Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 3 August 5 >

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 redirect to Live action. Anyone who wants to tackle categorization is welcome to. -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Action Anime[edit]

Contested prod. The previous version was mostly a POV rant against live-action versions and general information about one forthcoming live actions movie. An anon tried to clean this up, but the article as it currently is can easily be converted into a category. Any information the article could contain should (theoreticallly) either be placed in Tokusatsu or Japanese television drama or Live action.--Kunzite 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind deleteing and categorizing, but live action remakes of anime and manga isn't confined only to Japan, City Hunter and Initial D are examples of official live action remakes that are not Japanese. --ColourBurst 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested Live action as the redirect point. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, when I opened the article I wondered if it was a category I was looking at. --HResearcher 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't anime, by definition animated? By your definition, the recent cinematic release of the Lord of the Rings should then be live action animation, since it was originally animated. --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That could be fixed by changing the name to something like live action adaptions of anime. --Edgelord 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(It's not my definition. --Kunzite 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a better title or simply categorize per above. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: The page seems consistent with the relevant list guidelines. It's not a page I would personally read, but I can't think of a policy or guideline against it, and it seems to fit in with the other anime lists. TheronJ 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize - Wickning1 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, if it hasn't been improved by end of August re-list for deletion. Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Live action. There seems to be fairly little sense in having two articles on almost the entire same subject.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize it is already a low tech version of a cat. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize per comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment relist? It looks like there already is consensus. 132.205.93.88 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, but the AFD was already over 16 days old when I relisted it. Either the closing admins do not know exactly what the consensus is or they just overlooked it. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is a topic that is alright to be kept. There is a difference between live action anime and say live action comic book adaptations or live action cartoon movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfezfilms (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 speedy delete, CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles of rhythm[edit]

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's policy for notability Ted87 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a non-notable band. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support Mr. Lefty's speedy delete. --ColourBurst 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability made in article. (Aside: why did this go to AfD? A speedy delete tag plus a {{prod}} as a backup could have taken care of this.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 dance music. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance (music)[edit]

Duplicate of the already existing dance music article (without the brackets). Either we should have the article at dance (music) or at dance music, but we shouldn't have it at both titles with and without the brackets. Voortle 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redriect per SynergeticMaggot. It seems like a likely search term.
  • Delete and redirect - the dance music page seems to make a merge unnecessary. InvictaHOG 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect How can you delete and redirect?? --HResearcher 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You delete the page. Then, you create a redirect at the title where the page once existed. GassyGuy 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean blank the page then place a redirect. Deletion is an admin action, correct? Also deletion does not include merging.--HResearcher 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I read both and the soverignty movement article seems to already contain everything from this article. If there's anything worth merging, it can be found in the page history. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Independence Movement[edit]

1) Repeated NPOV violations; 2) Material covered elsewhere Jpetersen46321 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think NPOV violations are criteria for deletion. --HResearcher 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep biased article. But could be salvaged. --Ageo020 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to Hawaiian sovereignty movement - we don't need both and I don't see much that's worth merging. It's already covered elsewhere. BigDT 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean blank then redirect. Why delete it (admin action) when it's only going to be recreated to enter the redirect? --HResearcher 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - let's do a double check of Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and make sure we don't lose anything. We can work on NPOV tone while still keeping the relevant facts available. --JereKrischel 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - seems like a fork (intended or not!) which should simply be merged back into sovereignty. InvictaHOG 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Although this particular independence movement may be non-hawaiian and from my understanding the Hawaiian sovereignty movement gives Hawaii back to the native Hawaiians. --HResearcher 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Viable info that differs from main article. rootology (T) 08:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if there's owt worth merging) and redirect Lurker talk 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per InvictaHOG. --BrownHairedGirl 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Currently somone has removed all content of the article, but there might be something worth merging. --Kristjan Wager 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was blanked by User:128.171.107.200. I have reverted the "vandalism". --HResearcher 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I don't see any content here that could be salvaged for inclusion in Hawaiian sovereignty movement, so just flat redirect the page to said article. --Thorne N. Melcher 21:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - per above --Richard 07:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect In light of the comments I'm seeing, either merge and redirect or simply redirect appears to make sense and I agree with the proposal. --Jpetersen46321 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge per everyone above. Pretty large concenus for MREGE & REDIR, and I agree with you all. Daniel.Bryant 06:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Natgoo 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we call speedy keep.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities in Washington[edit]

List is redundant to Category:Universities and colleges in Washington Nomination withdrawn. The convincing piece of the puzzle to me was Category:Lists of universities and colleges in the United States, which shows how the lists-by-state make another axis from the other categories of lists. In that context, I see the list as very useful. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC), edited 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per precedent (Category:Lists of universities and colleges in the United States); lists aren't always redundant to categories. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I am the one who created this list. Originally, some states had lists of colleges and universities and others did not. I created lists for each state based on what was on the list of colleges and universities in the United States, which I turned into a directory page for the state lists. Right now, every state has a list. Keep in mind that lists have some advantages over categories, mainly in that they can be organized differently, include institutions that do not yet have an article, and provide additional information (such as the city in which the institution is located). My plan was to format all the state lists to look similar to the list of colleges and universities in Tennessee. I started working on them alphabetically, but I only got as far as California before I realized how big a task that was and decided to take a break. I was hoping to get back to it eventually or to at least get some help with the task. If you look at some of the other state lists that I worked on, you should be able to see that these lists have some advantages over categories, and the two should complement each other nicely. I agree that this list in its current state is pointless, but I suggest that we improve this list rather than delete it. In any case, I don't think it makes sense to delete this list unless we deleted most of the other state lists as well, as well as the lists for many other countries. --Cswrye 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I made some improvements to the list. It still needs some work, but I hope that this is enough to show that it is worth keeping. --Cswrye 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speddy Keep the nomination has been withdrawn. --Edgelord 05:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even after discounting the repeated keeps by a single editor. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Expo SA[edit]

Non-notable website Guinnog 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete soap box spam --Xrblsnggt 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may eventually draw enough attention to iself to be notable, but as of now there's no reason for an article about it here. InvictaHOG 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete article. This is not a spoap box. Administrator input required. Article should be reformatted to suit requirements if areas of dispute is clearly indicated. Sufficient media attention was already received to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.175.51 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guinnog, if it isn't notable then why has it gotten media attention? --HResearcher 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:InvictaHOG. JIP | Talk 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Invictahog and JIP, the nominator's reason is irrelevant because it's not true. Crime Expo SA is notable per it's media coverage. --HResearcher 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject seems to satisy WP:WEB (criteria 1) as well as WP:V and WP:RS, though article really, really needs a rewrite. --Daduzi talk 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid stub, but as said, needs some copyediting... rootology (T) 08:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to South_Africa#Crime. Website has received some initial publicity, but it's only a month old, and it reamins to be seen if the notability will be durable. By merging to South_Africa#Crime, the text will come to the atention of many other editors, helping to ensue a higher quality of writing. If the crime section then gets too big, split out to something like "Crime in South Africa" before creating a specific article oin this one website. --BrownHairedGirl 11:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a soap box. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep obvious media attention and mentions as listed in its links section. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. Wipe it off the face of the Earth, and list crimeexposa.org as official spam not welcome on Wikipedia (such as those Nigerian mooo.com sites). South African editors are tired of this nonsense. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen)(vote placed on his behalf, at his request, by Guinnog 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Guinnog, that is not a valid vote. If Zyxoas wants to make input he can do it himself. --HResearcher 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my user talk for his explanation of why he couldn't do it himself, and his request to me to vote on his behalf. --Guinnog 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I think it will be up to the person administering this Afd to decide whether Zyxoas opinion will count. Thanks --HResearcher 07:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it has received some attention, its exceedingly doubtful that it will remain notable for long. I second the suggestion by BrownHairedGirl above. Impi 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The listed sources establish notability. The article has textual problems, but that's grounds for editing, not deletion. And quite frankly, Zyxoas' response makes me want to see the article expanded, not deleted; I want to know what it is about this website, or about the South African culture, or the combination of the two, that produces such a passionate reaction. Kickaha Ota 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that this has gotten enough attention to merit at least the brief article that it has. --Brianyoumans 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's the problem; there can never be anything else beyond a URL and the (2?) media mentions the URL has had. Unencyclopedic. This is not a listings service. --Guinnog 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What notability criteria does it fail? --Daduzi talk 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:WEB, I don't think it has had "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". I think this Wikipedia article (very poor though it is) is an attempt to bolster the credibility of a fairly new scare site. I don't think we should be doing that. --Guinnog 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do the BBC, CNN, the Cape Times ([1], subscription required) and the largest online new source in South Africa not count as multiple non-trivial published works? --Daduzi talk 22:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the CNN and the BBC articles, you will see that they are almost identical, no doubt because they will have been drafted from the same Reuters article. Without having paid to look at the Cape Times article, I would guess it will be the same Reuters article a third time. I would look for more than this before we should have an article on it. Wait a month or two and see what happens. You should have no problem getting more than this (effectively) one news report of a new website by then. Or it will have sunk without a trace, as a lot of these things do. It is so easy to set up a web site, we need to be especially careful in applying our guidelines to our articles on them.

