. -- RHaworth 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That source is a wiki which does not seem to know about copyright but I believe that the default is to assume "copyright all rights reserved". -- RHaworth 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the edit history of the article on bmezine.com shows a "Thevoice" as a major contributor today. It seems plausible to me that he wrote the article there, then decided to C&P it into Wikipedia in general. Is it really a copyvio to paste one's own article from one wiki to another? Dina 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case, then I don't know. I was assuming that LaVoice and TheVoice were two different people. LaVoice made the edit on Wikipedia months ago, while TheVoice just did it today. --Nishkid64 23:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The bmezine wiki article looks like it has several major edits today from "thevoice" am I missing something? (ready to admit it if I am) Dina 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Gah, I really am confused. I mean Lukas Zpira was heavily edited by user Lavoice today. Dina 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there's no copyright information stated at all in the wiki's page (which means it might have copyright issues in the near future), the wiki itself is not a commercial site and does not fall under the A8 criteria. It doesn't even have banner ads! ColourBurst 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know if its a speedy for copyvio. It IS unreadable, thus impossible to verify notabily or anything else. Herostratus 23:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this AfD be closed now? The article was deleted as a copyvio. Brian 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Kadu-c/Bload Bowl, thanks/wangi 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bload Bowl[edit]

Nonnotable homemade sport, likely unverifiable. NawlinWiki 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer. Hello, Bload Bowl is a real sport. It's true that it is still confidential that's why you could have been "afraid" of my article. Note that this is the English version of the article I wrote on the French Wikipedia. Kadu-c 16:55, 30 August 2006
  • Comment. A quick google search for "Bload Bowl" with my preferences temporarily set to "English language results only" returns less than 10 seemingly relevant results, and some of these are in French as well (apparently as a result of incomplete filtering on the part of google). I don't know that this can be verified. I don't speak French, personally. I know enough to have figured out that some of the French results seem to be relevant, but I don't know if they're reliable. The total of seemingly reliable search results (with my admittedly weak translation skills) is roughly ten. Srose (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been on fr.wiki since the end of April with a couple of people having edited it. There don't seem to be many Ghits but it does seem to exist. Notability is an issue. Dlyons493 Talk 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. I understand your points of view. Bload Bowl website is not translated yet in English. So Wikipedia is a good way for international users to discover this sport until the translation is done. I wrote the original article on the French Wikipedia and I had no problem with the Deletion Policy. Actually I'm a bit surprised. Kadu-c 17:10, 30 August 2006
  • Delete. One of my first contributions to Wikipedia was on the game of crockey, an invented sport with no players outside my extended family. After I learned what Wikipedia is not, I had to ask for a speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for describing original inventions, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, nor an instruction manual, nor a crystal ball, nor a repository for original research. Without any reputable, independent sources to document the significance of this sport, it's not notable enough to be included here. Rohirok 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, which is nicely done, seems to describe an emerging sport, that is relevent in other countries. If we lived in another country the article might seem more relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs)
  • Answer. As stated in my article: "Since the universitary year 2000-2001, Bload Bowl is officialy known as an universitary sport in French Polynesia" = recognized as a legal sport. So it's not an invented sport that some idiots play in their garden. I know that it's not as popular as football for instance that's why many of you ask questions about legitimity of this sport. It's actually well developed in French Polynesia under the control of an official league and it's really considered as a traditionnal sport now. To the previous contributor: thanks for your support, it's appreciated. It's actually an emerging sport which only want to be known and practiced by many people. Kadu-c 20:58, 30 August 2006
    • You wrote: "it's not an invented sport that some idiots play in their garden." Without a reference, there's no way for us to know that it's not. Also, please be civil and refrain from calling me and my family "idiots." Rohirok 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize. It's not so easy to make people discover this new sport without being called myself an idiot too each time I talk about Bload Bowl.  :/ Reference links are below. Kadu-c 22:30, 30 August 2006
  • Delete unless WP:V is met; I am unable to find any reliable sources from third parties (the sport's own website and a YouTube video do not count) indicating any sort of widespread play or existence of this game. Please introduce citations (in English or French) and I might reconsider. --Kinu t/c 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Ok I understand what you're looking for. :) Here are some newspaper articles about Bload Bowl: [[23]]. Furthermore you can find here the status of the official Bload Bowl association: [[24]]. EDIT: and I forgot this link, few words about Bload Bowl on a French website talking about American Football: [[25]]. Kadu-c 22:12, 30 August 2006
    • English translations for the above are here and here. Unfortunately, it looks like the newspaper articles are scans, which cannot be auto-translated. Rohirok 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That last link looks like it links back to the main site. I hope nothing is wrong with my browser. Zephyr2k 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The newspaper articles are apparently scans and say that the game was invented by some university students about 10 years ago and currently has a few hundred adherents. At best, it seems non-notable to me but everything is hosted on their own site, so it could possibly be an elaborate hoax (although I don't really think so). If anyone really wants, I can translate a couple of the articles. Dlyons493 Talk 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Yes the articles are scans. One of the Wiki contributors above (User:Dlyons493) speaks French according to his User Profile. Maybe he can help you. :) Kadu-c 22:15, 30 August 2006
  • Proof. Here's the publication in the Official Journal which proves that a Bload Bowl association has been created: [[26]]. Write "Bload Bowl" in the field "Objet de l'association" and then click on the "Rechercher" button. You'll see the official report. Note that this website is "Le Journal Officiel". It's a document used by French Government to publish all the laws. It is also used to report creations of associations. Kadu-c 23:40, 30 August 2006
    • I don't doubt that the association has been created. The question is whether it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. We do not know the criteria for inclusion in "Le Journal Officiel," so it does not help us determine notability. Rohirok 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That Journal is legitimate and returns the following for the prefecture of Herault (a large admin division of continental France). It states the objectives of the HERAULT BLOAD BOWL WARRIORS: promotion of bload bowl and all parallel activities; organisation of bload bowl matches; installation and follow-up of the payment for the bload bowl; official classification of all the players past and present; attribution of the titles of senseï (teacher), star, hope, veteran, blue and pons; statistical official management of the bload bowler; organisation of activities having as their goal the reinforcement of friendly links between its members. I think we've moved on from verifiability which seems now accepted to notability. Have we any information on membership, competitions, funding etc? Dlyons493 Talk 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is also my issue. "Several exhibition games have already been played all over the world (mainly in France)" - Where else in the world? Is it played all over the world in competition level? Zephyr2k 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to the information from the newspaper clippings (graciously provided to me by Dlyons493), the sport had 70 members and 500 players as of 2003. Out of a population of about 250,000 in French Polynesia, it doesn't seem like a very notable sport even within its home region. I have nothing against the sport. I just don't think it's big enough yet for an article in this encyclopedia. Rohirok 00:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Dlyons493 wrote :"I think we've moved on from verifiability which seems now accepted to notability". Ok so you know that Bload Bowl is a real sport now. :) Zephyr2k wrote: "Where else in the world? Is it played all over the world in competition level?". Exhibition games have already been played in Laval (Quebec), New York (USA), Tampico (Mexico) and several cities in France including La Réunion Réunion. In competition level, apart from the original association based in French Polynesia, there's also an association in Montpellier (France). Rohirok wrote: "I just don't think it's big enough yet for an article in this encyclopedia". Actually the main problem of this association is worldwide communication. It's a vicious circle: if nobody talks about them then they'll remain always unknown. Kadu-c 07:19, 31 August 2006
  • Redirect to Blood Bowl. Not currently notable, wikipedia can't be the first place for information to be spread it has to be the collection of other information. Oh, and a hello to Kadu-c. MLA 10:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Rohirok wrote: "the sport had 70 members and 500 players as of 2003. Out of a population of about 250,000 in French Polynesia, it doesn't seem like a very notable sport even within its home region." Let's take a comparison. There's an article on English Wikipedia talking about Pétanque which is a typical French sport practised mainly in the South. In this article, we can read that there are "about 480,000 players licenced with the Fédération Française de Pétanque et Jeu Provençal (FFPJP)". 480.000 players out of a 60.000.000 population, that's basically the same ratio as Bload Bowl in French Polynesia. It's quite surprising as Pétanque is the "4th-largest sporting federation in France" according to this article. So I don't see problems concerning legitimate existency of Bload Bowl.
Hello MLA, glad to see you here ! :) MLA wrote "wikipedia can't be the first place for information to be spread it has to be the collection of other information". Ok I understand now what you all don't like in my article. Actually I've collected information from newspapers (links above). Newspapers are a valuable source of information and probably more reliable that any Internet contents oftenly written by uknown users. Maybe it sounds "old-fashionned" for you nowadays with the Internet-era, but I could understand it. :)
I suppose that you find me particularly insistant but it's because I didn't have any problems when I wrote the original article in French Wikipedia (some Wiki users even helped me with Wiki syntax). I feel a bit upset considering the fact that I spent so many nights to translate my article into English without hoping any rewards or consideration, just with the feeling to share knowledge with other people.
However, as suggested by MLA, I wouldn't mind seeing my article linked to the Blood Bowl article rather than being a main entry if it can sort things. Kadu-c 12:16, 31 August 2006
If the consensus is to delete or redirect, perhaps it could be userfied for Kadu-c so it will still exist in English and can potentially be re-submitted to the main space when it is brought in line with en.wikipedia requirements. MLA 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a good idea to have it userfied for Kadu-c. Maybe in the future it can be resubmitted when it has become more notable. Zephyr2k 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What do you mean by "userfied" ? I'm not very familiar to Wikipedia terms I'm sorry. Does it mean that I can write my article on my User Page ? If this is correct I agree with that. :) Kadu-c 20:08, 31 August 2006
    • Comment: Yup, that's exactly right... WP:USERFY has all the technical mumbo-jumbo, but yes, basically, the article would be moved to somewhere like User:Kadu-c/Bload Bowl for you to work on in the interim. You've obviously put quite a bit of work into it, and there's no sense in throwing all that away since I trust that you will work on the article to address the concerns above. I'm all for it, so best of luck! :) --Kinu t/c 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've redirected my article to the example link you've just given me. So you can delete the Bload Bowl page now. Thanks to all contributors for this discussion. I know Wikipedia philosophy better now ! See you later ! ;) Kadu-c 21:40, 31 August 2006
      • You might want to change the link on your userpage to the new one Kadu-c. And I tagged this as db-author per above. Zephyr2k 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've updated my userpage. Thanks ! Kadu-c 22:27, 31 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Penczak[edit]

Non notable person. Fails WP:V. Been around since November 2005 with little improvement. NothingMuch 16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. How does this fail WP:V? If you google his name, you get a lot of hits and also personal info about him. Look: [27], [28], [29]. --Nishkid64 18:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the guy is obviously a notably author. Although I have never heard of him or his books, I'm not a bid wicca fan. The man is notable and the are many hits on him on Google.
  • Keep The article needs more work but already today someone has expanded the article and listed some of his works. Definitely notable, and there is hope for improvement and expansion of this article beyond simply deleting it from existence. Sudachi 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I question if this may be a bad faith nomination. The subject has written numebrous books which have received independent reviews (for example, from the Library Journal and Publishers Weekly). Not only that, his books ranked by Amazon.com in the 30 thousandsth. Ohconfucius 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:V. Maybe some ISBNs on his alleged publications would change my opinion, otherwise it's just WP:VSCA. --Dennette 09:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a published author with multiple books, article simply needs a bit of work. Ekajati 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Ohconfucius's suspicion turns out to be correct. The nominator has been confirmed as one of 15 sockpupptets of Mattisse. Thus this is a bad faith nomination. —Hanuman Das 15:27, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surveyor magazine[edit]

Advertising HalJor 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay - informative and correct stub article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukewalsh1234 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 August 2006.

keep it please or email me on [email protected] on what needs to be changed :O)

  • Weak Keep, There are lots of articles about magazines... this is (weakly) sourced, but it's not a blantent advert... I don't see a compelling reason to delete.--Isotope23 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to the article, it's been published for more than 100 years. Although not the longest-running magazine in the world, I'd say a century of publishing makes it notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the magazine has been around for over 100 years then I think it has some notabiltiy and credibility.
  • Keep per the above comments. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has now been tidied. Still a stub, though, but no longer NPOV. Ohconfucius 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fails WP:V. We only have the author's word that it has "a history of more than 100 years." Plus, I found this comment in Image:Surveyor.jpg ... "I made this cover, my magazine, I am making the wikipiedia entry becasue my friends keep asking me why we do not have one" ... which makes this WP:VSCA, and a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. (But since it makes a "claim of notability", it cannot be Speedy Delete.) --Dennette 10:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep http://www.surveyormagazine.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.companyinfo if you follow this link it says: Hemming Group Ltd. is a family-owned and privately run company. We are a business-to-business publisher and event organiser. For more than 100 years we have produced high quality magazines, exhibitions, directories and conferences serving a diverse range of domestic and international markets. For more information please visit www.hgluk.com. I don't know if non-subscribers can get all the info about the history of the mag so i cannot back up the 100 years claim at the moment - if i can offer more to back this up I will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewalsh1234 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 1 September 2006
  • Comment That's not the same as saying that Surveyor magazine has been in publication since 1906, just that it's parent company has been around that long. For all we know, this particular publication has only been around since last year! --Dennette 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously that is fair enough and why I did not link to if before – like I said if I can find proof I would put it in – incidentally Surveyor began in 1892.

It is recorded in the British Library but I cannot find it on the online version I intend to look over the weekend if I can find I will obviously put it on as proof.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Dias Martins[edit]

Either Hoax or extemely non-notable. Googling "Ivan Dias Martins" -wikipedia in English only returns 1 hit that is an index that I think is for wikipedia derived material. reference to David Bowie seems specious. No evidence supporting. RJFJR 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Regardless of it being a hoax or not, it fails WP:MUSIC. --Nishkid64 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for being one of the greatest American cover performers, this utterly fails WP:V, and is probably WP:BALLS as well. --Kinu t/c 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Essentially fails WP:V. Note that the artice was created by two-single use accounts, Ivan Martins and Odeiomate. Ohconfucius 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA that fails WP:V. Claims his 104 year old father impregnated his 85 year old mother just before he died? Now, that would be notable, but not for him. :-) --Dennette 10:31, 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 this is what we have speedy deletions for. DS 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOSOD[edit]

Neologism, appears to be a term created at a company. Unlike FUBAR term has not entered mainstream, and does not appear to be notbale. Google hits turn up the town of Bosod in the Philippines. Wildthing61476 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sourcves provided to verify. Search for sources finds none. Based on the article, the use of the term is likely limited to the one company where it is general use, but no evidence for it entering mainstream use like FUBAR. -- Whpq 18:58, 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 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topolegion League[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria for web content, lacking "sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research." Dancter 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I went to the band's website, and all of the releases are either self-released or released by labels which seem to have released absolutely nothing from other bands. Nothing independent written about them. Sorry, but seems to fail WP:MUSIC spectacularly. --- Deville (Talk) 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Larch[edit]

Dubious CSD A7 candidate. I speedied this more than a couple of times, but because someone mentioned in his edit to this article that they [seem] to have released a couple on BMI, I'm bringing it here to seek a consensus either to keep or to delete. Please don't tag this as either CSD G4 or A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came across a reference to this band in the following entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_kitty
I decided to post an entry for the band as seems it would be better to have an entry rather than a link that leads to nowhere. As to the band's association with BMI: the band's publishing company is administered by them. Ian Roure
  • Delete I learned from Episode 12B, How to Recognise Different Trees from Quite a Long Way Away what The Larch is truly. I can tell you it is not this bit of band vanity, but a mighty tree. Moland Spring 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Larch has been making music under that name since 1997. It is an established musical entity that is noted for the highly original

subject matter of it's songs. Ian Roure

I think there should be an entry for the band since it is referenced in one of the other entries. If you object to the way the entry is written you could always rewrite it or tell me what you object to and I'll rewrite it. Ian Roure
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neaera (band)[edit]