I also, as I said, get the queasy feeling that Wikipedia is being used here, to garner respectability for this scare site. Transwiki to Wikinews perhaps? --Guinnog 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe the BBC and CNN articles as "nearly identical", and it's worth pointing out that the BBC article does not credit Reuters. Incidentally, I was wrong about the Cape Times article and the article (which does credit Reuters) is avaliable here. In any case, whether or not the original source was the same is irrelevant, what's important is that 2 major news organisations and assorted newspapers and lesser news organisations saw fit to report on the subject. As for the issue of garnering respectibility, I'd agree that it's a concern with the article as it stands but being the fact that an article may be written in a promotional way isn't grounds to delete it, but can be grounds to extensively rewrite it.--Daduzi talk 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure that "the queasy feeling that Wikipedia is being used here" is a factor we should be considering. Either the subject of an article is notable or it isn't. If it's sufficiently notable, then it should be covered. If we start to say 'Well, yes, it's notable, but it's notable for the wrong reasons', then we set ourselves up for selection bias. Yes, we often delete articles for being advertisements. I've certainly rejected dozens of AfC articles for that reason. But when an article is deleted on that ground (as opposed to being rewritten), it's not just because it's an advertisement; it's because it's an advertisement of a non-notable subject -- in other words, it's an attempt to use Wikipedia to help the subject become notable. If the subject is already notable, then we rewrite, not delete. Otherwise, every article about a company, product or service on Wikipedia would become an instant candidate for deletion, since undoubtedly those articles help bring attention to the subjects of the articles. So in this case, if the website is notable (and it appears to be), then the article shouldn't be deleted just because it may have been written with the intent to draw people to the website. If that intent shows up in the article itself, then edit or delete the offending portions of the article. Kickaha Ota 05:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure. As I (and several others) have said, I think its current notability is marginal at best, and this Wikipedia article is an attempt to raise its profile and make it notable. If we delete the POV from the article, we are left with a URL, two external links (which read like they were based on the same Reuters article, or maybe the same press release, and so are counted by me as one), and a summary of the one-man site's sensationalistic content. Not a very encyclopedic article!
I also count the website's novelty against it; as I said, why not delete for now and see if it attracts any other comment in the coming months, or if it sinks like a stone as many of these yellow press sites do? I agree with you that if the article is allowed to stay on Wikipedia it will have to be very extensively edited to conform to NPOV. --Guinnog 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not delete for now and see if it attracts any other comment in the coming months?" Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What needs to be established is if there are sufficient verifiable sources to claim notability now, if the website generates no further press then the article can remain a discussion of the one issue that did generate press. And, no, the article would not just be a URL, external links and a summary of content; if that were all that could be written about there'd be no possible claim to notability as no major news organisations would have written about such a topic. The fact that news organisations have written about it, however, means that there is something that can be added to the article. I have to ask, if you have such an issue with the article's current format why not simply be bold and write your own, less POV version? --Daduzi talk 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we obviously have different views on the "not a crystal ball" thing. I would interpret it (and this was what I meant above) as meaning we should delete the article for now, until or unless it attracts more coverage and comment, and thus more notability. You have a different view; that's fine, I suppose that's what these AfD discussions are about.
As to being bold, I don't think you'll find many editors who will put a lot of work into rewriting an article that they have proposed for deletion. If the proposal was successful, it would be an awful waste of time, wouldn't it? But don't worry, even if this proposal is unsuccessful I will be watching it closely and, yes, my first action would be to completely rewrite it to conform with NPOV, MoS etc. I hope you will join me in this, should my first wish (to expunge what I stil think is a bid for notability from our encyclopedia) be unsuccessful. --Guinnog 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnog, you say: "I don't think you'll find many editors who will put a lot of work into rewriting an article that they have proposed for deletion". But you nominated this for deletion and then say "my first action would be to completely rewrite it". And you are strongly arguing against notability, yet this subject has been covered by CNN and BBS. --HResearcher 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went and looked at the site. It has a fair amount of material on it - probably several hundred messages from crime victims, plus lots of statistics, other stuff. There was a list of the most recent reader comments, and there had been about 10 in the last 6 hours. The crime victim messages each had from 50 to (the highest I saw) 2000 page reads. A message from the site owner claimed that many recent victim letters had not been put up yet due to a website move.--Brianyoumans 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you go to the section "Popular content" and "All times" on the Crime Expo Website you will get an indication of the quantity times an article was read. Take the article: "Young male attacked on his small holding in Johannesburg". It had 7447 reads when this comment was posted. This is only 1 article, and there are hundreds. The website must have significant support.--Jackes 09:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article must stay here. This website has achieved a lot in a very small time, and is very notable. Other websites refer to the Crime Expo Website. As an example a well established trade Union in South Africa "Solidarity" have a link to Crime Expo. They will not have links to SPAM websites. Click hereto go to the page that display the link.--Jackes 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The content of the Crime Expo article can be edited / modified to improve the article. More information can be added, such as the fact that the South African tourist industry does not like the website + their reason(s) for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackes (talk • contribs) (second 'keep' from this user)
  • DeleteWikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news station. The article describes the site in question as a "place for victims to tell their stories." That makes it basically a blog. There are about 700 G-hits. Although it has achieved some notoriety, this may be temporary. It has not been in existence long enough to establish notability. The attestations to notability in the article at the time of me writing this show that it a sensation-- for the present. They do not demonstrate sufficient notability to meet WP:WEB. We will see. For now, the creator should park a copy in his user space and try again if the site continues to become more well known. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news station. Wikipedia have articles on news stations such as BBC, CNN & Reuters. By witing an article on these, Wikipedia does not become a news station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackes (talk • contribs) (third 'keep' from this user)
  • Keep Dlohcierekim, your argument is misleading. There is more than 1 search engine on which info can be found. Then you can enter "Crime Expo SA" as well as "Crime Expo South Africa", or just "Crime Expo". All these refer to articles on the same subject. A Google search on just "crime expo" reveils about 15200 hits. [2], As an example not all the hits uses SA or South Africa, such as the Google results that linked to a political party in South Africa. This means that the website even received political attention [3], a amazing achievement, that shows notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackes (talk • contribs) (fourth 'keep' from this user)
  • Keep Dlohcierekim, how many G-Hits would you consider to give notability? Is 700 hits not sufficient. It appear to me as if it a considerable quantity.--Jackes 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (fifth 'keep' from this user, who has made 12 edits, all in relation to this article. First edit summary was "(Let's test the impartiality of Wikipedia.)"[reply]

Response to User:Jakes. No, that is not sufficeint G-Hits. Show me where this article meets WP:WEB, and I will reconsider my vote. You have voted at least four times now. Please stop doing that. Anything after your one and only "vote" should be captioned as a "comment"(in bold) and offset with a colon. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who is commenting. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have about 8,000 G-hits and I am certainly not notable. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ross (trader)[edit]

Financial trader; I don't see the notability here. NawlinWiki 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Traders who educate neophytes in their methods are a dime a dozen. BigHaz 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vanity page. Ohconfucius 01:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity spam for some guy with a job --Xrblsnggt 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not sure whether his notability justifies a place here. Anyway, a search engine test shows his name at the very top, plus a number of entries about him in the first few pages(Google) (Yahoo). This may suggest people from trading fields should know him. That's also the main reason why he is included when a disambiguation page of Joe Ross is created. However I see no entry about Joe Ross (referee) in the search, nor I know him. Should this be deleted as well (provided that Joe Ross (trader) is decided to be deleted)? --Wai Wai (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Ross (trader) could be using google bomb marketing techniques. It's in his interest for his company. At first glance, I would vote delete in an afd of Joe Ross (referee). I'll consider nominating that article Bwithh 02:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How can we check for sure he has used search engine optimizations to get the place? But I notice there are some other websites which talks about him too (eg interviews found at Trade2Win and Moneybags etc.) Does it suggest he has some fame in trading fields? I think we need someone who is in the trading field to answer this question. By the way, did you issue an afd of Joe Ross (referee)?--Wai Wai (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The trader seems to have used search engine optimization or similar tactics to show up high on the Google and Yahoo lists, but relevant independent sources about him are hard to find. --Metropolitan90 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete looks like a promotional advertisement. There are hundreds of thousands of financial traders... --HResearcher 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity page, fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl 11:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. And nothing links to the article. SynergeticMaggot 11:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, ad like and possible vanity Marcus22 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As the article stands right now, it looks like vanity, but a quick Amazon search showed that he is the author of at least 5 books about trading. That would seem noticable enough. --Kristjan Wager 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 12 books in total. 8 for futures and commodity traders, 4 for stock traders.--Wai Wai (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kristjan Wager's findings. --HResearcher 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Regarding Kristjan Wager's findings, an Amazon.com listing or an ISBN are not good proofs of notability as anyone can obtain one (even without actually having a book). Also having a book published is not an automatic guarantee of notability. Also these particular books listed on Amazon.com are all published by "Ross Trading, Inc." i.e. they are published by a company owned and operated by the author's daughter-in-law[4] (who even handles most of the company's phone calls and all the book orders by herself apparently) i.e. this is self-publishing. Bwithh 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Isn't creating this article much like using a vanity press to publish one's books?  :) Dlohcierekim 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man's Club[edit]

Non-notable local organization. The article reads almost like the pub variation of WP:NFT —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Networks[edit]

Article about a company that doesn't even say what it does. No assertion of the company's notability in the article, fails WP:CORP. Kimchi.sg 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted yesterday, but that version was a copy and paste, which arguably lacked context. The new version is written from scratch. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: recreation TrackerTV 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a copy and paste of the same page anymore, thus doesn't qualify for G4. Kimchi.sg 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its website ranks over 3million on Alexa. Um, lower scores are gooder scores ;-) fails WP:CORP. Rklawton 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed on WP:CORP, but please be wary of using Alexa as a measure of notability. This doesn't appear to be a web-based company, so Alexa's relevance is questionable to being with. Even if this were a website, according to WP:SET "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites". Because of the significant bias and flaws in Alexa's measurements, its rankings can never be used to assert "non-notability". --grummerx 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. *drew 02:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP as a non-notable company. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This remarkable company introduced new concept "NAC OS" at the first time and their position in the NAC market is getting bigger. More objective information will be added. Please accept this page. Thanks. - Dsk7061-

Comment I have no idea about this one. Dsk can you provide more information? --HResearcher 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be worth nothing that this user is the creator of the article, and has only contributed to pages relating to it and its deletion. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is worth nothing, but I think there are many users who specialize on only certain articles or perhaps only one article. What needs to be looked at is WP:V and that's why I'm asking Dsk for references. --HResearcher 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - the company "specialises" (what does that mean, in this context) in an unheard-of and non-notable operating system. Combined with such a high Alexa ranking, this article has no reason to exist. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the content. Thanks Smerdis (and others), you got valid point. I just removed the content. Thank you all Wikipedian here for helping me to learn more about Wikipedia. I will study more about Wikipeding : ) -Dsk7061-

hmm... I guess I do not have permission to remove the content. whoever has the permission, please delete the content with title. Thanks - Dsk7061



Thoughts

First of all, appreciate all you conscientious Wikipedian. Actually, it was first time to post a message here. I am very impressed with such a powerful self-cleansing action by Wikipedian.

As to this matter, I want to tell several things.

With a little bit my experience with Wikipedia, I just think about three keywords for Wikipedia. “Curiosity”, “Explore”, and “Define”

According to the current description of NAC by Wikipedia, “It is still an emerging technology space, and many vendors are taking advantage of this lack of definition to jump on the NAC bandwagon. But if we boil down NAC to its essence,” This means we need to provide more information to define what the NAC is in general somehow.

“If we boil down” who is the “We”? “We” should be individual, school, even company, anyone who got interested in NAC. In order to boil down NAC objectively, I believe we need to gather more information(fact) about NAC from all different channels excluding subjective opinions. But related concept, idea, and even specific solution should be introduced.

Especially, lots of vendors work on the NAC so it would not hurt to introduce NAC-related companies.

I think that “unheard-of and non-notable” does not help defining the definition of NAC at this stage. I guess that it is against “curiosity” and “explore”

Just thought.

Thanks for all your good work, Wikipedian!

- Dsk7061

PS. Is it ok to count myself as Wikipedian : )

Comment: Actually, the three keywords for Wikipedia would be more like "neutral, verifiable, and free. You might want to read WP:8W and some of the pages it links to. Hope to see you continue contributing! —Scott5114↗ 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Croshaw[edit]

WP:BIO subject not notable Ohconfucius 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She worked with Derek Jacobi (!!!) and other notable persons. Notable enough for me. Google looks promising too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on this list of her records on Amazon. A lot of the indy rock bands we see here all the time will not manage that many in their lifetime. I did remove the agent contact info from the article: Wikipedia is not a booking directory. Fan-1967 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let us view this in perspective. Being involved in at least five albums sounds notable to me, especially if the genre is indy rock music. Her work with other notable people in this field asserts her notability as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, she's not indy rock. She's classical. The indy bands wish they were as successful. Fan-1967 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. She has a basic page on Allmusic.com showing a number of records to her credit see [5]. Her genre is shown as chamber and keyboard music. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tell Ohconfucious to go to him room! --HResearcher 07:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Michael 08:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. --Kristjan Wager 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue_Blooded_Allstars[edit]

This is not a band as stated in the article, in fact it is not even an entity Chillicane 01:57, 4 August 2006

It looks like it might have been some kind of "super"group that formed for that one album. They are mentioned on that albums page tho. Basement12 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hilltop Hoods. I don't think that a group that sang one song on one album really deserves an article. That said, we do have Automatic Baby which fits the same bill. However, only MC Suffa has a page which was actually blank so I linked it to the Hilltop Hoods. InvictaHOG 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search of an Australia/New Zealand database comes up with 0 mentions of this hip hop crew. They don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC at this stage. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and as per Capitalroadster has no mentions beyond being credited as featuring on one track on an album. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete perhaps it just needs some cited sources. --HResearcher 07:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND. SynergeticMaggot 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't this a candidate for db-band speedy deletion? CPAScott 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the only reason the name 'Blue Blooded Allstars' was included on the album sleve was to make it fit in the space since there are about 13 artists on the track. In the actual album detailed section inside the CD sleve, it lists each individual artist instead. 'Blue Blooded Allstars' was used as the track is called 'Blue Blooded'. This should be deleted, if it ever crops up again in the future as a real musical group it can be recreadted with some real info.