Another dubious CSD A7 candidate. The latest version mentions that they're signed to a major record label Metal Blade Records, and have released a couple of albums under that label, which would make them notable per WP:MUSIC. However, all previous versions failed to assert notability of the band. Thus I'm bringing here to seek a consensus to keep or to delete. Please don't tag this as either CSD G4 or A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Band generates quite a number of hits on Google, most of which are relevant to the band. The band also links to other Wiki pages, but the band members itself are not notable in their own aspect. --Nishkid64 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Band is not very notable and article is poorly done. But, the band does have many hits on Google, so they must have some undeground following.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. not notable. no sources other than personal website of band. poorly written article. Anlace 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC with two albums on Metal Blade Records, who have plenty of notable acts, including The Black Dahlia Murder and King Diamond, and formerly Slayer and GWAR. Verifiable through allmusic. I'll add the link to the article to meet WP:V. --Joelmills 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joelmills. - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two albums and signed to one of the biggest metal labels. Prolog 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Teke. ColourBurst 23:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey "CorZ" Carver[edit]

Nonnotable 15-year-old backyard wrestler NawlinWiki 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even his 'official website' is inaccessible. 2 google hits. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Nishkid64 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete unless you call making up multiple wrestling leagues in your back yard a "claim to notability". In which case, just Delete. Geoffrey Spear 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above; speedy A7 if possible, per Geoffrey's lack of assertion comment. --Kinu t/c 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete vanity page. Zephyr2k 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As other seem to agree, I have tagged it as such. --Kinu t/c 20:42, 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. - Bobet 21:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Pool Network[edit]

Nonnotable amateur pool league. Article originally contained advertising for author's related business, "Billiards Boutique" (since removed). Was prodded but author has been debating the prod on his talk page, so I was expecting it to be removed and decided to just bring it here first. NawlinWiki 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Given the author, it is an advert. Given the lack of edits by others, it is non-notable. -- RHaworth 00:03, 7 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 06:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stryker Vehicle Controversy[edit]

POV fork that has evolved in a pro vs con war over the subject PPGMD 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom PPGMD 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. --Mmx1 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but needs improvement. This is not actually POV, it does handle both sides, but it's a pretty rough article overall. The controversy is non-trivial and there are reasonable critics of the vehicle's concept, execution, and mission, even though there's a very noisy unreasonable claque as well. My major concern with deletion is how this would fit back into the culture, as it were, of the main Stryker article. Is the split intended to create a ghetto for criticism? Would edit warring over merging this info back into the main article be disruptive? --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was edit warring and various non-notable entries that causes the POV fork. For example the old wheeled vs tracked debate has nothing to do with the Stryker and has no place in the main article, but in a POV fork there are less editors to look over the content. This isn't FAS or military equipment forum about 50% of the content (of both sides) would be have to be dropped to be encylopedic. PPGMD 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand what the problem with a look at the pros and cons of the issue within context of the design are. This has become a matter of serious debate within the US Armed Forces and has become a prime example of similar debates that are currently being engaged in around the world. The Stryker contorversy is more formal because of congressional reports, mass media coverage, and various official responses from the military. It needs to be discussed in more depth than was allowable under an encyclopedic entry dedicated to the vehicle, which is why I created the SVC page in the first place. It was detracting from the Stryker page and had turned it into an edit war over this devisive issue. Delete the SVC article and you'll watch the Stryker article degenerate right back into this. There needs to be a dumping ground for this, and it shouldn't be on the Stryker page. -- Thatguy96 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except an encylopedia is not the place for such a debate or discussion, it's a collection of facts. If it can't be fitted into the main article it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. PPGMD 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that all the "controversy" page is is a collection of facts. Its really not anything more than a collection of facts. The pros and cons, and the history of the controversy. -- Thatguy96 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article needs improvement, but better those changes be made there rather than on the actual Stryker article. --Edward Sandstig 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep I don't think it has very serious POV problems, but it need some serious tightning up. When that is done, I suspect it will be down to a length where it could safely be merged back into the main. Until then it's probably best not to delete it. Fornadan (t) 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is a POV fork, the controversy content should be merged back into the article. Edit wars are not a reason for deletion, try protection first. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much content to be merged into the main article, I think a short summary which then links to the main article would be more appropriate. --Edward Sandstig 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists relevant facts about the vehicle, covering the actually existing controversy. Quality is not the best, but acceptable. Issue won't fit well into Stryker article. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not so much a fork as Just Too Much to leave in the main article. Needs cleanup, including adding the same Categories as currently on parent (Stryker) article. --Dennette 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While born of the Stryker article, this page has grown to take on its own life. Since the US Army's top brass, the GAO, the US Congress, and the soldiers actually using this vehicle have all thoroughly reviewed it, liked it, and its still being bought and used, then there should not be as much controversy. However, there will always be those who disagree, but their detailed arguements should not be listed in the main article. Second, many other vehicles' performance capabilities (including the M2 Bradley, the M113, and the C130 aircraft) are being discussed in this article, and that should not appear in an encyclopedic article on the Stryker. Third, the Stryker is not the only military vehicle whose controversy has spun off into its own life. For example, the problems in the launching of the M2 Bradley eventually became an HBO movie.--Vstr 13:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I will say I'm surprised that people have so much invested in this controversy, and yet the V-22 Osprey, not so much. --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture to say its because there is a serious debate about the benefits of a Stryker type system in the field. The V-22 represents a universally accepted capability enhancement. The major issue with the V-22 was whether it was worth dumping so much into it if they couldn't get it to work. Now that they essentially have, people are glad to see it start being deployed more or less on the whole. -- Thatguy96 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back with the original Stryker article It's funny that because there was so many criticisms of the Stryker vehicle on the Stryker article, the criticisms had to be moved to it's own article. Then once it gets moved to it's own artice it becomes a POV issue (something that wasn't so much of an issue when it was part of the Stryker article because both sides were represented.) So some people don't want the criticisms at the Stryker article, and don't want it on it's own article either. Could it be that there are people who just don't want these criticisms being published? They are valid criticisms nonetheless. So far I'm seeing 7-2 Keep. -- 24.118.89.238 4 Sept, 2006
  • Keep Notable and well-referenced article describing the debate surrounding the adoption of the vehicle and the advantages and disadvantages of it. Hrimfaxi 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP As an Iraq war veteran, I can attest that these criticisms are valid. Although I was never on a Stryker, I did play OPFOR against the 172d infantry (who uses strykers) at a JRTC rotation, and I know from experience that these things are a total waste of money. Can't shoot on the move, large blind spots, no RPG protection, no off road capability, and it's too heavey to be carried by a C-130 (which was its original purpose). I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm going to leave the editing to someone more experienced. As you can tell, I'm pretty biased here. But I'm only biased here because my fellow soldiers are dying because of this piece of shit. Who even put this up for deletion? Is silencing criticism "supporting the troops"? Moron. JohnLethal 01:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for content to be merged into the main article is not "silencing criticism." PPGMD 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaqulla Khan[edit]

No references or sources. Highly POV. No support as to why this guy and his one act of looting a train is really notable. Nv8200p talk 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't know how to properly cite in wikipedia but I added an external link to the page. There are some other good sites showing up on google that could be used as a reference for this article. Zephyr2k 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Are you kidding me? Ashfaqulla Khan is revered as a patriot and a freedom fighter.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or a thief and a terrorist depending on which side you are on. -Nv8200p talk 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a valid point. However, that is not grounds for deletion. If the article is POV then it should be neutralized.Shiva's Trident 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A thief or a terrorist can also bring great change if one is colonized TerryJ-Ho 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<removed inflammatory comment by myself> Bakaman Bakatalk 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep could do with a rewrite but seems like a clear keep to me. Dlyons493 Talk 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:
Indian Telegraph Newspaper coverage mentions "A group of revolutionaries, led by Chandrashekar Azad, Pandit Ram Prasad Bismal, Ashfaq Ullah Khan, Thakur Rosnan Singh and Rajendranath Lahiri, had stopped the Eight Down Saharanpur passenger train from Hardoi to Lucknow at the Bajnagar village on August 9, 1925. They removed the safe containing government money and looted Rs 8,000 to finance weapons for their struggle."[30]

and Parliament has commemorated his martyrdompaid homage and Indian National Congress Party site shows too.Actually its a well known case in Indian Freedom movement [31] TerryJ-Ho 22:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

  • Keep:
But The article is not 'Islam related'.Shiva's Trident 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are many other article which are unsources. You put a tag called {{fact}} on them. You dont put them in AfDs.nids(♂) 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very much a notable person, necessary biography. Yes there is a lot of POV and unverified info. Rama's arrow 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable Indian independence activist -- Lost(talk) 17:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I appreciate Nv8200p's work with unsourced articles and images with no license, but this is an important figure in Indian history. Like nids said, few {{fact}} tags would have been better. utcursch | talk 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized there is another article: Shahid Ashfaqallah Khan. Merge. utcursch | talk 04:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. utcursch | talk 04:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC): a new line of LC equipment with higher (ultra) performance, developed bij Waters[edit]

Horrible namespace, semi-spam, redundant with HPLC Nick Y. 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to HPLC, seems like a legitimate search term. No... kidding! Delete per nom, if nothing else, because of the horrible title. Looks like the OCR thought "by" was "bij"... --Kinu t/c 23:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is called a "new form" (advert, probably not used in peer reviewed articles about performed experiments) of column chromatography with smaller columms, but the essential method stays the same. No new content to speak of. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. UPLC and Ultra performance liquid chromatography are valid search terms, however, and should redirect to High performance liquid chromatography, as they currently do. I don't see any additional information in this article that would be worth incorporating into High performance liquid chromatography before deleting. --mglg(talk) 17:15, 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 Speedy Deleted. 0 Googles = Teh Hoaxzors. GarrettTalk 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narukun: Rise of Ninja 1[edit]

Likely hoax. Sources could not be found to verify any information in the article, or even the subject's existence. Creator of the article has a history of disruptive contributions. Dancter 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The article itself admits it is unverifiable. ColourBurst 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with sky-high interest in the PS3 and Wii, any real game coming out for them would manage at least a few Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A PS3 game with no web presence outside this article and the prod blog is very unlikely. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 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. - Bobet 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elle.eye.am[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. Two google hits, no presence on website for claimed label. Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not listed on claimed label website. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete The label, Fingerprint Records, is an independant recording label located in Port Perry, On. The label does not advertise itself via internet. As the purpose of Wikipedia is to act as a provider of information, the entry with regards to Elle.eye.am provides such information regardless of the inability to access label information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.187.40.6 (talk • contribs) .
That's fascinating, but information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and cited to reliable sources. A band nobody's ever heard of, on a label nobody's ever heard of, is not information that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read the criteria for inclusion of musical groups. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete If we use the argument that just because nobody has ever heard of either the artist or label does not make it inappropriate. There are thousands of entries of information on Wikipedia that many have not heard of that is still considered appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.143.87 (talk • contribs) .
  • Do not Delete Satisfies relevant information 12:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C b4 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Richmeister 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not satisfy notability criteria. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete satisfies relevant information and was found on claimed sites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.143.87 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How, exactly, does it "satisfy relevant criteria", and what websites was it found on? --Richmeister 13:52, 5 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 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half Boards[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a dictionary definition. Geoffrey Spear 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a dictdef. They're already covered here, anyways. No need for a separate article. Picaroon9288|ta co 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the information is available on Hockey rink I don't really see the need for another article. It'll never get larger than a stub, as there just really isn't that much to say about them. Dina 21:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Picaroon9288. Dsreyn 01:06, 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 delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics misconceptions[edit]

Original research Nv8200p talk 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's sourced. WilyD 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once again, if this was an article on how misconceptions affect scientific curricula and lay-understanding of concepts, with a couple of brief cited examples, it would be one thing. This is not that article and still falls under the purview of WP:NOR, as it is a synthesis of information designed to promote the author's opinion (read the last paragraph!) on these misconceptions, how best to rectify them, etc. Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemistry Misconceptions? --Kinu t/c 21:40, 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 {{db-author}} -- RHaworth 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Boswell[edit]

This article fails WP:V, WP:AUTO, WP:VANITY, and WP:NN. It appears to be by the person it is about. The only pertinent match on Google is to a forum run by this individual. Michael 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like it could meet CSD. Akradecki 20:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see how the machine works! I do apologize for the trespass and have no problem with the article being stricken! Rico Boswell.

  • Comment tagged this for speedy delete as you've blanked the page already. Zephyr2k 21:11, 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 Teke (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bennett[edit]

non-notable biography Sjjb 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete no notability, and probably a hoax --RMHED 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable speedy. Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 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 Keep. Mostly Rainy 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of Aviation Museum[edit]

This article on an Avaition Museum is about a model plane museum really, and is not notable or well known.Plowright 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Keep. Nomination has no text, and a cursory google search reveals several sources indicating notability. ColourBurst 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by default as the nominator has not given any reason. SliceNYC 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It checks out as sufficiently notable and the roster of models seems impressive. Could use some expansion, obviously. SliceNYC 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generates plenty news hits. Comment: I notified the nominator that the opening statement is missing. ~ trialsanderrors 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Going through the news clips, a lot of them are of the following variety:
The Cradle of Aviation Museum at Mitchel Field, which was built to celebrate Long Island's important role in the development of air travel, has been plagued with money troubles since it was conceived in the 1970's. By the time the museum opened in 2002, Nassau County had poured $40 million in taxpayer money into it. And despite annual subsidies from the county, the museum's annual deficits have grown, while attendance has declined. The museum received more bad news Wednesday, when the Nassau County comptroller, Howard S. Weitzman, issued a scathing report on the museum's finances and urged a reorganization of its board and top management. "Unless there's a radical change in direction," he said, "the museum simply cannot succeed."
Not sure if that makes it more or less notable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I was trying to wikify it when it disappeared. The historical text has now been added. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The line "Among the notable exhibits are Charles Lindbergh's original trainer aircraft" is enough reason for me. Just because they're models doesn't the museum not notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable museum. Piccadilly 01:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Ov Boredom[edit]

Allegedly about web sites but the author seems to think links are unnecessary. Generative of boredom, totally non-notable. -- RHaworth 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic and fails WP:BIO and WP:WEB (depending on what this article is supposed to be about). Measley 10 ghits for the phrase "Princess Ov Boredom". Agent 86 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failure of WP:BIO and WP:WEB, per Agent 86, "depending on what this article is supposed to be about"... I can't tell either. Utterly unencyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 22:06, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chlois Theory[edit]

The Chlois Theory is a small fancruft theory around Smallville fandom that believes the character of Chloe Sullivan will morph into Lois Lane. The theory has already been discounted by the show's creator[32]. The page itself is poorly written and a violation of WP:NOR. Nor do I think the topic is notable enough to warrant anything further than the current section in the Chloe Sullivan article. Debuskjt 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Debuskjt 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I prodded it as fancruft and WP:OR a couple of days ago.--Jamoche 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic and already adequately covered under Chloe Sullivan. Espresso Addict 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This page should be deleted for the following reasons:
• Advertising or other spam
• Fancruft
• WP:FICT (for fictional characters)
• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
• Article needs a lot of improvement
• Article is biased or has lots of POV
• Dispute over article content --- Damila (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already covered elsewhere. Other article could use edits too. "more or less disproven" seems to be a fan talking who's still unwilling to take the show's creator's words as true. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 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 -- Samir धर्म 05:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Bauer[edit]

Precious little in the way of biographical information, really nothing more than a promotion for Bauer's book and Elimination communication. A single edit aside, the article's original editor has worked on this entry and Elimination communication exclusively. All the markings of WP:VAIN. Victoriagirl 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is after all an author and has a known publication to her credit. Google gives info about her. Marwatt 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That Bauer is to some small degree notable is not in dispute. The issue is that a year after its creation this biographical article contains next to no biographical information. Ninety-nine of the article's 107 words are devoted to her book, "elimination communication", and the claim that she "inspired" the formation of a non-profit organization. There is nothing as to her place of birth, her education, her qualifications. If she is indeed a "writer and author", what are her other publications? To which journals has she contributed? Victoriagirl 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lack of independent sources confirming notability. -AED 04:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my nom. Victoriagirl 21:08, 7 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 speedied as a list of external links. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of third-party software component vendors[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. This is a spamtrap. Haakon 21:19, 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 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Writers On The Loose"[edit]

non-notable website, borders on spam Akradecki 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is references but not linked to in article about radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry Bob_Lonsberry. A link to the website is the most prominent feature on his website [33] and is frequented by the host and several of his staff. Bob Lonsberry is a national AM talk radio figure for conservative Americans from New York to California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lounsbury (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Too many degrees of separation in the logic there. (Lonsberry is notable, so a website he frequents is notable? No.) Search finds few links to it from other sites, and the Alexa rank is close to 5,000,000. Fails WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 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 --- Deville (Talk) 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chao[edit]

All the signs of being a vanity article of a non-notable, self-described ghostwriter. Victoriagirl 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He's a multi-published author and I don't see why ghostwriters would be any less notable than any other type of writer. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. May not be vanity, but non-notable nonetheless. His 3 books have Amazon rank of 3.18millionth, 585kth, and 604kth respectively. Ohconfucius 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing at all wrong with being a ghostwriter, I mention it only to point out that this author has yet to write a book he can claim as his own. And the books on which he helped out - Intuitive Security for Women, Abundance for Life, Love and Money, and Seducing Your Woman - are, to say the least, quite obscure. Now, had he written Profiles of Courage... Victoriagirl 07:22, 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 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paseo[edit]

A crystal ball article for an unpcoming (?) movie without IMDb.com entry. None of the actors seem to have WP entries, no Google finds on the first few pages searching for paseo or paseo movie. No sources besides the trailer. ~ trialsanderrors 21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No sign of Ampersand and Paseo anywhere apart from here as far as I can see. "Limited venue" is suspect. Perhaps WP:NFT applies. Yomanganitalk 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V applies. If none of those web searches turn up even the slightest of mentions, this isn't notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable - possibly a student film. -- Beardo 22:12, 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 but with no actual material being lost, and recast as a redirect to Columbia Pictures. Practically every commentor had a different solution, so there was no consensus, exactly. During the course of the discussion material was merged, so that Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group and Columbia Pictures are now identical, except for one short paragraph. During most of the discussion, Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group was just a stub. Anyway, it's apparant that, absent more significant editing, the material in either Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group or Columbia Pictures be deleted and the page made a redirect to the other. I don't believe that at this point merging the extensive material in these twin articles into Sony Pictures Entertainment would be a either a good idea or a good reading of what the commentors wanted. Anyway, to sort this all out, I chose to make Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group a redirect to Columbia Pictures rather than vice versa because (1) a user is more likey to type "Columbia Pictures" rather than "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group" I suppose, and (2) Columbia Pictures is much the older entity and a part of Hollywood history. Herostratus 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group[edit]

Needless page, should be merged into another article (like Sony Pictures) or just deleted. Renosecond 21:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. But it is a subsidiary/division. It says so in the article. If you look at the Sony Pictures Entertainment article, it shows that it is a division and explains more about the division than the article could, it's just filler and redundant. Renosecond 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. For Pete's sake; it's one sentence and it's not likely to get any longer. --FuriousFreddy 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already covered in more detail in Sony Pictures. I've copied over the miniscule amount of additional information in this article. Yomanganitalk 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If it's covered in the Sony article, this title should point there to help readers find the content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergefrom Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures. Inappropriate to merge this stub into Sony Pictures, as the info is already there and the structure is all different. Columbia is a major studio with a long history, and the article should reflect the fact that the modern TriStar was acquired and merged into it. Ohconfucius 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just merged them per my suggestion above. See what you think..... There wasn't that much text to be banged together. However, I've left the list of notable films separate for now, one following the other. I think it is a total nightmare -it seems to be a hotch potch collection of every editor's favourite Columbia and TriStar film. In short, far too many movies that it clutters up the page. I would suggest applying some sort of box office gross criteria (say over $100 million) and go through that list, then merging them properly (leaving only the blockbusters). Ohconfucius 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page as of now, I'm not sure if it would work, I liked putting the info on the Sony Pictures page myself. For the notable films, I have tried to trim those lists and I'll figure something out to trim them up, I took out redlinked films and such, I'll work on those possibly a little later, all studios have the same problem. Renosecond 19:41, 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. 3-0 is not a quorum, but it is a shutout, and relisting seems unlikely to generate much more interest. Herostratus 05:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television[edit]

Doesn't really deserve whole article, seems to be borderline copyvio from http://members.fortunecity.com/teamfx2000/, nn cruft Renosecond 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Original research and information of no encyclopedic value. --FuriousFreddy 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 00:57, 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 TO DELETE. We have a 3-1 vote here, but that's not really a quorum. Nobody makes a very lengthy argument here. However, it can't be BOTH borderline copyvio AND original research, I don't think. Encyclopedia value does seem dubious, but the final commentor doesn't think so. No consensus. Herostratus 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television[edit]

appears to be a guide, not an article, borderline copyvio from http://members.fortunecity.com/teamfx2000/, nn cruft Renosecond 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Original research and information of no encyclopedic value. --FuriousFreddy 22:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nonencyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Research informs people interested in telivision production, all aspects included (User talk:Dr. R.K.Z)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted. GRBerry 12:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon wi-fi communities[edit]

NN Computerjoe's talk 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is non-notable, and speculative ("explosion might occur"). However, that may be the least helpful nomination I have ever seen; 2 letters do not an AfD make! Ruaraidh-dobson 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Akradecki 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - a neutral perspective on true virtual event: importance should not be limited to only physical reality, but also virtual.
Previous unsigned comment by Thegreatjar -- Ruaraidh-dobson 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Struck original opinion per new opinion below by the same contributor. GRBerry 00:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads too much like advertising for the two websites mentioned in the bulk of the article, which fail WP:WEB miserably... hosted at VirtuaBoard and Freewebs? No way. --Kinu t/c 22:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now that I read it more carefully, it does sound like advertising. Please delete it for the welfare of Wikipedia. A property of wikipedia: "it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links.' -thegreatjar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatjar (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: I've tagged as {{db-author}} per this comment. --Kinu t/c 02:25, 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 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoidance[edit]

Non-notable, little context. Not really worth keeping in my opinion. Ruaraidh-dobson 22:09, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cosgrove[edit]

We established a long time ago that dying in a tragedy, even 9/11, was not enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. This article seems to offer nothing additional. DJ Clayworth 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Its funny that info on every pokemon ever concieved is on wikipedia along with articles for each decimal point advancement of MS DOS, but people who die in important events are non-notable. Just something to think about.--James Gordon 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly more people die in important events than there are Pokemons. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Kevin didn't just die. Sadly he also left the only publicly available record of the final moment of collapse which has been very widely disseminated. I normally agree entirely about not being a memorial, but this has additional significance. Cf. Betty Ong. Eusebeus 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Betty Ong. No less encyclopedic than other articles under Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Agent 86 22:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eusebeus. Not every victim warrants an article, but his last words were used in the trial of one of the terrorists. Has additional significance. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eusebeus and Mgm Dina 16:32, 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 speedy A7 delete. Punkmorten 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Three Kings (band)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 22:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nice article, but fails WP:MUSIC, and is a non-notable band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Band is unsigned and released only one promotional demo. Article is probably an attempt at advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 22:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix/Fish Films[edit]

Non-notable film production group that is apparently just two friends. From the article: "Get a camera, get some friends and shoot a film, forget about catering budgets." You should probably forget about warranting a wikipedia entry for the moment as well. Eusebeus 22:20, 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. While many people wanted this to be kept, WP:V is a critical policy, and concerns were raised that this article is WP:OR. Only Amaas120 even claimed the information could be verifiable, others just said "find sources." If sources are found, the article can (and in my opinion, should) be undeleted. Mangojuicetalk 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65 Episode Policy[edit]

Oriignally listed for deletion by myself and deleted...exactly one year ago (imagine that; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney's 65 episode policy). The reasons why the original page was nominated for deletion are the same as the reasons for relisting it now, so I'll just copy and paste:

"A combination of fan speculation, very mild fancruft, original research, and opinions. Disney cartoons aren't specially singled out; nearly all network and syndicated animated shows stop after 65 episodes (because at 65, the studio have enough episodes to broadcast for each weekday for 13 weeks--a full season). I'd say to delete this article with no redirect, and make a mention of the policy at an article for television syndication. FuriousFreddy 10:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)"

Two minor notes: (1) This article has no sources, and, as the talk page alludes to, there are no actual verifiable sources available. This is all original research and fan speculation. (2) "Make a mention of the policy at an article for television syndication" should be "Make a brief mention of the 65-episode run of most syndicated animated programs at an article for television sndication", because it's not even a policy -- more like a loose rule-of-thumb. --FuriousFreddy 22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and original research. It's easy to verify that some Disney Channel shows were cancelled after 65 episodes, but much harder to verify that the channel had an actual policy to limit series to 65 episodes, and we would need a source in order to warrant an article about this practice. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have no sources or anything, and I don't feel like searching for any, but this is a real policy that Michael Eisner has even confirmed. Again, I have no references, so this vote is a bit useless, but...ugh. I'll just end that before I ramble on a bit more.--andrew 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and makes contentious statements about living persons. I know that 65 episodes is basically the minimum to get into syndication, so shows are often dragged to the line - beyond that, it's OR. WilyD 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said on the talk page, it's already been confirmed by the Kim Possible creators that this "65 episode limit/policy" doesn't exist. 65 is just a number of episodes needed for syndication, as stated above. --Erased Paper 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable regardless of whether it is a strict policy or whatever it is. Everyking 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only based on the fact that no verifiable reliable sources have written about it. If even a few can be found other than forum chat, then it would certainly be notable, but we need sources that say so ... we don't publish things just because they're true. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Metropolitan90 71.194.6.238 20:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of deleting, let's just add references. It's either an urban legend or it's an unstated policy. Either way it deserves a page which deals with the situation/controversy. - Peregrinefisher 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The 65 Episode Policy is well know in the Disney fan circle. Even if it's untrue or simply a myth, the 65 Episode Policy can be considered a significant and wide-spread urban legend. Deleting it will constitute major omission of information. Keep, with arguments for and against. Jumping cheese Contact 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

The policies are well known, and I myself have written to Jess Winfield, talking about it. He says it's not a rule, but it IS a buisiness policy. User:Captain N

  • Delete unless a serious source is added confirming that this concept exists. Otherwise it seems like a pretty good article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Too well known to delete. Just needs some sources :)telstar 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with argument raised by Peregrinefisher. Mallanox 03:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify, if possible get some sources, and maybe rewrite the article to a more universal position, less focused on Disney channel, since syndication is often based around the 13-week 5 day cycle. FrozenPurpleCube 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --james(talk) 14:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Meatrix[edit]

Non-notable flash animation by non-notable company. The client they speak of doesn't even have its own article. Not on the level of "Jib Jab" in cultural importance. James Gordon 22:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral.Keep I had prodded this article in the past, and someone else deprodded it. When I looked more closely, I found taht this flash animation actually won a few independent-looking awards. I left a link on the page to the awards list; I was able to confirm some of those awards; others were on web pages that are expired now. B/C of that, I didn't take the article to AfD myself. Mangojuicetalk 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the awards the animation has won. It's off on the sides, yes, but it clears the notability hurdle. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is completely self referencing. The link to the awards is on the movies own site. The awards sited are equally non-notable and I doubt would make the cut as separate articles. If three uninteresting people say they know an equally uninteresting person is that notability?--James Gordon 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, that was laziness on my part, but the awards I tried to verify, I mostly was able to. It would be nice if the article said a little more about them, rather than just "The Meatrix has won several awards," which was fine when the article was a 3-line stub. Mangojuicetalk 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes the awards are listed on their own page, but it's easy to verify the awards they won from there. And "2005 Webby Awards Winner" isn't too shabby. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, now that you mention it, the Webby award is specifically listed as an example of an award that establishes notability in WP:WEB. Changing my vote to keep now, as I'm sure. Mangojuicetalk 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why it should be deleted. Wiki-newbie 18:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kalubi[edit]

No assertions of notability. Reference to "entrepreneur" and "political career" but no particulars. Pagana 22:28, 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 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Yam[edit]

This is apparently a "budding internet phenomenon". PROD removed w/o explanation. No indepedent coverage, reliable sources, etc. Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:V in the least. Delete as such. Wickethewok 22:34, 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 of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza[edit]

NN Band fails WP:MUSIC no allmusic listing, label is redlink MNewnham 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Madman 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it was actually Tony Danza I would have voted keep, but uh, no. Copying a vaguely known B-list celebrity is very bad. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of releases or otherwise meeting WP:MUSIC... But oh how it pains me... I saw these guys live in a parking lot in Nashville I think. --W.marsh 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason I wrote this article was because they were mentioned on a few other pages here with no further info and since I was familiar with them I figured I'd give it a shot. It's fair to say that this band has never charted but the genre of music (grindcore tech metal metalcore) is so obscure that most of the other bands listed with pages here have never charted either but have still sold thousands of records and have tons of fans as witnessed by other people adding them here on Wikipedia. The page on Psyopus for example desperately needs to be cleaned up but I don't know enough about the band to do it. As for simply deleting the band because they named themselves after Tony Danza I don't think that's a fair reason to delete a page. This isn't some fly by night garage band that I made up. A simple google search will confirm that they are quite real and have a viable music audience. If my article gets deleted I'm not going to cry about it but it's kind of weird to list the band on other Wikipedia pages and not have an article explaining who they are.-- Maddhatt 13:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by User:Teke. ColourBurst 01:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza[edit]

Not sure what's happening here, but this seems to be recreation of previously deleted content! Their label Corrosive Recordings gets some 90 distinct Ghits and they get a few hundred themselves. I don't think it meets WP:MUSIC but I'd like peoples views on this one please.

I think we should keep it- because Tony Danza is probably the most influential and important member of American society, and without him we would all be wandering hopelessly in the depths of our own insecurities. Bob Santanos

  • Delete per nom, speedy G4 if it is indeed a similar repost of previously AfDed content. --Kinu t/c 23:44, 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 merge. --- Deville (Talk) 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in information theory[edit]

del. Not a hint what the heck these problems are, not to say about the importance of these problems. The contributor came and go, and its sitse here, an "unsolved problem" in itself. `'mikka (t) 22:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Hughes (Writer / Director)[edit]

Google shows only a few thousand links, with only a hundred when screenwriter is included. The films listed tend to be stubs and probably not notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The films listed are undistributed shorts, most of them not even listed in IMDB. Like thousands of other student/beginning filmmakers, nothing yet of note. Fan-1967 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately as it is an ok article - but Rotten Tomato dont think he is notable dont think he is notable and that is the second google link for James Hughes Screenwritier; ther first is this article. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 23:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are also articles on each of his short films that also need to be addressed. Fan-1967 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment that the Writer is not notable because of the reference on Rotton Tomato dont think he is notable is wrong as this link is for a completely different James Hughes. This link refers to one that only has one credit to his name and no longer works in the film industry. The James Hughes listed on this page is far from being non notable. His website alone gets 100,000 hits every 2 weeks and is has been ten years since he was a beginner/student filmmaker as the earlier reviewer states. In fact James Hughes has been a full member of The Writers Guild and Directors Guild for ten years. He regulary is asked to teach Screenwriting at institutions both here in the UK and America. His latest film as a Director is being produced by the team behind Spiderman II, along with the crew from Terminator 3, Mission Impossible, and Oceans 11. The film in question is currently shooting in Los Angeles and the UK (http://www.thevelvetabstract.com). The credits listed on here are only a handful of James Hughes's credits and all have been produced or are filming. The short films mentioned are both Award winners and one of them was hand picked by a studio in America to show to clients.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damfino52 (talk • contribs)
Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

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

Thank you.