--Chillicane 04:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Peripitus --Garrie 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kimchi.sg 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow((Hey Oh))[edit]

Exact same content as Snow ((Hey Oh)) Basement12 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why not just make this a speedy redirect? There's no information to be merged, and it didn't seem contested. --SevereTireDamage 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 05:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz[edit]

Fixing nom that was linking to previous nom for the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz. No vote from me. Fan-1967 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep 47,500 unique hits on Goggle for Barbara Schwarz, thus passes the Google test with flying colors. Brimba 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Speedy Keep as no reason for nomination is given. Brimba 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that logic. This article needs to be cleaned up, a lot the claims are uncited. For example, doesn't Guiness determine world records? Where is a reference to Guiness that Schwarz holds the record. --HResearcher 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone might look this up; it seems to be far enough on the notable side to keep. --DanielCD 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I misunderstand Wikipedia policy, but from what I have read it is wrong to have an article whose only purpose is to attack an individual. This seems to be what the Barbara Schwarz article is about. People who disagree with her opinions about Scientology, be they Church of Scientology members, Scientology critics, or church members pretending to be critics to make the real critics look stupid and mean spirited, have been running a personal attack on her for years. Perhaps someday history will judge that Barbara was important enough to merit a place in the encyclopedia. However, as of now, the only reason people are writing about her is to try to frighten or intimidate her to silence a person whose opinions don't fit into their own particular worldviews. Although I don't agree with everything Barbara says I admire her courage and I will stand up for her right to express herself.Steve Dufour 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject appears to be notable enough for encyclopedia in context of history of Scientology and perhaps the FOIA. Users such as Steve Dufour may have concerns about the neutrality of the article, but deletion nomination is the not the proper channel to address this. Use the talk page and neutrality dispute tags. Make verified, well-sourced edits to the article. Bwithh 03:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Her lawsuits against Scientology put her into several news articles. If the article can be cleaned up it could be a very nice article. Agne 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable with a huge amount of google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what is the purpose of the article. Is anyone interested in learning about Barbara? Or is it a matter of attacking a person because you don't like what she says?Steve Dufour 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone with that many google hits is notable, and a lot of people are likely to want to learn about her. Fan-1967 03:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her Google hits are because she posts so much to alt.religion.scientology and certain people feel that they must respond to what she says. There is no interest in learning about her as a person.Steve Dufour 03:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you Fan-1967. I could get that many hits in google if I posted my name repeatedly to certain newsgroups. --HResearcher 07:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually look through the google results, you see that they're from all over, not necessarily newsgroups. A huge number are on her FOIA actions and lawsuits, not forum or newsgroup related. Fan-1967 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it looks like the article is going to stay, unless Barbara protests personally to Wikipedia, I can do some work on the wording of the article to make it more neutral.Steve Dufour 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Schwarz participated heavily in the previous two afd's about this article. I don't know if she's still around here though. Phr (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually the third nomination (see Talk:Barbara Schwarz for links to the first two). It would be good if an experienced admin could rename it, since the operation seems possibly a little tricky (pagemove the afd, update the afd log, and I would say delete the redirect resulting from the page move, edit the subst'ed afd template in the article, and conceivably I'm still missing something). I'm reluctant to attempt the move myself because of this complexity. Phr (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really that complicated. I've Moved the page, fixed the links from the article and daily log, and tagged the old redirect for deletion. Fan-1967 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article establishes both online and offline significance. Reporting someone's own actions and the responses to them is not in any way an "attack." Gazpacho 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not about "reporting". Steve Dufour 04:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we should delete Dick Cheney and George W. Bush? We report their actions, too, and some of it might be regarded as critical, too. Fan-1967 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting, presenting, recording, take your pick. It's not an attack. Gazpacho 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of reporting President Bush's, Barbara's, or anyone else's actions was to get them to change their behavior then it would be fine in a newpaper or blog or radio talk show or whatever, but not in an encyclopedia.Steve Dufour 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some indication that Wikipedia is trying to get her to change her behavior? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Fan-1967 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Whether or not she changes her actions is irrelevant. We don't comment on how her actions reflect upon her. That is up to the reader to make their own discernment. All that we do is to write an article recording those actions to NPOV standards.Agne 04:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"?Steve Dufour 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community as a whole. A number of quite valid issues with the article have been raised here. The more people who can get involved and collaborate, the better. The policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, recognizes that controversial people can be difficult, so reliability and citation of information is critical. Fan-1967 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fan. I checked out the link to the policy on living persons and it seems from that that there are major problems with the article.Steve Dufour 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article has attack characteristics and needs NPOV cleanup at minimum. I haven't decided yet how to vote in this afd. Phr (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe that a deletion is the best way to deal NPOV issues. I would suggest bold editing or discussions on the discussion page first for NPOV issues. --Edgelord 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All these arguments have been discussed before, in the two previous AFDs. This AFD is just a waste of time. --Tilman 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is 90% of everything done on the Internet.  :-)
  • Keep. Highly notable conflict with the CoS. At most drastic, merge. --Davidstrauss 06:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing in the article about any conflict with the Church of Scientology. Please add the information if you know of some. I no longer expect the article to be deleted. If Barbara is important then the article should talk more about why she is.Steve Dufour 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak Delete The article doesn't cite sources for many of the claims and much of it is written as an attack page. Delete uncited information. I thought usenet couldn't be used as a source? --HResearcher 07:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after taking a closer look, it seems this person asked to be removed from Wikipedia and some users were using it as an attack page, and much of the claims in the article are not properly cited, so it still looks biased and an attack page to me. --HResearcher 07:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in regard to FOIA, to the litigation in which she has been involved, and to her own writings. As it stands, the article could use stronger sourcing and a cooler tone. The information contained in:
"In every instance where Schwarz has filed a case, the ruling at the end has been a dismissal of her lawsuit. Not once has she proven the merits of her case to a court of law."

for example, could just as easily be inserted two paragraphs up as:

"She has filed over 80 lawsuits in federal court, Utah state courts, and California state courts, against a variety of public and private agencies; none have been resolved in her favor."

or something similar (and appropriately referenced). Robertissimo 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Just because she has lost many lawsuits and those are cited, we do not know about any that she has won and there is no reference saying she has lost "every instance". Like I said, this article looks like an attack page. --HResearcher 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could change it that she hasn't alleged to have won any of them. Anyway, please review the previous two AFD. None of the arguments here is new. --Tilman 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't just "not won" but has been procedurally thrown out on her arse (see the article on frivolous litigation), excepting any cases that might still be pending. Gazpacho 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that much should be obvious, well sourced pages on people who pass WP:BIO shouldn't be deleted. If you feel it needs editing or specific claims are unsourced that's fine, but this is the wrong place to bring this article. WilyD 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barbara has made a name for herself in both the internet community, in the FOIA community, and among many in the federal, state, and local court systems. She has activly searched and worked to place herself in the public eye and certainly has never tried to protect her privicy. She has done interviews with newspapers, made lots of legal threats, gone on hate campaigns against people she has never met, contacted peoples employers to complain about them, filed reports of alleged wrongdoing with various police departments of people she does not like, and spammed various news groups with her libel (although she might not call it that.) Much of this is known by her own admissions or her advertising what she has done. Barbara has certainly worked to make herself notable over the past three years. --Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 13:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gazpacho. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I concur with user Brimba. This does not appear to be an "attack article" as the nominator for deletion suggests. It appears that this Wikipedia article is based completely on Ms. Schwarz's own public statements on Usenet and her subsequent spamming and abuse of Usenet as detailed by the links in this article. This article is also sourced with public records including judicial rulings and newspaper articles. In my estimation, the nominator proposes this deletion simply because he seems to feel that the facts regarding Ms Schwarz, and her apparent eccentric behavior, are unflattering if not embarassing when presented for public analysis and consumption. This article, I feel, is an integral piece in a body of research on the unique Church of Scientology and one of it's more outspoken former members. --Vrenault 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heavy editing and citations are needed, but the article should stay. --Kristjan Wager 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable, and it looks that the negative light on her is more the results of her actions and claims than of real POV.--Svartalf 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have seen all these arguments before and I can't believe we are having this discussion again. --Mgormez 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Mgormez[reply]
I don't think there is harm in having this discussion. Wikipedia is built upon consensus, which can change and evolve as the Wiki Community grows. It's been about 10 months since the last AfD and while it doesn't look like Barbara Schwarz's circumstance has changed, it is healthy for the Wiki community to give fresh eyes to the article and re-examine it to see if it still holds consensus. Agne 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did change? Did Barbara marry Marty?--Tilman 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Richards[edit]

Vanity article. Subject of the article is not noteworthy. Information in the article is unverifiable. Decr32 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm sure people loved him but Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is no assertion of notability as an activist in the article. Daniel Case 03:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he was notable as a fathers' rights activist during his lifetime, then the article should remain. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information is verifiable 600 G-hits Not sure 600 g hits, not all his, establish notabilty. :) Dlohcierekim 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he doesn't appear to have been a notable figure per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto's argument. Sources need to be cited. --HResearcher 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per TruthbringerToronto, bur article needs a big tidyup, sources etc. --BrownHairedGirl 11:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Coredesat. This individual may have been more of a father's rights supporter than an activist. Ifnord 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He is mentioned briefly on BBC [6], and he was aparently fairly well known in the father's right movement (probably especially in Australia), and in people opposing them [7]. The article need some editing though. --Kristjan Wager 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs some cleanup, but that doesn't mean it needs to be completely deleted. --Daniel Olsen 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are seven mentions of Mr Richards in an Australia New Zealand media database. One article mentions him as a spokesman for Ozydads who had organised a march of 50 people in Perth in April 2004. The other articles refer to his role as the propietor of Captain Munchies and his fights with the Fremantle Council over his dog. Even with the mention in the BBC, it doesn't make him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He gets more hits on Factiva, including a near 1000 word feature obituary which states "In the course of his life, Lionel Richards was photographer, film producer, spokesman for Mel Gibson, producer of a No.1 record, proprietor of a fast-food stand, councillor, aspiring MP and campaigner for fathers who had been denied access to their children..." ("Tireless campaigner for parents' rights" by Len Findlay, The West Australian, 19 September 2005. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief autobiography[8]suggesting the peak of his showbiz career is publicist for Mel Gibson in 1979. Richards is not mentioned in the credits of "Summer City", the movie Findlay claims he helped produce.--Decr32 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability for me but the article needs expanding. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF the unverified claim that he co-founded SPCA is true --Garrie 06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google searches reveal his notability and the breadth and depth of his activities (support, advocacy, etc) and activism. This is not a vanity article. Additional details and citations have been added. IP 2006 203.122.80.180 16:40(approx), 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Google searches reveal self-references and pov references. There is no independent, reliable evidence that Richards has actually done anything substantial as a father's rights activist.
WP:VANITY An article written in glowing terms by someone associated with the person or group in the story is a vanity article. --Decr32 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sock or no sock. - Mailer Diablo 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorStorm[edit]

There is no assertion of notability. This video has never been commercially released. It was shown once at a conspiracy-theory convention sponsored by the producer, Alex Jones. There are no 3rd party sources that mention the video, so it is unverifiable. There appears to be an excess of Jones-related material in the encyclopedia, presumably added by fans. Delete. -Will Beback 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge any info with Alex Jones. The part labeled "distribution" on the infobox states that it is distributed by infowars.com and Google video.--Jersey Devil 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should also say that I placed this afd template here after seeing that the nominator had misplaced it in the July 20 afd log. [9] In case anyone is wondering why the nom's sig is at August 3rd.--Jersey Devil 02:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for catching and fixing that. -Will Beback 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-distribution on the web doesn't automatically disqualify it, but unless there are non-trivial published reviews or references of to the film (whose source is independent of the film's producers), it just isn't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Dlohcierekim's search results (which I should've done in the first place). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -Just because one may not personally agree with a philosophy or that fact that a vid is self published/distributed (as are many docs) is no reason to delete this entry. Presumably, MOST entries on this site are written by fans- whether music, art, literature or film. Further, there IS assertion of notability. The "conspiracy=theory convention" mentioned above was called The American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda and was covered by Reuters, The Washington Post, ABC & NBC Affiliates, CSPAN, and even more independent media outlets from all across the globe. For example: http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-06-25T204155Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-256711-1.xml&archived=False http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062501085.html

Keep - I really believe this information needs to get out to the public. Considering the content I'd say this is very important. He cites sources. If you want to say something is wrong with the video you should do so on the main page for this documentary. Osirisx11 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of one's opinion on the importance of the information, WP is not a soapbox. The article should be about a notable phenomenon, not getting the word out. Regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, it probably meets minimal standards for inclusion as an article in an encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Like the wiki community cares about the truth. I thought the wiki community was suppose to be totally unbiased... gah fuck it... JanusPaul

I think that's O'Reilly's claim to fame, dubious as it may be. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep im not even going to bother giving a arguemnt, since nobody cares anyhow... --Striver 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not everyone has to think like George Bush does. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and this article is about a movie. How about we delete all articles on all movies or documentaries or TV shows, just because we didn't like those?
  • Keep - No citations? Is anyone really trying to claim this documentary doesn't exist? You can't just delete it because you disagree. -- Autocratus, 12 August 2006
  • Keep - The Dallas premiere takes place this month. This is a legitimate film release.

--81.227.231.218 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Keep - Alex Jones researches and verifies everything he puts in his documentaries. Research it yourself and you will find that this is true, then research the term COINTELPRO and verify for yourself that there is a huge effort, I'm talking millions of dollars here, to hide the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Allow freedom of speech and keep or suppress factual information? The choice should be obvious.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --lightdarkness (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kratoville[edit]

Vanity article whose one potential yet improbable claim to notability (ownership of radio station) cannot be verified. Daniel Case 02:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Vanity bio. Editor88 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Infrogmation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.texascruisers.com[edit]

Not named properly, weasel words but could be fixed. What can't be is notability. I can't find an Alexa rating for it but I doubt it would meet WP:WEB. Daniel Case 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete I think it would be tough to meet WP:WEB when the website was created yesterday. The site is just a forum that currently has 1 member (same user who created the article and is listed as the owner of the site) and 5 posts. DrunkenSmurf 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Only 33 results for texascruisers on google [10]. --Sbluen 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More about motorcycling than the stated subject. Hard to meet WP:WEB when started this month and only 5 posts. At least the article got us to visit the site. :) Dlohcierekim 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence (and no chance) that this meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 04:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DrunkenSmurf Pinkstarmaci 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sbluen and Drunkensmurf - a brand-new web site has absolutely no claim to notability. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not even close to meeting WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete promotional article. "TexasCruisers.com was started in August 2006" that was 4 days ago. Time will tell if it is notable and that time has not passed yet. --HResearcher 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website, looks like vanity. JIP | Talk 07:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - somehow I can't see a 4 day old site being notable.--Andeh 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete based on WP:SPEEDY#Articles #7. --Wafulz 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 12:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clicktrance[edit]