  • But if he is this notable why is the top google links his article here and then a link to a completely different non-notable person on Rotten tomatoes?? SUre the website may be popular but that is no measure of notability - he might visit the website 100,000 times a fortnight! Can you provide sources for that info by the way (it is a start at least) and maybe some independant critical analysis of his work? That would define his notability. Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your argument that the Rotten Tomatoes link is for someone else doesn't help, as that says that they have nothing to say about him at all. Being a member of the guilds says he's working, not notable. As for a film currently filming, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no way to know whether it will be notable when completed, regardless of who is producing it. The basic problem is that short films are generally not distributed beyond some film festivals, get no notice from the mainstream press, and the overwhelming majority of people will never have the opportunity to see them, or even hear of them. His website doesn't register on Alexa at all, and gets a grand total of 22 google hits ([34]), which makes its popularity unverifiable at best. Fan-1967 13:12, 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 Speedy Delete by User:JesseW. ColourBurst 16:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three laws of web development[edit]

Contested Prod. Somebody took Asimov's three laws and substituted "website" for "robot". Somebody apparently thought it worth repeating. I disagree. Author claims that knowing this "can single out professionals from hobbyists" which may be among the most ridiculous things I have ever seen posted here. Violates WP:NOR, WP:NEO, and it should just go away. Fan-1967 23:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you.

  • Soundness is not a Wikipedia criterion. No original research, on the other hand, is, and a websearch appears to show that this is a totally unknown concept. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to try to launch a new concept. Please review WP:NOT. -- Fan-1967 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is a spoof, this joke has been bandied many times around the web dev community - and it aint funny no more. Moreover the source link leads to a web design company site which doesnt actually have any content related to the article. I mean that site fails on all of the 3 rules, looks awful and is back in the dark ages (who uses all flash sites now!!). Not that thats another reason to delete :-P --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see any value at all in these statements. You could create infinite laws by merely substituting any object for the word "robot". But that's irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia. There's simply nothing encyclopedic about this joke and it doesn't belong here. SuperMachine 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tagged {{db-nonsense}} -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 23:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After much sturm und drang, what we have is that there is a website, with a MySpace page, based in Newburyport, which has had one article written about it by the local-local Newburyport paper. I don't think this meets WP:WEB, which calls for multiple non-trivial articles, and we have at most one. The proponents of the article claim several important newspapers are just about to write about this website. This is great; as soon as these articles come out, the page can come back. I'll userfy the page to the creator's userspace since there were many edits on the page. --- Deville (Talk) 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, the link to the userfied page is User:Therealdantheman/WhatIsJoppa.com --- Deville (Talk) 22:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhatIsJoppa.com[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. A google search for "what is joppa" brings forth 37 hits [35]. The only claim of notability in the article is from a newspaper [36]...a newspaper that only distributes 8000 copies as the author of the article even admits [37]. IrishGuy talk 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (BTW - 5,240 hits) From what I recently heard, the Joppa team are to appear in three more articles, in larger distribution periodicals. This is was the only policy based reason as I see it for the article to be deleted, the site now meets the criteria (multiple non trivial published works). - Quolnok 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment can you provide some verifiable proof that this will appear in three periodicals? IrishGuy talk 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment - What does "verifiable proof" mean? Does a screenshot of a forum PM from WhatIsJoppa.com#Ben_M._Watts count? The articles are likely to be published within the space of a month (purely based on my estimates) as interviews either have taken place or will be on Friday/today. Also apparently they are to be "Featured Comedian" next wednesday on MySpace's Comedy department. The periodicals in question, now mentioned in the article, have websites and may post the interviews there after publishing. - Quolnok 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable means providing some proof beyond one person stating that this is the case. IrishGuy talk 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated? There are certainly other less deserving articles out there and many don't remotely meet any wikipedia policy. Given about a month there will be some verifiable proof - Quolnok 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contrary to what a lot of people on the internet think, Google is not the end-all be-all of notability. GreatGatsby 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not...but the article provides no other evidence of notability. IrishGuy talk 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The podcast was a top 5 or so on iTunes at one point, a google search for "what is joppa" actually returns 5,300 not 37 hits (are you blind?), and articles about the group have been published or are scheduled to be published as cited by Quolnok. The spirit and criteria of WP:WEB is satisfied in my eyes.; lets focus on real violators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.136.179 (talk • contribs)
There aren't 5,000 hits. Some have nothing to do with this [38], others are multiple hits of the same site. The criteria of WP:WEB has not been met until the existence of these articles can be verified. IrishGuy talk 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37 is clearly a guestimate. By this logic a search for whatisjoppa.com gives 119 which is a better guestimate. - Quolnok 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did you get the number 37 from? Additionally, why are you so hostile? Has Joppa offended you, or possibly a family member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
Additionally, why are you so hostile? Some people are far too literal and vigilant about the rules on Wikipedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, but tell that to people who camp in the recent changes. GreatGatsby 22:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been hostile. I have simply asked for verifiable proof of the claims being made. If those can be provided than this AfD can end shortly thereafter. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Simply" asking for proof and having an attitude while asking for proof are two different things; you have been hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)
Actually, I haven't been hostile. I am, however, getting tired of replying to anonymous attack posts. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am no more anonymous that the person hiding behind "IrishGuy" as a moniker. You have my IP, you know there are several different people defending the unprovoked and unwarranted hostile provocation, more do you want? Even if you delete the article, it will be posted again because it has enough notoriety to warrant it's inclusion in Wikipedia, despite your onslaught and poor argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
Readding a deleted article is considered vandalism. I don't think you should really be bragging about your intentions to vandalize in the future. IrishGuy talk 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I call it protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
Frankly, it is irrelevant what terminology you choose to use. If the article fails AfD it shouldn't be recreated without going through the proper process. Otherwise it can, and will, be speedy deleted. The person who continually recreates it is subject to being blocked from Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted then wikipedia has jumped the shark and being blocked would not affect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
Of course not. You are just here to publicize Joppa. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That assumption is incorrect. Please do not make assumptions; it's silly. Also, quit editing my posts by adding a signature, I do not want one. Would you like me to edit your signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
I'm adding your signature via the unsigned template so the closing admin can tell who made which comments. If you attempt to alter my signature it will simply be reverted and you run the risk of being blocked for vandalism. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in altering your signature, I was proving point. Please do not add a signature to my posts or I will be forced to report you for vandalism and you may be blocked from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
The guidlines on a notible article are hardly as hard set as you make them seem. Quoted from the Notability guidline section itself; "The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Now, I would understand if Joppa had never been in any sort of media coverage at all. But as long as it holds it's place in a newpaper with a considerable readership, that being 8,000 copies, and not only be mentioned in that paper but put on the front page, it holds its place as "newsworthy," regardless of the level of "newsworthy-ness" it claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Since Google seems to be the search engine of choice, let it also be mentioned that if you simply type "Joppa" into the search engine, you will notice that the group is the #1 hit. This says a lot, seeing as Joppa is also a "notable" city in the Bible, as well as a very "notable" nature preserve in Newburyport, as well as a very "notable" city in Maryland (not to mention the name of some other notable companies, all existing long before whatisjoppa.com). So, in a world of Joppas, if the first thing that shows up is whatisjoppa.com, then I would say it's been made somewhat notable. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.157.174 (talk • contribs) this is one of the members of Joppa. Voting for himself is WP:VAIN. IrishGuy talk 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point. GreatGatsby 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first return for an unlikely search doesn't illustrate notability. It just illustrates that not many sites use that word. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I completely disagree. It illustrates that it is the most notable Joppa-related site. It is the first site to come up, out of a total of 2,200,000 sites.--EndlessVince 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A search for the word Joppa results in 2,280,000 hits. I beg to differ with your previous statement. (Also notice that What is Joppa still is first on THAT list.) If you are going to argue that Joppa is an uncommon word, then a Google search shouldn't even be used as a means to signify notability at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
It doesn't quite work that way. Saturday Night Live wasn't a common phrase until the show premiered. As such, that phrase garners many hits...because it is notable. Joppa isn't. Hence it doesn't garner as many hits. IrishGuy talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the words 'Saturday' 'Night' and 'Live' are common words, which could range from "I had a great Saturday" to "Last night was off the hook!" Also, "Saturday Night Live" generates many hits because it's on a notable broadcasting network. A search resulting in "NBC- Saturday Night Live" hardly qualifies as a symbol of notability. I don't quite understand your using this example in the first place, we're not even comparing What is Joppa to the notability level of Saturday Night Live. Saturday Night Live is on TV, Joppa isn't. That's like comparing The Prarie Home Companion to the X-Files. They deal in completely different fields of media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
I said common phrase not common words. IrishGuy talk 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, his point stands and I for one agree the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
What anonymous users believe is largely irrelevant. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
Not really. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
Because Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not simply a place for anonymous users to publicize their websites. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are wrong. It is not my website, and I am not looking for free publicity. In fact, I don't think anyone is looking for publicity, it's a reference page only. We are interested in having a reference page on wikipedia. And why the opposition to anonimity? If the information is correct why does it matter if it comes from an anonymous source or a thinly veiled moniker (IrishGuy), or a fully disclosed individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
There is no way to know if the information is correct without providing verification. The fact that you are proudly anonymous and refuse to sign posts doesn't auger well for your professed honesty. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasonable connection between anonymity and honesty. anonymous, veiled, and those out in the open can all be honest, dishonest, or somewhere in between. I refuse to sign, because you insist that I sign. Approaching the signatures with some courtesy would go a long way. Had you asked for me to add ~~~~ to the end of my post because you were having a hard time tracking the discussion thread, it would have come off better than trying to bully everyone around. At the very least I would have respected where you were coming from, even if your core argument is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and Comment. A google search isn't the appropriate test for notability in this case. The Whatisjoppa.com is notable for its widespread viewership (~40,000) and its press coverage, which promises (literally) to expand very soon. The podcast was in the top few podcasts on iTunes[39] at the time, and was featured as "New and Notable"[40] (haha) on the front iTunes podcast page. I'd also like to comment that I still don't feel comfortable leaving the article unstubbed. I don't think the stub tag should be removed until the press coverage section is expanded as well as the character section. Additionally, I'd like to point out that this AfD is doomed to fail reaching consensus. Also, as an inclusionist, I'd like to point out that the concept of "notability" is objective and is sourced from a simple essay that is not an official Wikipedia Policy or Guideline. --EndlessVince 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO, According to WP:WEB, Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria...The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. I would consider "New and Notable" an award (hand selected from a notable source). This ends the dispute of notability. --EndlessVince 04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New and Notable isn't an award. IrishGuy talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it, since when? "An award is something given to a person or group of people to recognize excellence in a certain field." Quoted from the Award entry on Wikipedia. Thus the position of "New and Notable" is an award, as it was given to recognize a group as something worth looking at. Your previous claim was not only poorly clarified but also illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
It isn't an award. It was a brief mention along with many other sites. That isn't an award. IrishGuy talk 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather hard to argue on a point if your reply to everything is simply "No it isn't, you are wrong." It was mentioned for a reason. If I made a podcast and put it up on iTunes, it wouldn't automatically recieve "New and Notable." Only sites that deserve to be placed on that standing recieve the standing. That is what qualifies it as a reward; selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
An award is something that is either given to a site or is archived. This was a brief mention. It isn't an award. Please sign your posts. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The position on the "New and Noticable" list was GIVEN to the site because they held a high rank on the top downloads list, even though they were new to the iTunes podcasts section. They ACHIEVED it by recieving a great deal of attention, aka downloads. The term "brief mention" would be iTunes creating something like a "New Posters" list where EVERYONE who was new was shown. An example of a "brief mention" is the "Cool New People" list on Myspace. That is not the case here. My posts are signed as my IP, and will continue to be. There is no significance in me posting a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
I couldn't care less that you don't use a username. Your posts haven't been signed. I have had to go in and add an unsigned template. Please use ~~~~ at the end of your post to sign it. As for the mention, it was listed with many others for a brief period of time. It is no longer up there and nothing was given to Joppa, hence it isn't an award. IrishGuy talk 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signing your comment is just a suggestion, not a rule (the page says "On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes" and there is no mention of a signing requirement). Though I'm sure you thought it might be possible to have this page also scheduled for deletion based on disobaying the sacred "signing your post" rule. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)
If you don't start signing them, I will cease to reply to them. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue in your highly uncivil manner. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to forefit, that would make me very happy. In the future, please do not edit my posts by adding a false signature. I have not been uncivil, you may want to read the text of my posts again... carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
I haven't given you a false signature, just your actual one. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You signing for me makes it false. See your signature above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
Actually, there is a template for just this sort of thing. It isn't a false signature for me to tag your comments as unsigned. Please stop vandalizing this page. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, not vandalism. It's a silly discussion and this is why you are receiving a silly response, but it's a discussion nonetheless. I for one do not take the crusade to delete the article seriously. It qualifies to stay based on the points raised by others in this discussion. Why you continue to press the issue is beyond me; it's moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
It is vandalism to alter posts and/or signatures in an AfD. If you don't take the AfD seriously, then simply leave. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you continue to alter my intentional blank signature, by vandalizing the site and adding a signature despite my obvious choice not to do so. Please follow your own rules before attacking others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
This has already been answered. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you continue to vandalize the page. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
An award does not have to be material... It was given a position. A position not everybody had. Also, the list is updated. That doesn't mean it was never there. Also, 32 people out of ALL PODCASTS on iTunes is not "many people." In essence, you're now difining an award as "An exclusive reward given to a tiny group of people after which it is never given to anyone else." So I guess the Oscars aren't an award.~~~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
Also, just to prove my previous point. There are according to iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/) there are 35,000 podcasts on iTunes. 32 out of 35,000 is less than 0.001% of all podcasts.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
At what point did I say an award is an exclusive reward given to a tiny group of people after which it is never given to anyone else? I didn't. Please abstain from using strawmen arguments. A constantly updating list of 32 isn't exactly notable. IrishGuy talk 23:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can complain about strawmen, which I'm not sure is accurate in this case, but it's okay to fabricate numbers, such as the 37 hits for joppa? four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)
I note that you danced around the fact that you completely made up and argument to rebut. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have no argument to stand on. Notoriety has been established and you have yet to validate the 37 hits you claimed as evidence for the deletion, nor have you updated your argument asking for proof despite the solid notoriety through google argument. There is no dancing on my part; there was no argument rebuilt on your part; if you something substantial to add to the conversation I suggest you do so shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
Provide something verifiable or simply let it go. Read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It seems that neither party is eager to yield any ground on this issue. Perhaps it would be effective to give the other party some way to prove their point, rather than shooting down the ones already made. Perhaps "Irishguy" could tell the unsigned user above what exactly what proof/evidence it would take to reach consensus on this issue, or perhaps the unsigned could do the same. perilouspenguin talk
I already have. I asked for some verifiable proof that this will appear in three periodicals. As a side note, I find it very curious that there are so many new users who come straight to this AfD with no other edits in their history. IrishGuy talk 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very curious that only one guy seems to want it gone. also:
"If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated? There are certainly other less deserving articles out there and many don't remotely meet any wikipedia policy. Given about a month there will be some verifiable proof - Quolnok 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"
I don't believe proof, as you define it, will exist for about a month and these cases settle within a week usually, so please, answer above question. - Quolnok 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"so many new users" one is many? there are 7 persons who've edited this, 2 are IPs not users and may be the same as one of the other users, one of these has voted (from what I hear such votes don't count and only people with an edit history count) this leaves 4, including 1 (you) against the article. These people probably just looked at the article about (one of) their favourite show(s) and were upset about the pending delete. again: "If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated?" - Quolnok 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an answer to the italicized question, all it takes is one notable publication. Also, I don't find it very curious that there are many new users to comment. However, I'd like to point out I am not one of them. As a response to Quolnok's vote count: Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The point is to come to a consensus about the fate of the article. As there is no consensus, the article will stay. It has been argued that the article in question is in fact notable, and some of those reasons (i.e. the "New and Notable award) are verifiable. The dispute on verifiability is very much based on opinion (such as the definition of "award", which objectively favors the article's survival). --EndlessVince 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your inferrence that these accounts and comments are fake: Just because we don't live and die by the creation, editing, and management of Wikipedia, does not mean we don't use Wikipedia nor does it mean the fans of the actual article don't find the impromptu crucase to delete a worthy page extremely unsettling. The page in question meets Wikipedia's criteria regardless of your need for verifiable proof; the above discussions all refute your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)
As a general rule, little weight is given to anonymous and new editors in AfDs due to the possibility of sockpuppetry. Hence my bringing it up. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the entrenched dictate deletions and are able to bully their way through the discussion process? Seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia. I may not have the rules to wikipedia on my clipboard ready to be pasted, but give me a break; our opinions should count as users of wikipedia regardless of contributions, edits, and allegiance to the wikipedia nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
You aren't a user. You are someone who appeared simply to stack the vote in your favor. IrishGuy talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a user of wikipedia in the sense that I USE it for reference. I am not a user of wikipedia in the sense that I maintain or create pages. The fact that this USER is unhappy that a valuable reference page will be deleted without warrant makes this USER's vote count. Does that make any sense to you? Without USERS who reference wikipedia, it ceases to exist. You need to take this USER's vote and opinion seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
You are here simply to publicize Joppa as you have admitted above. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I admit it above? Please show me proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
I'm still waiting in anticipation for that proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
One more note on the notability section; Wikipedia: Notability (web) states that "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3.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." A podcast on iTunes, a VERY well know online broadcaster clearly qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
iTunes wouldn't meet those guidelines as the creators put it on iTunes. It was not distributed there independent of the Joppa folks. IrishGuy talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, clarification because people missinterpreted my comment - I'm aware it isn't a democracy, that was to show a lack of support for the delete. (this may not be targeted at me) I don't believe the editless accounts to be fake, I believe IrishGuy believes that they are. The Italicised question was for IrishGuy, because he seems to think that only when they get printed (ie evidence exists) it would then qualify as notable, thus if the (wiki)article were to be deleted (which I doubt) it could be recreated once said articles exist. - Quolnok 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is the case. If this article was deleted due to lack of meeting WP:WEB, if at a later date sources could be provided that do meet WP:WEB, the article could be recreated. AfDs aren't personal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Joppa or the people associated with it. It is strictly dealing with the article and the guidelines of Wikipedia. Currently, the article doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this discussion because I was at the Joppa Wiki and saw the notice, and for no other reason. Before I posted anything on this discussion I wasn't aware that it would merit such a large response. I also did not know that the AfD was inteded as a discussion between registered members only, so I proceeded to comment, without hesitation, my reasons to keep the Joppa Wiki alive. At the very beginning I proceeded to read all the guidelines and formalities, as that's the only way one can win an argument, when one knows all the information. Now I realize you may think I'm more than one person, and I can't create any assurance as to wether or not I am, except for my word. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.72.81.58.236
No, no, it is okay for non members to discuss this stuff, it is an open discussion. - Quolnok 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be the new user everyone's talking about, and yes I could see how I might seem to be a sock puppet, this being really my first edit. But I would say that I've been the victim of circumstance...my comment above you may notice wasn't really vying for either side, I was simply attempting to help this issue move along; thus I don't really see how that kind of a comment would come from a sock puppet...I guess if sock puppets are helping to move discussions towards a compromise and resolution, then maybe more people should use them. But anyway, I was simply browsing articles of things I have knowledge about, looking for a good place to edit or create when I found that the joppa wiki was up for AfD, and decided to jump in. I know this gives no grounds for me either being or not being a sock puppet, I just thought the story should be told. perilouspenguin talk
Actually, no people shouldn't use sockpuppets. It is clear that most, if not all, of you came from this forum post. IrishGuy talk 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that post alerted us to the desire to delete this page, why should that taint our opinon? With or without the alert, the article meets the criteria and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)
Simply repeatedly saying doesn't make it true. You haven't provided any verifiable evidence of notability. IrishGuy talk 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've put forward different types of evidence we thought would prove it. We haven't just been sitting here and saying "Joppa is notable" one after another. We've been trying to make a case.72.81.58.236
When I point out in WP:WEB that what you provide doesn't fit the criteria, you simply insist that it does. Thus far, you have just been parroting the same line again and again. I get it. You want Joppa to have an entry. Unfortunately, you don't meet the criteria of WP:WEB unless you can provide some verifiable sources which fit the perameters given. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I insist because I have to make sure that there is no way something I find might fit. It's simple debate procedure. Argument and counter-argument. True, sometimes a point is over-streached by other members of the discussion, but I think that saying we've just keep saying Joppa is notible over and over again is not true. Sorry, but I feel that that comment was not correct. 72.81.58.236
You aren't debating. You are creating things. The criteria for meeting WP:WEB isn't up for debate. You meet it or you don't. Thus far, you don't. IrishGuy talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? WP:WEB in statest; "This page gives some ROUGH guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use." A GUIDELINE's application toward something is very much up to debate. If it wasn't we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss the deletion process. We have two credible newspapers. You're stating that what we have isn't enough. I consider that a debate. The guidelines, once again, don't state the amount of media coverage a website needs to recieve, just that it needs to appear in multiple publications. Which it has.72.81.58.236 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It expressely states non trivial media. There is a world of difference between national media and local media. You have a local newspaper. That just isn't enough. IrishGuy talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is Ben from the group Joppa. I'm really impressed with the dedication that our fans have put in to keeping this Wiki page alive, so thanks to all who have contributed. If I may address IrishGuy, I just wanted to confirm to you that we had an interview with the Newburyport Daily News (14,000 home deliveries daily) this past Friday, and the article will run a week from tomorrow, we just need to meet with the staff photographer. It seems to me that the paper posts all of it's articles online, but if such is not the case, how would I go about getting that proof to you? Additionally, would this end the debate as to whether or not the group had acheived Noteworthy status? Of course, we see the importance of adhering to Wiki guidelines, but two newspaper articles seems to be more than what the guidelines require, regardless of their locale or subscription size. Our fans have spent a lot of time and effort putting this page together, and I'd hate to see that effort go to waste. Thank you. 72.71.226.92 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Not only is this one of the members of Joppa, and therefore this vote is WP:VAIN, but he has voted twice to stack the vote [41]. IrishGuy talk 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ben. The criteria for inclusion on WP:WEB states: This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. Under that heading, the footnote gives examples such as The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired. I'm afraid that two local papers probably don't fit WP:WEB. As for the iTunes argument, WP:WEB states: 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 the fact that the group itself put the downloads up on iTunes makes it difficult to argue that it is completely independent of Joppa. This isn't personal. It isn't an attack on your group or your site. Please don't take it that way. There are hundreds of AfDs every day. Some pass, others don't. IrishGuy talk 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so twenty thousand people seeing it in print and forty thousand people seeing it online isn't enough. Makes sense. GreatGatsby 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And these numbers come from where? IrishGuy talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are presumably from the advertising page. If you go down about 2/3rd of the way you will find that it says;