Deletion nomination Recommend under official policy WP:WINAD as dictionary definition and under official guideline WP:NEO as neologism without verified wide circulation or reliable sourcing. Only 414 google hits, 83 unique - and hits seem mainly to be blogs[11] Bwithh 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki as I just put the tag on the page. Daniel Case 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herm - does Wikitionary require reliable sourcing and proof of common usage? Bwithh 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See their criteria for inclusion. Daniel Case 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the link. Didn't realize Wikitionary policy was so loose. "Semi-official?" Isn't that like "Semi-pregnant"? And I dunno if the criteria outlined is that much different from Urban Dictionary... Bwithh 04:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it should be deleted, not transwiki'd. There are no references provided to demonstrate proof of common usage. --HResearcher 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki.  :) Dlohcierekim 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment attests from 2005 in Urban Dictionary. Does that count? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment attests from 2005 in Urban Dictionary. Does that count? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt it, no thumbs up and only a vague reference to boingboing.net. What you just provided still does not show Clearly widespread usage. --HResearcher 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source as the site does not check the validity of word definition or usage claims Bwithh 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 04:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Defense Forces using human shields[edit]

Propaganda topic, and POV fork of Human rights in Israel Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If nothing else, then just for going all the way to the Supreme Court, this deserves its own article. --Striver 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very article you linked to links to yet another article, implying the need to collect the information on the topic one place. Its perfecly logic to creat a subarticle when there is a lot to write about it, and the issue covers several fields. --Striver 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a third article with a section about this topic. It makes perfect sense to collect all of the info into one article, rather than having part of it all over the place. --Striver 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is being suggested that the Gibson article be merged to his main article. Everyone should vote on that issue. --HResearcher 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. I can go take a picture of an American kid sitting on a tank any day and then claim the US uses human shields. Or I could take a picture of a whole bunch of school kids boarding the USS Kittyhawk during a fieldtrip and then say the US uses human shields. --HResearcher 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg Schrodingers Mongoose 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AED. This is a fork. Avi 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see that this article meets ANY of the requirements in Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview. It was nominated for deletion before it was even a day old, not even giving a chance for edits to address objections. Most of the ridiculous delete arguments are made by Israelis and in line with a massive propaganda operation [| Operation Megaphone] being orchestrated by the Israeli Gov't. Sarastro777 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People need to learn what a WP:POVFORK is, before throwing the term around. --Striver 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. Conspiracy theories are not a good reason to Keep an article. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a conspiracy theory if it is being documented in mainstream media [[12]] [[13]] etc. Please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV by not attacking me for disagreeing with you. Sarastro777 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alleging that Wikipedia editors are "Israelis" and claiming that they are voting on AfDs at the behest of the government of Israel as part of some "massive propaganda operation" is indeed a conspiracy theory and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The issue here is not "disagreeing with you", it is your unwarranted attacks on editors here. Please apologize for doing so, and please make sure not to do it again. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are editors that are Israeli--fact. If it is uncivil to say so, then they are guilty of it for making it known from the information they disclose. To then turn that into an excuse to attack me is uncivil and a personal attack, especially marginalizing well-published facts as 'conspiracy theories.' Second, their government is using "hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists" to POV'ize info about Israel. I'm sorry you have a problem with reality, but it hardly entitles you to an apology. Sarastro777 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very convenient to be able to blame anything not going one's way on a massive Global Jewish Conspiracy (tm). It's also lazy thinking. Which is more likely: that a single anti-Israel user created a biased article in violation of the oft-violated POV fork policy, or that armies of trained Jews, at the behest of their Mossad masters, have descended on this page with the intent of erasing all that is critical of Israel? Schrodingers Mongoose 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's more likely, that the Foreign Ministry is using "hundreds of thousands" of people to purposely slant articles on Israel, and Wikipedia has not been touched by the project? Or that perhaps one of the largest websites in the world, that is open to editing by all might be a target of the project? What reality are you living in? Accusations of POV are distraction arguments. All I see are verifiable (cited) reports of "Human Shield" events Israel has done on a relatively new article. I see people trying to get it deleted before it has even started. Sarastro777 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any of the voters on this AfD saying they are Israeli; perhaps you can say which ones do. Furthermore, the Megaphone tool you refer to was put out three weeks ago by the World Union of Jewish Students, not the Israeli Foreign Ministry - the editors here have been editing for many months or years. I'm giving you a final chance to apologize for claiming that editors here are stooges of the Israeli Foreign Ministry; otherwise, it will be clear you are unrepentant in your violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"for claiming that editors here are stooges of the Israeli Foreign Ministry" -- I never did this, the statements made here are quite apparent. If you think you show someone how to be civil by trying to bully an apology out of them and mischaracterizing their statements, you are sadly mistaken. Sarastro777 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did Sarastro. You said: "Most of the ridiculous delete arguments are made by Israelis and in line with a massive propaganda operation".[14] You really should step down. --HResearcher 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't have a comprehension level high enough to understand the nuance/difference between the accusation and the actual statement. Sarastro777 06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever you say. But have you ever read WP:NPA? And again you were the one who wrote this. --HResearcher 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no way in hell this could be interpreted as an encyclopedia article. News - maybe. Propaganda - maybe. Encyclopedia article - no. Any allegations of war crimes or whatever go in the main article. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay, Moshe, Leifern, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Leifern and others. 6SJ7 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, clear WP:POVFORK. TewfikTalk 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Tewfik, others. Really disgraceful propaganda polemic.--Mantanmoreland 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are legit sources.Left Words 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Account was created 7 minutes before this vote, and this is its fourth edit. Jayjg (talk)
  • Note: Through what process did you ascertain this to be the same person? How can we independently verify your conclusions which at best can be based on circumstantial evidence of users sharing an IP address? Sarastro777 20:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:Sarastro-Do you have any clue what you are talking about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Sarastro777, try looking at this link[15] where you can independently verify that the account was created 7 minutes before the vote. Jayjg said nothing about a "same person". --HResearcher 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. --tickle me 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pov fork, soapbox Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of a zillion POV forks related to the Arab-Israeli conflict GabrielF 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non encyclopedic; offensive propaganda. Noon 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a rename as per Vsion. Also edit to ensure nPOV. I don't think that the article is inherantly POV, if it's based on verifiable information by independant organisations. --Darksun 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need IDF officers go to the bathroom during Lebanon bombing raid either. This topic is worth a paragraph in the main article about the conflict. We don't need an article for every news story out of Israel. BigDT 22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typical anti-Israel racist drivel. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is is racist? All the incidents listed are verifiable by independant sources. You can claim it's unencyclopedic if you wish, but there are absolutly no grounds to call it racist. Doing so is considered a Personal Attack against the articles contributers. --Darksun 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Darksun--Oiboy77 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. -- tasc wordsdeeds 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per Striver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterium (talk • contribs) [16]
  • Strong delete per nom. Evolver of Borg 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Ayinyud 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. gidonb 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Keep Spin-offs and expansions legit. Centralization of argument at a central page instead of across articles possible for heated topic. Can be renamed Human Shields, IDF in a series of articles on Human Shields. Can easily be made NPOV. Well documented, no OR. Not a differing version to qualify for WP:POVFORK. Knee-jerk reaction to an extremely young article should be avoided and it should be allowed to develop.--Tigeroo 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Pales in comparison to the same practice on the other side of the conflict and should therefore be analysed in conflict. By the way, are we still writing an encyclopedia? JFW | T@lk 09:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Metamagician3000 10:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork.--Cúchullain t/c 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article's not very good, and could probably be accommodated within Human rights in Israel. But it's not a POV fork to discuss a particular discrete issue. The current article title is shitty, and the content probabl doesn't warrant its own article, but at the same time I don't think the topic itself is one where we can never conceivably have an article, which was my understanding of what the basic criteria for deleting something would be. I won't cry too much for this article if it dies, but I find it incredible that everyone views this as a POV fork, and nobody cares about an actual POV fork like Judea and Samaria, whose purpose seems to be to describe the West Bank from the Israeli POV. john k 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, I see that the most recent revision of Judea and Samaria has been drastically shortened, making it rather less of a POV fork. But I still think that's a much clearer instance of a POV fork than this is. A POV fork is when you have two articles on the same subject, but one of them is limited to discussing a single POV on that issue. That's what "Judea and Samaria" basically is. The term means the same thing as West Bank, but is only used by people with one POV. An article on Judea and Samaria can only be about the use of that term, because any further discussion is essentially overlapping with West Bank (and the version of that page before July 31 was full of discussion that could just as well have gone at West Bank). Here, people seem to be saying that this is a POV fork because it discusses an issue which only makes Israel look bad. But that's not what a POV fork is, as I understand it. john k 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless merged with Human Shield, then delete. Ulritz 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredsat as pov fork; John K's arguments to keep are well made, but at bottom they are just a better written version of the "You have X, so this must be kept" argument we all know and hate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying not to make that argument, but I fear it did come across that way. As I said, mine was a weak keep vote. I do not think that having an article on this topic is necessary, I just don't think it falls into line with deletion policy. I'd probably prefer a redirect to Human rights in Israel and a merge of the content there. But I don't think it's a POV fork, and I don't think it (quite) qualifies for outright deletion. The notice of Judea and Samaria was not meant to indicate that we "must keep" this article, just as a way of explaining why this doesn't qualify as a POV fork. Anyway, I don't especially care about this article. john k 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Elizmr 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, it's a POV fork. I agree with John that it is conceivabl for this not to be a POV fork, but then it would be a content fork and in this case a content fork is not justified. My point is that we shouln´t have an article on every topic a few editors want to write about. This is not a blog. There should be a series about Israel and the Israeli-Palstinian conflict as well as specific wars including th current one in Lebannon. And these articles should be as comprehensive as an encyclopedia article could be. Any valid material in this article is better suited in another article that will provide more context and NPOV. User:Slrubenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.35.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, well, you deleted Problem-reaction-solution arguing there is no mainstream sources. Is BBS a mainstream source? It has a headline named "Israelis accused of 'human shields' tactic". If that does not cut it, then i am seriously dismayed in the face of wikipedias west-central bias.--Striver 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda. Pecher Talk 09:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Panther[edit]