"What is your circulation?

14,000-plus homes. With more than two readers per household, that translates into about 28,000 readers on any given day." 72.81.58.236 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add the link, here it is; http://plus.newburyportnews.com/ze/info/advertising.htm 72.81.58.236 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...? IrishGuy talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking us like we made this up? This is their statistics. I assume they did the proper research before making the previous satement. I was in fact quoting someone else. If you do not believe statements other companies make, then direct your questions at them.72.81.58.236 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...?" Are you serious? No really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
Yes I am serious. Claims of notability must be verifiable. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...?" That sentence has nothing to do with verifying notability, it's nitpicking and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
It is asking for verification. Anyone can make a claim. IrishGuy talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then read the evidence offered, rather than spout nonsense about seeing proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
It isn't my job to do your research for you. You are the one making claims about circulation, as such it is your job to provide a link to prove that you aren't making such statistics up. IrishGuy talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I did. Let me just show it to you again, in case you missed it, 3 sentences above this post; http://plus.newburyportnews.com/ze/info/advertising.htm I'm sure you won't find it too hard to scroll down and read the section I had quoted.72.81.58.236 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I am referring to when I ask "are you serious?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
Census? Average household population minus something? a few posibilities. - Quolnok 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see why this discussion must continue. All evidence for notability has been presented and verified. The nominator for deletion disagrees on the importance of the evidence, but all other editors, such as myself and Quolnok, agree that the subject meets notability criteria and should remain. Unless there's something new to add, which I don't foresee, need any more be said?--EndlessVince 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you and Quolnok helped create the article as well as are active on their forums, the fact that you find trivial local papers to be enough criteria isn't surprising. Nor does it carry any extra weight. IrishGuy talk 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be the only person who has a problem with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)
If he is right, there should be someone around who will agree with him. - Quolnok 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is The Boston Globe also a local paper? Granted I don't know if that article printed yet but I don't know how "local paper" is defined. Does the paper need to be in a whole state? ...whole country? ...whole planet? ...somewhere in between? I'm guessing there only needs to be one nonlocal paper to accompany the local ones. - Quolnok 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Globe is eminently notable. The problem is you have yet to show verifiable evidence that they will appear in the paper. IrishGuy talk 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment

IrishGuy is mistaken in regards to WP:WEB requirements. Perhaps you read the title of the page without delving into the main body. Their site clearly meets one of the single necessary guidelines required on WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Please re-read this if you haven't already. The guideline, while called a "notability guideline," does not actually state that the site has to be the subject of multiple NOTABLE published works. They need merely be NON-TRIVIAL published works.

A 'zine that someone photocopies in CVS and passes out at punk shows is arguably trivial. A weekly publication like The Wire (which has a sizeable readership in urban areas like Portsmouth, NH as well as other locations in MA)is certainly not trivial by any definition of the word. To suggest that the Newburyport News is somehow trival is actually laughable; the paper is owned by the Eagle-Tribune Newspaper Company, a major area publishing group, and has a wider circulation than the second Newburyport paper (that's right, there are two of them) which is owned by the Herald Media group, often associated with the Boston Herald. You said above: "It isn't my job to do your research for you. You are the one making claims about circulation, as such it is your job to provide a link to prove that you aren't making such statistics up." You were provided with a link that within all reasonabilty proves the circulation of the paper, and your response was to change tack and ignore the link. Is it possible that you're just trying to be difficult here?

Please also review the bulleted portion of the Notability requirements reading: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles." Reliability is actually the issue here, not notability in terms of readership. And according to the wording of this requirement, all a published work has to do to be reliable is to be a newspaper or magazine article! It doesn't matter what the circulation is, so long as the published work is a newspaper or a magazine. Again, you need to actually read these requirements. The wire has been sufficiently proven to be a reliable paper and the Newburyport News again fulfills the requirement; all they have to do to be reliable, according to WP:WEB, is to exist as magazine or newspaper publications (as opposed to zines, agitskis, or other "unreliable" published media).

Your objection only holds any water at all until the Newburyport News article runs next week because until that point only one non-trivial publication has covered Joppa.com. After that, there is absolutely no reason to object to the Joppa wikipedia entry, as it will clearly and without room for argument fulfill the guideline that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," unless YOU want to get in touch with the Newburyport News and question them as to the veracity of their claims regarding readership, or get in touch with the Wire to find out whether they're actually just a joppa front organization.

To conclude: once the Joppa wiki article links to the wire AND the Newburyport News, you would be well served to drop the issue. This is only one man's opinion, but the requirements guidelines don't really leave you a lot of wiggle room.

I am not a regular viewer of Joppa and I am not closely aquainted with the makers of the show. You can choose to make my identity a sticking point, but the validity of my argument is intact. 151.199.18.140 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)SomeonefromNS[reply]