We don't have Category:Fictional fragrances, which to me about blows any chance this article has of proving notability. Daniel Case 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete But so sad to cut loose an article that made me laugh out loud at the mere idea. It's just not notable enough. Add content to the article for the Anchorman movie. --DanielCD 03:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny? Yes. WP material? No. It is, however, over on Wikiquote:Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. ;) — MrDolomite | Talk 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge content to Anchorman article (if not already there) FloNight talk 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge content to Anchorman article. DanB DanD 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect(?). I forget the policy on this. But it should probably be included in Anchorman article. It's short enough to not unduly lengthen that article. :) Dlohcierekim 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the Anchorman article if possible, otherwise delete outright. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It deserves a one-to-two line mention in the Anchorman article at most. GassyGuy 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Funny movie, unnecessary article. Ziggurat 09:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and dump remains into Uncyclopedia. --HResearcher 09:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - LOL :) DrL 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Coredesat. It smells like Bigfoot's dick! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or mention briefly in Anchorman main article. Dubc0724 15:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoonHQ[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB. It's a parody site of another runescape fansite. It's got an incredible Alexa rating of...oh wait there is no Alexa rating. Author de'proded. alphaChimp laudare 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French military victories (short list)[edit]

The article is superfluous as there is already a very extensive and neutral List of French wars and battles. This article also appears to be a vanity article. I have contacted its creator and warned him or her to make changes to the article, specifically with the many incorrect historical statements, but there has been no reply, so I finally decided to take it here. Additionally, there is a conceptual problem with defining what a "short" list for French military victories, of which there are a ridiculous amount, would look like. UberCryxic 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- why do we need a "short list"? How could it be maintained?  :) Dlohcierekim 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No list could be complete without the French victory over the United States in 2006 anyway. -AED 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary list with no mergeable content. Military history of France is fine as it is. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a soapbox article, intended to counter the way some Merkins like to bash France every time it disagrees with the USA. As you know, the USA is free, democratic, and generally the goodies by default, so if France wants the USA to stop waging unilateral wars against a hazily-defined enemy called "terror" or "evil" and arresting innocent civilians without charging them for anything, and breaking international treaties, then France must be an evil communist dictature. This article is a response to that way of thinking, but as such it violates WP:NPOV. Military history of France is good enough. JIP | Talk 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. This reminds me of the "french military victories" google bombing by albinoblacksheep.com. ViridaeTalk 08:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an oh-so-funny joke article, per Viridae. The pun in the name is enough to demonstrate that this just isn't worthy of inclusion. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, superfluous --Guinnog 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can think of more than two score victories that are not listed here. Indeed I would hazard to guess that the French have more military victories to their name than the US. Thus if we keep this we must have a US Military Victories (Even Shorter List) article. And I'm kind of sure we dont want to go there!!! Marcus22 13:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Indeed I would hazard to guess that the French have more military victories to their name than the US." Easily. It's not even a contest, which is partly why this article is so silly. There are just too many victories to list, and no one would know when it is appropriate to stop or keep digging the books for some obscure battle the French fought centuries ago.UberCryxic 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. The headline at least, is a bad attempt of humour, and the article is unnecessary. --Kristjan Wager 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 04:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourbi[edit]

Non-notable Australian neologism. I originally tagged it as {{db-empty}}, but the author expanded and removed the tag. alphaChimp laudare 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Less an Australian neologism as one used by a particular family, by the looks. BigHaz 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally unverifiable. Named after someone's cat? Not even Urban Dictionary has an entry. Don't need to go any further than WP:V. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per --User:Ginkgo100. If it were a real word, it would probably belong in Wictionary, not here. :) Dlohcierekim 04:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it would surprise people that there have been no mentions of this word in the Australian media to date. Nor are there are any other reliable sources verifying this word. Capitalistroadster 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Who deleted this article?" "Fourbi.". Not a common phrase in Melbourne, and even if it was, doesn't belong here. Looks like an attempt by someone to get an article about their cat on Wikipedia. --Canley 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either a non-notable neologism or cat. Either way it does not belong here - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I bet that only the owner of the cat has ever heard of this neologism. JIP | Talk 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Ironically enough, I beg to differ. Since I'm in America, it's now a global neologism (if only between a few people). alphaChimp laudare 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My cat has never heard of this neologism, and nor have I. Kevin 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. Yamaguchi先生 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telefact[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.

The subject of this vanity article is not notable, and its was created by employees[17] Chris Griswold 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Couldn't find anything to verify statements in the article on the Universtiy of Pittsburgh website; IMO violates WP:V. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... Student helplines arn't notable. ---J.S (t|c) 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. :) Dlohcierekim 03:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they can't give us verfiable sources, forget it. Daniel Case 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and kinda messy. Pinkstarmaci 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Telefact is a valuable part of the University of Pittsburgh. If other organizations have articles (see Friday Night Improvs or The Pitt News) this deserves one as well. Telefact is a nationally used service (NOT a campus help line) that attracts hundreds of callers per day and hundreds of thousands per year and is 100% unique in the services it offers. Completely unmatched nationwide.

Also, changes have been made and the sources we have have been cited. The article is no longer in violation of any citation policies. I don't see a reason why this article should be deleted.