Non-trivial and non-notable are pretty much synonymous. When a local paper only has a local readership, it isn't grounds to illustrate notability. This is a generally encyclopedia. It is about far more than a small area of New England. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. You were skirting the line quite a few times in that post. IrishGuy talk 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I've on several occassions heard you use a "judgemental tone" as well. Also, please add some basis to your statement. By saying that non-trivial and non-notable are pretty much synonymous, I would like to see some evidence of that satement, may it be previously decided cases made by other editors, (not yourself as we already know your opinion,) a dictionary definition, or a general article which makes that claim. Otherwise your argument hardly holds any water. Also, I would like to note that Wikipedia is trying to create, in essense an encyclopedia of all knowledge, regardless of its notability in certain areas. Were this a general encyclopedia, many of the articles you and others have posted would not fall under "general." Simply because a topic is more notable in one area than another does not mean it isn't notible at all. Your article about "Keith Barry" is a perfect example, as people in Europe would find it MUCH more notable than anyone in America or other parts of the world. This is simply my point of view in this matter, please consider it. 72.81.58.236 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something is trivial, it cannot be notable. If something is notable, it wouldn't be trivial. Hence, non-trivial and non-notable are basically synonymous. Contrary to your statement, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of all knowledge. Keith Barry had a national television special. Joppa has not. IrishGuy talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to my previous question rather than simply arguing my comments. I asked for vertiable proof that non-trivial and non-notable were the same thing. Not your opinion, we already have that. Also, claiming a local newspaper run by a larger corporation isn't notable is a poor statement. Please rephrase so I can understand what you're saying better. 72.81.58.236 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-trivial" and "non-notable" are hardly synonymous. I thougt wikipedia was a place for defining things. Maybe those two terms should be defined here to clear up the confusion. Or, maybe those terms are, in themselves, not notable enough for this site...don't know. By the way, this is Thom of the group Joppa, and just wanted to see how the discussion was going, but couldn't help but react to such an etymological mistake.
And, just to add something here: it does appear that IrishGuy has a some point to make about notability, and is not really making it. A number of people here have quoted the guidelines of this site pretty clearly, and proved in favor of keeping the article. I, personally, feel that you are much mistaken in believing this is a means to "promote" our group. Hardly. Sorry, but more folks will be hearing about us in the Newburyport News, The Wire, on iTunes, and next week as a featured comedian on MySpace, then will ever come to us through this article. So, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if this were deleted. However, I would be upset that so much of the hard work these fans have put in to make this a perfect reference for people visiting our site would be wasted--because, it DOES NOT violate any guidelines of wikipedia, as have been proved more times here than I need to prove again.
Wikipedia is a great place for references. And, that's what this article is all about. It's a reference for the viewship of Joppa to better understand the people and places involved with the show. Let me end by a quote from wikipedia's guidelines: "Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community...A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." 24.61.157.174 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and the other anonymous posters continue to assert that you have met WP:WEB...and yet you haven't. Local newspapers do not notability make. While claims have been made that interviews have taken place with larger notable papers, no verifiable evidence has been presented to validate these claims. IrishGuy talk 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then the entire quotation he presented to you is void? Just wondering. 72.81.58.236 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is void. What the quote outlined was the belief that rigid blind obedience to rules hinders progress, which is true. Adding a non-notable article to Wikipedia isn't what that quote was about. IrishGuy talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, are you still defying Webster by asserting that "non-notable" and "non-trivial" are synonymous? The purpose of this discussion is so that one party can respond to points of another. You responded to nothing. You just continue to cut and paste previous posts of yours that are based on opinion rather than fact. Calling the merits of a "local paper" or a number of New England publications non-notable is an opinion. This is Thom again. Wouldn't want to cross the anonymous barrier. 24.61.157.174
Please read WP:CIV. As outlined above: If something is trivial, it cannot be notable. If something is notable, it wouldn't be trivial. Hence, non-trivial and non-notable are basically synonymous. As far as the local paper goes, you are missing the point. It isn't only that it is a small local paper, it is that it is a small local paper writing about local people. How is that notable? You might have an argument if a small local paper from across the nation wrote about you because that might indicate the reach of your website, but that didn't happen.IrishGuy talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just said, If something is trivial, it is non-notable, right? If something is notable, it is non-trivial? Is anyone seeing what I'm getting at? Yet, you still assert that non-notable and non-trivial are "synonymous." Maybe it's me...maybe it's the word "synonymous" that you're having a problem with. And, if you're debating whether the "reach" of our website is substantial, I think you'll find that most people who come to our site are not from anywhere near New Enlgand, and I believe there's been proof of that already as well. 24.61.157.174 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What??!!?? I'm not sure if that is tautology or just plain butchering of the English language. Can you please rephrase so we can properly address your..umm...concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)
WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK IrishGuy talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, I will remind you to read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before continuing the discourse in the manner that you have been. IrishGuy talk 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any way that the previous statement was at all agressive. At worst it was "hard hitting," and I cannot fathom how it could possible be interpreted as an attack at you. 72.81.58.236 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up! Next time I point out a mistake or "hole in the argument" I will try to be nicer about it. 24.61.157.174 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your resources are trivial and non-notable. The site doesn't meet WP:WEB. There is nothing mistaken about that. No matter how many sockpuppets and meatpuppets you bring to this AfD, it won't change the facts. IrishGuy talk 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let the unanonymous editors go unnoticed. I'm a serious Wikipedia editor, and I contend that much of the evidence presented is NOT trivial, and that the problem lies in IrishGuy's interpretation of WP:WEB. The arguments made thus far are not void, and in the final sum of things, the article is notable, and worthy of wikipedia. I do understand how wikipedia and notability works, and I believe WhatIsJoppa.com is important enough to keep because of its verified popularity. Any rebuttals to this statement is the opinion of another editor asserting that their interpretation of WP:WEB falsifies the notability of the article. I stand that my interpretation verifies the article's notability. --EndlessVince 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)
Popularity isn't a criteria for WP:WEB. Nor have you even proven that this is somehow immensely popular. The alexa rank is over a million [42] which doesn't signify overt popularity. The resources are small local papers about local people. That doesn't fit WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the people on this discussion board "sockpuppets," I find offensive. These are real people with real concerns. Your comments cut to a personal level. Maybe you should review the guidelines you so "diarrhea-ly" post. You have no proof that these folks here are "sockpuppets," besides that fact that you can't believe this article you have tried to prove "un-notable" is proving to be quite notable through its national and international support. 24.61.157.174
These are real people who are only here to attempt to sway the AfD in their direction. They have made no prior edits. They continue to only edit in this AfD and the article itself. No matter how often or how loudly you proclaim that this subject is notable, you have yet to provide any verification to back it up. IrishGuy talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets are a commonly used term on wikipedia, and not meant as offensive. But please don't attack the intended editor.--EndlessVince 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what sockpuppets are. I was offended by the accusation that real people on this discussion were being reduced to various "fronts" of the same person, based on nothing but opinion. And, it was never my intention to attack anyone. I was just pointing out some things 24.61.157.174 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may very well be. It really isn't relevant as anonymous editors with no edit history don't carry weight in AfDs. IrishGuy talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why continually comment and mention the use of sock/meat puppets? If we don't matter in the descision, then please don't complain about our comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
While your antics are largely irrelevant to the final decision, I will still address questions about notability guidelines. Please sign your posts. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signing posts is not mandatory; plus, IrishGuy will do it for you if you don't. Watch this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)
Signing posts is necessary in an AfD. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if people FAMILIAR with the subject matter of a certain article want to defend and provide evidence for its notability, they have to first be members and then acquire a substantial "edit history" on this site in order for their arguments to carry any weight? That doesn't seem right for some reason. I have no intention of become a member of wikipedia, but if I knew of a certain article I liked was being deleted, I would hope that my voice would be heard, and that I would be able to help defend it. That's what these folks are doing, and I applaud them all. 24.61.157.174 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These folks are being rallied from your own message board. They have been sent here to sway the AfD by Joppa. They aren't simply concerned people who are familiar with the subject matter. They are members of your website and are acting out of personal interest. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean they are not concerned supporters. I would hope that anyone with a command of the subject matter in this article would also be a member of our site. That doesn't make them any less valid. In fact, in a discussion about noteriety, I would think that it would help the case.24.61.157.174 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it most assuredly does mean they aren't simply concerned supporters. The exact wording by a member of Joppa was: We here at Joppa cannot let the time and hard work of you individuals that have been keeping it alive be for nothing! and then further went on to instruct your forum members to come here and sway the vote in your favor. May I bring to your attention Wikipedia's policy on Meatpuppetry wherein it states: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. IrishGuy talk 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, when the topic of discussion is noteriety, it is only fitting, in order to prove noteriety, and extended (no local) importance of an article, it is only fitting that the voices of people from all over the world make it known that Joppa is not a "local phenomenon" as you are fond of calling it. Just because you've been overwhelmed with Joppa "noteriety" attracting so much attention to this page, doesn't mean you can call these folks "un-concerned." And, I never asked anyone to "vote." I understand this is not an issue to vote, so please don't put words in my mouth.24.61.157.174 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the fact that a post in a discussion forum is the catalyst for our reaction. I am not a zombie or puppet, but a thinking and logical human. I like Joppa and think the entry is useful; deleting it would be a shame. Joppa has met the criteria... and along with several real and interested parties that took time out of their day to put in their 2 cents in wikipedia, a regular editor agrees. Believe me, I would much rather be doing something else then defending a proven point to someone who ignores lines of argumentation based on an apparentv blind motivation bias. Heck, the argument of reading something, being stirred you into action, and having that motivation discredit you can be made for you reading the WP:WEP (or whatever) and then you springing into action to erase potential articles. Insane. Motivation and truth are not necessarily related. Also, attacking us with libelous slang such as "meatpuppet" is not very nice. Read your own damn attack page, you have the link but aparently are not familiar with the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)
Joppa has not met the criteria of WP:WEB and you were sent here from the forum. Whether you "resent" these facts or not is largely irrelevant. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, there is no possible way you can justify breaking Wiki policy to sway an AfD. You sent forum members here. They aren't concerned users. They are puppets. And your argument doesn't even work. If your site is so notorious and popular (even though Alexa shows otherwise) then why were their only a small handfull of IP puppets? Your site just plain doesn't meet WP:WEB. Bringing forth more anonymous puppets won't alter that fact. IrishGuy talk 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call me a puppet. Never call me a puppet. Calling me a puppet is what I consider an offensive statement and a personal attack, there is no way you know why I'm here. Simply because someone asks me to do something isn't why I do it. I don't care if what Thom did is considered innapropriate in the world of Wikipedia. But don't tell me I'm doing some else's work. Please stop your aggressive statements and make your descision. 72.81.58.236 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear why you are here. I quick glance at your edit history shows that you have only edited in this AfD and exactly one edit in the Joppa article. Nowhere else. You first edited here after the message was posted on the forum directing people to come here and sway the AfD for Joppa. You have even commented on the Joppa forum about your conversations here on this AfD. IrishGuy talk 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You persist on calling me a meat puppet. Please stop. Read your own regulations. Just because I care about the significance of this article and not the deletion of every article on Wikipedia means nothing in relation to calling me a meat puppet. If I later want to comment on the situation after I have been involved in the debate doesn't mean anything at all except that I am telling people what's going on. People who care have a right to know. This is a public discussion. Simply because my voice carries little wheight doesn't mean you have the right to insult me as you have. 72.81.58.236 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're only edits are here and the Joppa article. You came here via the Joppa forum specifically to sway the AfD in Joppa's favor. That is the definition of meatpuppetry: a new Internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues. It isn't an attack, nor is it an offensive term. It is a label for certain kinds of behavior...the kind you are indulging in. IrishGuy talk 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"a new Internet community member account." As I did not create a new account on Wikipedia, but post simply through my IP, I am not a meat puppet. Please read the regulation before quoting it at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)
You may not be a registed member, but once you post you are a member. You are, in fact, a meatpuppet. You came here with one goal in mind under the direction of others. IrishGuy talk 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, if you clearly won't consider me anything else, for the love of god have me blocked. I might make a outragous claim that will sway your opinion! God forbid. 72.81.58.236 21:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attack, but an honest observation You're impossible to reason with, and you seem hell bent on the truth of your opinion despite evidence to the contrary. When someone raises a valid point you always fall back on their sudden existence on wikipedia due to the crisis you have started, but do not address their valid arguments; this is the equivalent of an outstretched hand and yelling "What-evah." You can attack Joppa fans as meatheads, but their arguments are valid and more than enough evidence has been offered up to satisfy wikipdeia’s requirements for notoriety (local paper, boston globe, itunes, myspace, most popular return for Joppa despite other legitimate hits, et cetera, et cetera.) I’m sure you’re not a moron, but you sure come off as one. I'm sure you will label this as an attack, I assure you it is not meant as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)
Your "observation" clearly falls under WP:ATTACK. This doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's clear why you are here - but if I were to make an appropriate comment you'd link me to CIV and ATTACK again. GreatGatsby 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to keep things clear: how much you like is site is irrelevant. It needs to meet WP:WEB which this doesn't. IrishGuy talk 03:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was irrelevant and didn't apply to the previous comment at all. Stop repeating the same thing over and over, or it will be considered simple vandalism of this AfD. Simply because we pose arguments doesn't mean your response has to be the same again and again. Reply with your own arguments rather than restating what you had said, or we get nowhere. We can afterall read your previous posts. 72.81.58.236 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if someone is bullying the Joppa article on wikipedia, you don't think we have a right to speak up for what is being considered "un-notable" in the eyes of one, yes ONE, member of wikipedia. I honestly think that if you didn't have a personal grudge against what we're doing here, you'd have not bothered to respond--rather poorly--to any of these people defending the article. You would simply have made your case and allowed it to take its due course. What is the problem here? These people have obviously gone through a great length to prove to you that the article is notable. Yes, SOME are from our message board. That's only natural for people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the notability of the article. They would naturally be a part of our community--which is rather large and notable. The point is, if Joppa is so "un-notable" then why are so many people--from all over the globe--speaking out about it. They are NOT puppets. They have their own mind, and can choose whether or not to act in this matter. The hundreds of people that subscribe to our site have enjoyed the opportunity to use wikipedia as a means of learning some of the background and history of the Joppa group. To inform them that someone was threatening to take that away still doesn't seem like a breach of regulations. It was a means of informing them, AND if they had a means of defending it's KEEPING, then they have every right to use that means. Wikipedia makes this discussion open to anyone, which implies that anyone has a right to defend what they feel is just. Nowhere does it say "Members Only." That's the beauty of wikipedia. And, I'll say this again, seeing as it was ignored last time, quoted form wikipedia itself: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. 24.61.157.174 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIV. Putting an article up for AfD isn't bullying the Joppa article. The problem is that as a member of Joppa, you shouldn't even be involved as that violates WP:VAIN. Another problem is that you willfully violated policy by trying to amass sockpuppets via your message forum. Yet another problem is that nobody has been able to illustrate any level of verifiable notability. And frankly, there aren't so many people speaking up for Joppa. There are two editors who helped write the article, you, and about two other anonymous people. That isn't exactly an army. Contrary to what you claim about the validity of your anonymous compatriots having validity, Wikipedia states: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. But at the end of the day, the facts still stand: your site doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "may be discounted" does not mean they ARE discounted. You are discounting them because they don't fit in with your argument. You are trying to prove noteriety. Their reasons are not misrepresented by the mere fact that they are here to prove noteriety, being the FAN BASE that has given Joppa its noteriety--as with ANYTHING that gains noteriety--IT STARTS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE IT. And, no, I have NOTHING to do with the creation of the wikipedia article. HOWEVER, I do have something to do with this discussion because you have been asking for proof of the group's accolades and acclaim, and myself, as well as Ben Watts, were asked to help provide this proof. And, my friend, you should count again: me and "two other anonymous people" is not accurate. You still have not responded to the quoted text from wikipedia's statement on guidelines.Please stop asking me to read WP:CIV I have yet to be "uncivil." I am merely responding to your arguments.24.61.157.174 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am discounting them because they are puppets sent here by the subject of the article to sway the AfD. No matter how often you use CAPS and continue to claim things, the fact is google garners less that 30 unique hits [43] and alexa puts your ranking over a million [44]. You have been quite uncivil as well as willfully breaking Wikipolicy and somehow having the audacity to continue to attempt to justify doing so. Here is some advice, the more you try to justify incorrect behavior, the less secure your footing is to defend the integrity of this article. Your site doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, NEVER give me advice. It's very insulting, and you may want to check out WP:CIV. Also, I would ask that you stop altering my posts. A number of people have complained about that here, and though I'm not as well-versed (or, do I care to be) in the wiki guidelines as yourself, I know that there must be something prohibiting that. A person on this board may choose or not choose to display their IP address, that's why they are given the option. If I am communicating a "link" to prove one side of the argument, it doesn't matter if I'm anonymous or a member. A fact is a fact. By forcibly changing people's posts to display their IP address, it is not only a breach of this board's guidelines, but it is also a privacy breach of internet practices--I know, I have friends in the computer crime unit out of Boston. So, if you want to spend your time here throwing guidelines (WHICH THIS ARTICLE MEETS) in our face, I will do the same to you if you publically display someone's IP address on this board without their consent. Thank you. And, stop making up facts like Google returning only 30 unique hits. You and I both know, that is false. That's NOT how to have a debate. 24.61.157.174 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you are uncivil, I will warn you about it. I have not altered your posts. I have added an unsigned template. Signing posts is part of the Wikietiquette for AfDs. If you don't want your IP shown, you can register for an account. Not signing your posts doesn't hide your IP address, it is in the edit history. Not signing your posts is just another way you willfully shirk off Wikipolicy. Yes, google has less than 30 unique hits. Check the link I provided. IrishGuy talk 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong about google. I'll say that again. Just because you keep saying something won't make it true. And, just because you personally performed a limited search for Joppa, doesn't mean a thing. But, then again, you discredited google when the point was made that whatisjoppa.com was the number one hit on a google search for "Joppa," out of thousands of "Joppa" articles. It can't work for one argument, and not another. And, no, an IP address is as private as a telephone number. If someone chooses to display it on this board, it is their choice. If someone is on here to make a claim based on outside evidence, which they provide a link to, it doesn't matter who they are, because, like I said, a fact is a fact. What do the guidelines say about someone making an entry "deletion" personal, rather than operational? You obviously have some problem with the show itself, and because of you lack of subtance or reason to remove the article, it only proves my point. I am not being uncivil, I am simply resonding to arguments. 24.61.157.174 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually check? Look at the link. It shows less that 30 unique hits. While it may say there are a few thousand returns for "what is joppa", it hides all the redundant hits so less than 30 are actually shown. Please don't presume to tell me what my motivation is or isn't. I put an importance tag on the article. It was up for eight days with no importance being illustrated in the article. At that point I put it up for AfD. That is standard procedure. When a tag is ignored it goes to AfD. If this ever meets WP:WEB, which it currently doesn't, it may be recreated. IrishGuy talk 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as typical, you fail to resond to anything, but simply re-stated things which have been rebuked previously. Your search is ILL-FOUNDED on google. You searched for "what is joppa." First of all, as I mentioned, just searching for "Joppa" will get you more unique hits for us, as well as the TOP hit. Then, searching for "whatisjoppa" will get you even more. Then, searching for "fmcrew", which is our actual domain name, will get you even more. You can't search for "what is joppa." I'm amazed you even got the hits you did. "What is Joppa" is not the show. "Joppa" is the show. "Whatisjoppa" is the domain name we were forced to use beause "joppa.com" was taken--WHICH AGAIN, disproves the point that you were trying to make earlier about "Joppa" being an uncommon word, which it is not. But, I'm not exptecting you to actually respond to every argument that doesn't fit your side of the debate. You've failed to do so thus far. Proof has been supplied here over and over again as to the site notability. You continue to play with technicalities, which as I've posted from wikipedia's own literature, is NOT the way to approach deletions. ANOTHER point you have failed to respond to. You continue to bully this board with your empty points which have been discarded again and again--that tells me that you must have a personal problem with this website--which is fine--but you don't need to intrude on our, or our fans, creations. Your tag of "importance" was responded to and qualified, yet you still insisted on a deletion. That tells me you've got other motivations here. You see, I just responded to EVERY point you raised, which I've been doing all along. You should try that, and possibly make yourself more convincing. And, the MySpace feature is not trivial. It's an award, accolade, whatever you want to call it. But, it's a sign of notability. 24.61.157.174 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As typical? Again, please read WP:CIV. Searching for "joppa" proves nothing as you aren't the only use of that word. Searching for the name of the domain is a more accurate search, and that brings less than 30 unique hits...which is clearly not notable. You and your army of puppets have completely failed to illustrate notability. You have provided iTunes, which YOU put your own work on so it isn't independent of you and therefore doesn't count; you provided a local paper with a small local distribution which profiled local people, and that is trivial at best; you provided the claim that it is "popular" but google and alexa prove otherwise. I couldn't care less what you believe to be my motivation. I have never watched your work. Then again, I have never read War and Peace but that is eminently notable and therefore deserves and article. Less so Joppa. IrishGuy talk 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop telling me to read WP:CIV. I am not being uncivil, I am just responding to arguments. Which, again, you have failed to do, except with falsities. The google search--which is now apparently a "noteriety gauge" again--shows almost 800 hits when you search for our domain name. Which Google are you using? We did "submit" our podcast to iTunes--LIKE EVERYONE ELSE--and it was CHOSEN as a NOTABLE podcast, and featured on the iTunes hompage. This is out of hundreds and thousands of podcasts. Not to mention we were in the Top 50 podcasts after being on there for a week out of hundreds and thousands. Your OPINION of whether MySpace or certain periodicals are NON-NOTABLE, is just that--YOUR OPINION. It doesn't have any basis in fact. Just because you feel something to be un-notable as a publication because it fits with your personal attack on this site, doesn't make it so. And, you've again, unproved yourself--searching for Joppa proves nothing, because we are not the only use of that word--EXACTLY. But, we are the NUMBER ONE hit for that word out of...3 MILLION uses. Thanks for reminding me of that! And, don't worry, this is Thom again, though my IP is different, because I'm at work. Please start responding to arguments if you want to seem credible, not just repeating alrady discarded points 24.128.101.14 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop asking you to read WP:CIV when you cease to be uncivil. Making accusations about me and my motivation is egregiously uncivil. Constantly using terms like typically, personal attack, bullying and accusing me of using falsities is an attack. You aren't reading what I write. While google claims a certain amount of hits, those aren't all unique hits, which is what is important. When you go to the last page you will find that there are a fraction of the total hits which are unique. Google hides all the redundant hits and only shows the unique hits. With that, you have less than 30 hits. It isn't my opinion about MySpace. MySpace isn't allowed as an external link under WP:EL because it isn't a notable reference. When you are able to provide anything notable and verifiable, please let me know. Until that time, this doesn't meet WP:WEB. Please try to be more civil in the future. IrishGuy talk 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just said absolutely nothing with any substance. Your readings on google are incorrect. First you searched for the wrong criteria to build your argument, and now you're splitting hairs about unique vs. non-unique, because it fits your argument--when only a couple posts ago, you claimed that google was no basis for noteriety. Please decide what the basis of your argument is. We have already supplied an ample amount of evidence as to why this article is notable. Again, your opinion of what publications are notable is just your opinion. Something you have not denied. The criteria of not allowing MySpace references, is due to the fact that you can't claim noteriety by the number of visits you get on MySpace--that would be unreliable. We are not using that. We are using an accolade we received from MySpace, which, as a company, serves thousands of members--us being one. And, if you keep citing specific guidelines, I will again refer you to my earlier post quoting wikipedia's stance on deletions--something you, again, have not responded to. I am not being uncivil, I am only properly responding to articles. I advise you to do the same. 24.128.101.14 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, please read WP:CIV. Saying things such as You just said absolutely nothing with any substance is a blatant insult. Unique hits are what is important, NOT overall hits. Overall hits prove nothing. If you have a blog and you put a link to the site in 300 individual entries, that would make 300 hits...but only one unique hit. That is why only unique hits are looked at for an AfD. Google itself isn't a basis for notoriety. As a general rule during AfD's, when web traffic is used google is used in conjunction with alexa. Neither of those show any degree of notability on your part. I have responded to all of your posts. I have already clarified that the sentence you continue to quote has no bearing on this discussion. It is an ideal that rigid adherence to rules impedes progress...which is true. It isn't about allowing in website which meet no standard of WP:WEB. You continue to claim that you have provided evidence, yet every single time I rebut it, you avoid it completely. I have repeatedly pointed out that popularity isn't a criteria for WP:WEB. Additionally, you have completely failed to prove that this is somehow immensely popular. The alexa rank is over a million [45] which doesn't signify overt popularity. Your site has been up for 13 month. Your hit counter shows roughly 45,000 hits. That is about 3,000 hits a month...not notable or indicative of monster popularity. The resources given are small local papers with limited distribution about local people. That doesn't fit WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 19:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying You just said absolutely nothing with any substance is not an insult, it is a comment on the quality of your posts, and it makes me wonder just what it is you consider an insult. The information you had stated was a clear repetition of things you had said before. Simply because you had added a few words here and there is not substance. Please limit your repeated posts so we can constrain the size of this already large file.72.81.58.236 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been a week. I don't foresee more evidence being presented. Please call the decision, and let it rest. --EndlessVince 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - I would like to see some different long-standing editors opinions, I'm curious if they'd support deletion or keeping. In any case, this discussion has gone too long and should close one way or the other. - Quolnok 08:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly notoriety. IrishGuy talk 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion of ONE poster here. Most people would call being picked to be featured out of thousands of pages on MySpace by the administration of the website to very VERY notable. But, thanks for your opinion.24.128.101.14 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MySpace isn't considered media and therefore it doesn't assist in meeting WP:WEB. Additionally, it isn't an independent website showing your work because YOU put that work on MySpace. Hence, MySpace doesn't lend anything to your argument. IrishGuy talk 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about media? You were talking earlier about awards/accolades. Again, please decide what the basis of your argument it before sending a response. Again, what you fail to understand, or chose not to, is that WE did not put our work on the featured page on MySpace, it was CHOSEN. There is a difference there, if you want to hear it. But, if you've got a personal problem with out site, then I can understand the use of "blinders." 24.128.101.14 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only way you could possibly try to use it. The criteria for awards state: The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. That isn't by any stretch a well-known award. Nor is it independent because it for a myspace profile which YOU added to myspace. Another criteria is: 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. That doesn't work either because YOU put up the MySpace profile, so therefore it isn't independent of you. The only option left is media, which MySpace isn't. Beyond all of this, arguing for the inclusion of an article about you violates WP:VAIN. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site has to be run independent of the creators, not the distributed material. "a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" not content that is independent of the creators.72.81.58.236 21:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as MySpace is a place for individuals (or groups) to create their own independent profiles and put forth their own material. As such, a MySpace profile doesn't count as independent of Joppa. Therefore, MySpace is not an independent entity distributing Joppa material. They wouldn't be distributing Joppa material had Joppa not put that material on MySpace. IrishGuy talk 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Godfather wasn't a movie it wouldn't have won any Oscars. I don't see your point.72.81.58.236 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. What does a film winning an Oscar have to do with a group creating a profile and then pointing to that profile as an independent source? IrishGuy talk 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. I'm saying that if the Godfather wasn't on the silver screen, but was simply a movie someone made, it wouldn't qualify for an Oscar, because it didn't appear in theaters. Joppa, without being a member of Myspace couldn't win the award it was presented. I hope that if you actually think about it for a second you will understand.72.81.58.236 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that your comparison doesn't work. The Joppa MySpace thing would be closer to a movie that was filmed for HBO winning an award granted by HBO. In any case, the highlight isn't an award and beyond that it isn't a well known and independent award as required by WP:WEB. It isn't a well known award because..well..it isn't an award. And it isn't independent because it is only for MySpace profiles of which Joppa created one. When you join an organization and then get an award from that organization, it isn't an independent award. IrishGuy talk 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For once I'll say it... fair enough.72.81.58.236 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, keep searching for new reasons. I wasn't brought here as a meat puppet, either, so I don't like the insinuation. You've already lost this battle, why keep fighting? And being the featured comedian on MySpace is a big deal, FYI. GreatGatsby 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't new reasons. They are the same criteria that this article has failed to meet since the beginning of this AfD. A MySpace feature meets exactly none of the criteria for WP:WEB as I outlined above. None. It isn't a recognized award. It isn't a media publication. It isn't distributing content independent of the creators. IrishGuy talk 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the rules aren't set in stone right? By the logic you've used through this discussion, a website that had millions of hits but was never mentioned on another website/publication/etc shouldn't have a page. What? If it's measured on Alexa it gets included? There are much more important articles that require attention, run off there. Oh, and MySpace has something like a hundred million users, it's not an inconsequential site. To be highlighted on such a site is quite notable. GreatGatsby 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While MySpace may have many users, they only highlight profiles created on that site by those users and therefore it isn't independent. Nor is it a well known award. Actually, yes, high traffic isn't part of WP:WEB and therefore isn't particularly relevant. It is occasionally looked at when there is some notability to push it one way or the other, but I have never seen an AfD grant status to an article based solely on web traffic. In any case, whatisjoppa.com isn't a high traffic site so the point is moot. IrishGuy talk 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've missed all of this, I've actually been AWAY from a computer for a couple hours. Listen, the fact of the matter is this: You asked for proof, we've supplied it, and you continue to come back with empty, opinionated arguments. Just because what proves Joppa to be notable is, in your OPINIOIN, sources that are not notable, doesn't change the fact. It shows you've taken a personal interest in getting this page deleted, and that is against the Wiki guidelines. If you don't have any substantial evidence to unprove our well-documented sources of noteriety--BESIDES your opinion that these sources are NOT NOTABLE--then, please move on. You are in way over your head here. There are a number of registered users on this page who disagree with you, and in case you hadn't noticed, you are the ONLY one on this page who is optioning for deletion. I understand this isn't a vote, but you have to step back and ask yourself, "Am I just trying to win an argument here, or do I have substantial reasons for having this page deleted?" It's okay, we'll forgive you when this is all over. And, once again, I'm not being uncivil, I'm just trying to help you out. You can keep throwing the WP:CIV in my face all you want, but it really makes no difference to me. I'm not a registered user and don't plan to be, I didn't create this article on Joppa, and I have no opinion one way or another if you think I'm being uncivil. I'm much too busy. The fact is, we've proved noteriety. All we ask is that you disprove it without your personal opinions on whether or not MySpace or iTunes or major New England publications are notable. That's all. You can't just say, "I don't think they're notable." It doesn't work that way. That's not a rebuttal. Sorry. And, your views on MySpace are completely incorrect, and the Godfather comparison is right on. We didn't get the award from MySpace because our "profile" looked nice. We got it because of our original content on the page, which is just an extension of OUR OWN website. So, NO, it's not like HBO giving an award to and HBO movie. MySpace didn't produce our content. We did. And, if you want to split hairs, I refer again to the wikipedia literature, which you seem to have misinterpreted above. 24.61.157.174 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided ANY references that are verifiable and meet WP:WEB...no matter how many times you simply repeat your claim that you have. This doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. The MySpace highlight isn't an award and beyond that it isn't a well known and independent award as required by WP:WEB. It isn't a well known award because..well..it isn't an award. And it isn't independent because it is only for MySpace profiles of which Joppa created one. When you join an organization and then get an award from that organization, it isn't an independent award. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. By the way, for those not completely familiar with Wikipedia deletions, IrishGuy isn't going to be the one making the one making the final decision. As a general rule, nominators don't do the actual deletion of articles. The AfD is just waiting for an independent administrator to see that the discussion is over to come by and finalize the outcome of the discussion. That outcome most likely being no consensus or some other variety of keep. --EndlessVince 07:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so IrishGuy does not have any real power? Good. I'm sure an unbiased source will see through his silly arguments and let the page exist. Joppa has been written about in local news media, an article is being written by national media, featured on itunes, and last but not least it has been touted on the #1 website in the world--a website completely unaffiliated with Joppa, mind you--as a featured comic sketch group. The notoriety is undisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)
This doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. IrishGuy talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided ANY real proof that this wiki does not meet WP:WEB no matter how many times you claim it doesn't. We've established that search engines are not a proper way to base the notability of Joppa. The rest are simply your interpritations of the regulations, which we disagree with. We have brought forth plenty of evidence to support WP:WEB you simply don't belive it. 72.81.58.236 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No proof at all...except for everything outlined above. Here it is again: It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. I couldn't care less that anonymous puppets happen to disagree with the criteria for WP:WEB. The criteria still stands, and this article still fails to meet them. IrishGuy talk 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll say again, that is your opinion. Not proof. I'm glad you've told us you don't care at all about the arguments made here, it explains alot.72.81.58.236 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I don't care about the arguments made. What I did say, however, is that I couldn't care less is anonymous puppets disagree with Wiki policy. And no, the fact that this doesn't meet WP:WEB isn't opinion. Nobody has been able to illustrate anything even remotely resembling notability. It has won no well-known independent awards. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media...it had exactly one mention in a local paper. That is neither non-trivial, nor is it multiple. It has not had it's content distributed by a website completely independent of Joppa. The only content on other site was put there by Joppa (MySpace, etc.). This article meets none of the criteria for WP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'LL say it again. Your opinion of whether or not these multiple sources of noteriety are notable does not matter. What matters is that everyone else on this discussion, INCLUDING registered member of wikipedia, agree that they are notable. I'll tell you ALSO again, that just because you keep repeating yourself, doesn't make it true.24.61.157.174 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. On the article talk page, you may see the editors even admit that they need more resources to fit WP:WEB...which were never supplied. It isn't opinion that a local paper about local people with a reach of 8,000 is trivial. It is also only one mention and the criteria outlines that multiple non-trivial notices in the media are required. You don't have those. Nor do you have a well-known award from an independent source. You have nothing but puppets who simply declare that this fits WP:WEB with no evidence at all. IrishGuy talk 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's wrong. Sorry. We've supplied multiple non-trivial notices, and we've also mentioned a number of awards received from independant sources. The fact that YOU don't think they're non-trivial or awards, is a personal problem between you and our website, which I'm still trying to figure out. Next. 24.128.101.14 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. You claim that there have been interviews with larger publications, but you have provided exactly zero verifiable evidence to back up this claim. All you have is a local newspaper with a circulation of 8,000. You haven't received any awards. You had a MySpace highlight (which is neither an award, nor is it independent of you since you created the profile). Please stop making personal attacks about my character, motivation, and/or intentions. IrishGuy talk 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct I was. We've explained the MySpace AWARD to you as well as the iTunes ACCOLADE. So, please, stop regurgitating inccorect observations. A correct observation would be that you've taken a personal interest in our group's demise, and that is against wikipedia guidelines. If your deletion request was based on actual proof, then there wouldn't be an issue here. But, since you've failed to provide that, and other registered members have, then I'm sorry, you have no argument besides your own opinion. And, I can't quite figure out what this "personal attack" business is all about. Anyone that's ready my posts can see that I've yet to "attack" you. Quite the opposite actually. This whole deletion process administered by yourself is a personal attack on us. Is it because we're not magicians?24.61.157.174 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MySpace didn't give you an award. It isn't well-known, nor is it independent as they constantly highlight various profiles...of which YOU signed up for making it far from independent of you. Once more, please stop making personal attacks about my character, motivation, and/or intentions. IrishGuy talk 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack That's all we've been doing. Please read your own rules instead of pushing false satements about them onto us.72.81.58.236 03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly making accusatory comments about my motivation and/or intentions is a personal attack. IrishGuy talk 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been the one atacking our motivation, jackass. Get it straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.75.196 (talk • contribs)
You are wildly in violation of WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy talk 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. What you're doing is not only pointless and consuming the amount of space this article takes up, but also aggrivating everyone else in this disscussion. (I'm asking not because it just violates WP:SIZEI'm asking for the sake of everyone in this AfD.) 72.81.58.236 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this doesn't violate WP:SIZE. That guideline states: In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature, and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32 KB of total text. However, there are still good stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues, so article size is usually a consideration, though no longer a binding rule as it once was. As this is no longer a rule and instead quite clearly refers to the body of an article, it has nothing to do with an AfD. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just say MySpace isn't well-known?...that's what I thought. I think that about sums up the intelligence of all your arguments. Unless you respond with something original, and stop pointing fingers with your baseless "personal attack claims"--about the only thing you've been harping on the last few posts--then, I am done here. I've got more important things to do. Like run a notable comedy site. And don't get me wrong: I have not ONCE defended my own show. That is not my intention. If this were a discussion on whether or not Joppa was a good show, then I would have no right to respond, being the creator. This is a discussion on the rights of certain fans to publish an article on wikipedia--THAT is what I'm defending. Because it has to do with my show is a moot point. I would never tell someone they had to enjoy Joppa, because everyone is entitled their own opinion of art and other media. Much like IrishGuy's opinion that MySpace and iTunes are not popular establishments, or that certain newspapers are not-notable, yet others are. I respect those opinions of yours, but unfortunately, they don't really hold any ground in this discussion. If you were king, in order to have an article on wikipedia, we'd have to have made the front page of the New York Times. It's been a blast talking to you IG! Hope you've learned something. 24.61.157.174 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I didn't say MySpace wasn't well known. I said that the place where you were highlighted isn't a well known award nor is it indepedent of you...both criteria for WP:WEB. I think that about sums up the intelligence of all your arguments? Enough with the personal attacks. Like run a notable comedy site? Unfortunately, if you are referring to Joppa, is doesn't happen to fit the notability guidelines set forth inWP:WEB. IrishGuy talk 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Are you serious? Myspace and Joppa are independent from each other... Just because I can get a driver's license in California (e.g. create a myspace page) does not mean I am affiliated with the state of California. Myspace is the #1 site on the internet, and the decisions of it's editors are de facto notable. Actually, the decisions of the number 1 site on the internet have more authority than those on Wikipedia, including minor editors. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but until you actually read the WP:WEP and Attack page--and understand it--there is no point in responding to your posts until you can be reasonable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.75.196 (talk • contribs)
When you volunarily create a profile with a group you cease to be completely independent of them. IrishGuy talk 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The post above shows ignorance of the word independent and Wikipedia's idea behind receiving an independent award. The discussion is over. You lost. Go home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.159.133 (talk • contribs)
The above is highly un-civil and incorrect. MySpace doesn't give awards, hence Joppa couldn't have ever received one. Additionally, joining an organization precludes you from claiming independence of them. IrishGuy talk 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HAHA, seriously? By that logic the Screen Actors Guild Awards would not meet the independence criteria. If you have a hand in picking yourself for the award or recognition, then you are not independent; the myspace, joppa situation does not violate the independence notion despite joppa having a self created page. To all readers: make note of IrishGuy making more ignorant arguments, having a high propensity for logical fallacies, and being an all around dick. Congrats, I will give you the dick award of the week, but because I am apparently a member of wikipedia along with you, do not try to claim notoriety based on this award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.83.114 (talk • contribs)
You are once again in violation of WP:ATTACK. Also, as noted on numerous occasions, MySpace doesn't give out awards, well-known or otherwise. IrishGuy talk 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The profile was simply on Myspace because Joppa wanted to have a myspace account. They didn't create it for the sole purpose of recieving the award. Thus, if we say that Joppa isn't independent of Myspace as you do, then the award, not the organization, is independent. The site has to recive an independent award, not recieve it from a independent organization.72.81.58.236 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that they didn't create it for the purpose of winning an award...because they didn't win an award. And yes, the award must be both well known (the award, not the group presenting it) and it must be independent as well as awarded by an independent entity. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which it is, in the opion of members and non-members on this board, except you. So, thanks again for your opinion. And, trying to double-talk around the fact that Joppa is not independant of myspace is just stupid. You sound stupid, whilst trying to sound like you're making an argument. Joppa is no more connected with myspace than any filmmaker that submits their work to a film festival. Think before you type. And, IF YOU'VE GOT NOTHING NEW TO SAY, move along please. 24.61.157.174 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you alter the signature and timestamp of the above comment as well as vote multiple times? [46] That is a clear violation of AfD policy. MySpace isn't a festival. That comparison makes no sense. IrishGuy talk 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know how to vote multiple times. What the hell are you talking about. See my below comment concerning your further incorrect oversation. Move on, please. 24.128.101.14 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This article has now more than tripled the suggested size of articles on Wikipedia WP:SIZE may they be AfD or otherwise, hindering the possible responses from other users. Please wrap up this conversation. Regurgitating facts simply takes up space. Please only reply with original responses, as we can very well read old ones. 72.81.58.236 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement. As much as it may be tempting to shoot down another faulty, much repeated, rebuttal of our Irish Magician, it's just as well that we let him fizzle out, and move onto to bigger and better deletions--God knows he's got a bunch under his belt. There is no way he can win here today, you've proved it, and if we keep responding--I KNOW it's tempting--then this will keep going on. Let him fizzle. And, yes, the "Irish Magician" thing may have been a personal attack. So, there's not need to remind me. I am well aware. And, pointedly--don't give a shit.24.61.157.174

First off, I'm not a magician. Sencond, repeatedly claiming that you have made a point doesn't change the fact that your site completely fails WP:WEB. Third, you are willfully in violation of WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy talk 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, if someone knows they violated a rule, you don't have to tell them. It's pointless. Second, repeatedly claiming you have made a case against Joppa doesn't change the fact that you haven't. 72.81.58.236 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I have repeatedly pointed out and clarified, this doesn't meet WP:WEB.A local paper about local people with a reach of 8,000 is trivial. It is also only one mention and the criteria outlines that multiple non-trivial notices in the media are required. You don't have those. Nor do you have a well-known award from an independent source. Ignoring this doesn't mean the point wasn't made. It simply means you are ignoring it. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I said I was done...but, it's SO hard not to respond to open stupidity. "I'm not a magician." Brillaint. Thank you for clearing that up. And, yes, you are wrong about our sources. We've proved it so many times it hurts my brain, but I do cherish your opinion. Now, I promise I'm done, unless you happen to supply us with another zinger I can't afford to let stand. And, what is this WP:ATTACK thing? You've never mentioned that before.24.128.101.14 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have proven nothing...you simply keep claiming that you have. You have a non-notable local paper. You have two websites where you added content yourself and are attempting to pretend they are awards. You have nothing that even remotely meets WP:WEB. If you did, you would have simply presented it instead of constantly claiming that you have it without providing any verifiable evidence that you do. IrishGuy talk 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, everyone, don't even bother. The article is in good hands. There's too many people on here (MEMBERS and otherwise) who know what's going on. In fact, of all the people here, there is...let me see....yes, ONE, who's a bit "confused." We know he's going to claim we're all sockpuppets because he can't stand defeat--but, anyone who has the means of checking, can certainly find out the truth--like I said, there are a number of wiki MEMBERS on here that have sided with KEEPING the article. Let's end it. There's nothing more to say. We've proved our sources, and he's just trying to lure us into further debate by repeating already settled arguments. IrishGuy's terrorism has gone on long enough. Goodbye. Seriously. Do NOT respond to him anymore.24.128.101.14 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for further providing evidence that all of the anonymous puppets are under your control. You have attempted to sway an AfD using WP:VAIN, WP:SOCK, and WP:ATTACK. You have not provided anything in the way of WP:WEB criteria, but instead have simply resorted to WP:SNOW. IrishGuy talk 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So nice of you to revise your post with even more attacks after I replied. IrishGuy talk 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? I'm constantly revising my posts right after putting them up, because I notice spelling mistakes and things I forgot. I didn't even notice your response. You must have gotten that up there really quick! Good for you. Doesn't change anything, though.24.128.101.14
You revised your post twenty mintues after originally posting it. I am to believe that you didn't notice my reply? IrishGuy talk 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51-43=8. That's called math. 24.128.101.14 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. [47]. Your signature even shows that it was made at 40 after, not 43. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That still doesn't equal 20 minutes. Not that it REALLY matters. Right now, it looks like your reaching for something to hold onto. I can understand what it must feel like to be in your position. I'm sorry. But, honestly, I don't need to revise my posts in order to make you look like an idiot. I've been doing pretty well so far. 24.61.157.174 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All you have acheived is breaking various Wikipolicies and making your own position look increasingly more precarious. You have proven no degree of notability to save your vanity article, which I think you know, and that is why you have resorted to petty personal attacks. Also, I really enjoyed how you try to shrug off being horrible incorrect after being so smug about it. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Honestly, I wish you better luck on your next deletion. And, please don't take credit away from the people that wrote this article by claiming I had anything to do with it. We've covered this ground much too much. And, no, those weren't "petty" attacks. They were pretty accurate attacks. You can't bully everyone, my friend. People don't like that. Be sure to watch the show when you get a chance! See you around.24.61.157.174 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't bullied anyone. It is a bullying tactic to attempt to utilize armies of puppets for WP:SNOW, which is what you have done. Not I. I simply pointed out (repeatedly) the criteria of WP:WEB and how this site just plain doesn't meet it. You decided to start using petty personal attacks. IrishGuy talk 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Move along now.24.61.157.174 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you altering signatures and timestamps as well as vote stacking? That is a clear violation of AfD policy. IrishGuy talk 17:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? You altered your post so that it read "Delete," so I did the same with my own, adding "Keep." I also contacted the others and did the same, simply changing "Comment" to "Keep." Don't understand how this is a breach in policy. You're reaching again, buddy. Move on, please. 24.128.101.14 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. I added a comment. You altered existing comments with two different IP addresses. You effectively added two keep votes to already existing posts. You cannot vote multiple times, nor should you alter comments made by others. What you did breaches AfD policy. IrishGuy talk 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Again, unless there's new evidence to add, nothing new need be said. --EndlessVince 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls News[edit]

The title sums up the inherent flaw: the article is designed for news about the Cheetah Girls franchise, be it the third movie, the TV series, etc. It's currently a set of unsourced rumors, and that seems to hit on a couple of categories of what Wikipedia is not —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the information with the main Cheetah Girls articles (why are there so many?). It's relevent, but it doesn't deserve it own page. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 06:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misuse of WP as a free web host. Gazpacho 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Gazpacho. Also, threre is nothing to merge. The article content is fact free. -- Whpq 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho and nom. Michael Greiner 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 11:18, 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 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humorix[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. A google search for "humorix" brings forth virtually nothing [48]. The article itself provides nothing verifiable to illustrate notability. IrishGuy talk 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to point out that the Google search is spelled wrong. Here is the correct search. -- Whpq 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I imagine it would be known in Linux circles. Site has an Alexa rank of 368,434 for humorix.org (reach of 3.8/million), 209 unique Ghits out of 145,000. 274 links to, but the vast majority are internal or nl.linux.org, where someone posts with email address [email protected]. Ohconfucius 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA --Dennette 11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established FancyPants 14:59, 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 merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romney, WV Churches[edit]

the page should be deleted as listcruft and non-notable Chris 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - although de-listify and mark for expansion. If individual schools can get their own articles, churches in an area can at least share one article. --Doc 23:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - listcruft, violation of Wikipedia is not a phonebook. Michael Greiner 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, maybe it'll encourage people to add information about these churches here and not in miniscule stub articles of their own. If not, at least it makes a good merge target. JYolkowski // talk 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per JYolkowski Dina 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No amount of cleanup will help ... it's still nothing but a "phonebook" of local churches. Fails WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. --Dennette 11:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well this seems like the start of an ambitous project to delete non-notable pages of a county in West Virginia that has less than 30,000 people. I mean, who really needs to know who won a Christmas Tree Light contest. Michael Greiner 00:31, 4 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, nothing in this article is not copyvio as it stands now. I make no decision about level of notability, and won't salt the earth; if people think Ptak is notable enough for an article, write one which is a synthesis of available sources, not a directly copy of the guy's CV off of the web. --- Deville (Talk) 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ptak[edit]

Not sufficiently notable; he is a self-proclaimed pundit, he's written one book, people quote him now and then. The article is probably a WP:AUTO violation. Is this guy notable enough for an article? I vote no. Brianyoumans 23:52, 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, and not merge. As far as I can tell there is nothing satifying WP:V to merge. Give it a year or so, if this TV show ever does come out, feel free to recreate the article. --- Deville (Talk) 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls (TV Series)[edit]

Article about a on-hiatus Cheetah Girls spinoff. Full of crystal balling and speculation, with no reliable sources to verify it's existence. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete crystalballism. Can someone tell me why this group is so popular? Danny Lilithborne 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Just because you don't like the Cheetah Girls Danny, doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. This article does have references, just not accesible by internet. I don't think it should be deleted just because know one on here saw the episode of TRL, that stated this information!This article has been critised way too much, just because some people don't like the Cheetah Girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.18.207 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I have no opinion of the Cheetah Girls, other than being mystified by their apparent popularity. As for your comment, please read WP:NOT, specifically the part that reads "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did this show get on the air? Gazpacho 01:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Comment Fails WP:V & violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The show was never aired. Michael Greiner 01:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof I added links to actual MTV news articles, that prove this shows existence.now that there is proof, there is no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.18.207 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment First, don't remove the reason I nominated this article. Second, while those articles say it was in production, the show has never been aired. And even with those links, the article is still loaded mostly with speculation and rumors, which do not belong on Wikipedia. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your so called "proof" leads to two dead links. Still no sources, still should be deleted. Michael Greiner 02:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have seen the MTV episode of TRL and just becuase the show has not been shown yet that does not mean it should be deleted. Haversham Hall has it's own page and it was never picked up/aired. Same for The Cheetah Girls. Even if this is never shown, its still information the public may want to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.130.72 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, I distinctly remember this being deleted once before for the same reason. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This series would be notable if it was actually broadcast, but it hasn't been. As a second choice, very slight merge to The Cheetah Girls with a single sentence saying that a television series was announced but never made it to air. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the show had been aired, put on the internet or anything maybe not but due to the fact theres no info i suggest deletion.--ScythedRunner 08:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My understanding is unaired TV shows generally don't get articles unless they've been officially announced as airing. The fact this show was commissioned and then basically cancelled (it's been 2 years, I'd say that's a safe assumption) disqualifies it from getting an article. Merge information of interest into the main Cheetah Girls article. (What's with all the Cheetahcruft we've been seeing lately? 23skidoo 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or a best merge to The Cheetah Girls. It's an unaired TV show with very scant information about it. If it does get to air, then by all means recreate the article with facts. -- Whpq 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V (the first two links have expired). Disney has release three Cheetah Girls movies, and this is just a re-hash of a Very Old article that speculated that the series would be premiering in 2004 ... looks like they went in Another Direction with the property, and previous plans are not worthy of mention here. An why bother to merge a show that never happened to a disambiguation page, anyway? --Dennette 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an article at MTV News that has tons of information on The Cheetah Girls TV Series, but if you click on the link it says the article is deletes, but you can type in The Cheetah Girls TV Series or just the Cheetah Girls, in the search bar and the article will show up when you click on the link. there is your evidence and reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.18.207 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, fails WP:V. I decided to use Star Trek: Phase II as a litmus test. The content there shows how scripts were adapted either into the motion picture or The Next Generation episodes, how characters were adapted into the movies, etc. There was a lot of factual evidence, including quoted statements about the show from production personnel. By contast, a lot of information here is speculative. Plus, if four episodes were in the can, at least the episode titles should be out there somewhere. I just don't see there being enough factual evidence here for the article to stand. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, this article got moved to The Cheetah Girls Sitcom. Is that allowed? Should this AfD be updated to reflect this? –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is more than one link proof that the show was once in production and if deleted then it should me somewhat merged with the girl groups info. Jtervin 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This doesn't need to be an article, just put a short section about it in The Cheetah Girls.--KojiDude 01:34, 5 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 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country Park Inn[edit]

Non-notable pub, fails WP:CORP. Possibly should be speedied. Article was also deproded by anon. -- Michael Greiner 01:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_30&oldid=1116878546"