-- Chris Szymansky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.59.222 (talk • contribs)

It's not notable. That's why. Daniel Case 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Those subjects are both notable: Friday Nite Improvs was brought up for deletion and passed when notability was established using the standards for music, and The Pitt News has a circulation of 30,000 and a history of championing First Amendment issues. --Chris Griswold 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete* This article does not advertise, it is a unique service, and the whole thing is not for profit. To call this a student "help line" is definitely a misnomer. This request for deletion stems from a petty grudge an established wikipedian has against someone or something at the service itself. Sources can be worked on, but deleting something that has logged 1.6 million calls in a 16 year history and is used by thousands in PA, OH, NY, NJ an elsewhere seems a bit unneccesary. -- Jeff Harr, 12:30 EST, 4 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.202.113 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - As I said on my talk page, this certainly is not personal; because I attended the University of Pittsburgh, I have used Telefact for a number of years in both Pittsbugh and New York City. Additionally, I also have been friends with a number of Telefact employees in years past. I do find Telefact useful, but I don't believe Telefact passes Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations. If you can demonstrate that Telefact is notable enough to have an article, I think that's great. But that means you need to cite some sources. --Chris Griswold 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Like I said above, sources are being worked on (two have been added). Telefact has been featured in at least three major Pittsburgh newspaper articles and was featured in a nationally broadcast special on NPR radio in the late 1990's. It has had over 1.6 million callers. I didn't expect it to be such an issue over something seemingly insignificant. However, since the issue has come up, it is being addressed. Notablity, even as addressed in the article that was linked above, is highly subjective. 1.6 million users of a service, national useage, and the fact that it is 100% unique in its scope (no other service nationwide is similar) justifies its notability. Cs1085 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--Chris Szymansky[reply]
    • Source- Telefact NPR radio story: [18]
    • Source- Motley Fool (technology and investing website) news story that calls Telefact "wonderfully fun" and mentions it alongside popular search engine Ask Jeeves: [19]Cs1085 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A note about citations: The need is not to prove that it exists in this instance but to prove that it is notable. Additionally, student newspaper articles and blogs such as iheartpgh are not citable sources for this. --Chris Griswold 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Many more sources have been put up on the Telefact page. I point back to that "notability" page to make a couple more points: A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. Telefact is known outside a narrow interest group. 48 callers per hour and 1.6 million callers in 15 years spanning the whole country is proof of this. Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources NPR and Motley Fool, among newspapers and alumni magazine articles is sufficient external notice. As is 1.6 million callers. Lastly, I bring up the point "Wikipedia is not paper." Just because something is not household knowledge, it is ridiculous to preclude its inclusion in Wikipedia, especially when it is a unique service, passes external source tests, and has a wide base of users that span the country. Cs1085 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Chris Szymansky[reply]
  • Delete not sources given from notable news sites, looks spammish and probably fails WP:CORP, and likely vanity per nom.--Andeh 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- NPR not a notable news source? That's a new one. A major tech and business site, a magazine with nationwide readership? I will also be adding sources from major city newspapers. To say it fails any notability tests is laughable. It's not a vanity site either, hence the fact that the service is NOT promoted. The phone number is not even listed, for instance. The article covers only facts about the service and does not deal with excess promotion. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. And even here, a serivce with nationwide useage has every right to have a short article on Wikipedia. I'm just very disappointed because I feel like some more expereinced Wikipedia members are ignoring facts and policy just to remove a harmless article that is covers a unique service, contains verifiable information, and is not in any violation. 24.3.59.222 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Chris Szymansky[reply]
      • None of those sources are very big media companies, there's even a link to a blog entry.--Andeh 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN. I hate articles that fails those, more even than articles that fail WP:MUSIC WilyD 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPR itself is a valid source, but the requirements state that it must be non-trivial coverage. This is a tiny blurb, probably used as filler between stories. The Motley Fool barely mentions it; Telefact is not the subject of the article. None of the other external links are independent of the school that runs the service. Kafziel 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- It was a featured story on NPR. That is non-trivial coverage broadcast nationwide that Telefact was featured on. And how exactly is the article spam? It does not even feature the service's phone number. The service has seen no noticeable increase in calls since its been listed on Wikipedia, nor is that the goal of having an article here. The article is there simply as a contribution to Wikipedia (which seems to enjoy articles about things that are far more obscure than Telefact). Even if there was no press coverage, the 1.6 million calls the service has recieved proves its notability. That should not be overlooked. 24.3.59.222 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC) -Chris Szymansky[reply]
The service was mentioned in a tiny blurb on NPR, ten years ago. It's sandwiched between software tech support and wild ponies. That seems pretty trivial to me. I didn't say it was spam, just not notable. By the way, the number of calls a number receives (just like the number of hits a website receives) is not a factor in deciding notability. Kafziel 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that useage statistics do not prove notability. Surely if a website would recieve millions of hits, it would be notable. The same goes for this service. That said, I've put my points out there. I will add a few more sources (Pittsburgh newspapers) but as a whole, I'm done arguing over something so trivial.24.3.59.222 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Chris Szymansky[reply]
Ha ha, "trivial". Exactly what I've been saying. ;)
But seriously, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing about whether hit count makes something notable. It's simply not part of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Take a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test to see why things like Alexa rankings and Google hits don't matter in any official way. Kafziel 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : non notable, and as per "fails WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN". If it's part of U Pittsburgh, let's merge whatever is salvageable with that article. --Svartalf 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- It's not spam, but merging is fine with me. -Chris Szymansky
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not Google. Stev0 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Children's Theatre Of Cincinnati[edit]

Theatre company run by guy who once taught notable actors at another theatre program. I don't think the notability carries that far down the chain, and the article sounds more like promo than anything else. Daniel Case 03:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. plus, all it's "stars" are redded (they don't have matching wiki pages themselves either) Pinkstarmaci 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The theatre company gets media coverage, and its been around since 1924. I think that well-established theatrical troupes ougt to be included in Wikipedia. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small-town theater companies get media coverage in their local shoppers, even if it's just reiterated press releases. That doesn't establish notability for me. Daniel Case 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Without more articles (the two cited are unavailable and don't match cite form), it doesn't look notable. If small corporations are NN, small artistic companies probably are too. TheronJ 17:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Only about 200 g-hits. :) Dlohcierekim 04:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Everman[edit]

Only ~200 g-hits. Doubt notability :) Dlohcierekim 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The article does not assert any claims to encyclopedic notability. $50,000 in scholarships is not especially noteworthy at all, and being an understudy in a Broadway musical is not remarkable enough for an encyclopedia. Not even gonna comment on the Junior Miss Pageant. Bwithh 04:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Pinkstarmaci 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. "Junior Miss Pageant" clinched it. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. (not notable WP:BIO) cites several appearances but mentions no roles. Only "major" was apparently 'Wicked', even then only understudy. VanityOhconfucius 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merciful Zeus. Delete per nom. -- Merope 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Haham hanuka 10:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice, she may become notable at a later date. Yamaguchi先生 22:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums with particularly long titles[edit]

This Nintendude-esque list is an idiosyncratic non-topic. It can't possibly illustrate any articles (is anyone going to write long album titles?), it invites the addition of non-notable songs/albums/bands, and there's no trend that this article illustrates or could possibly illustrate. It's transient, the length of albums is not a significant subject of study, and the criteria cannot help but be entirely arbitrary.

This was previously on AFD, with a result of no consensus with a majority to delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, policy cites. This is indiscriminate trivia, and an idosyncratic non-topic, both of which are called out as specifically inappropriate for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepWikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How are you going to define the criteria for "particularly long titles"? Lazybum 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is specified as titles longer than 10 words (which seems a bit short perhaps) Spearhead 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gateway for non-notable MySpace bands to make themselves notable enough for Wikipedia. -AED 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Personally I think 3 is particularly long and should be included. (In other words it is not specified what particularly long is and neither can it be.) -- Koffieyahoo 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is inherently subjective arbitrary and trivial. — TKD::Talk 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Criteria not specified and subjective? The article specifically says it's for titles of ten or more words... NickelShoe (Talk) 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Koffieyahoo's comment is misworded; it's not that there are no criteria, it's that the criteria are inherently meaningless and arbitrary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, that might be a better way to say it. -- Koffieyahoo 05:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Subjective" was a bad word choice on my part also. I meant "subjective" in that equating 10 words as "particularly long" is subjective. It could technically be renamed it to refklect the criterion, but the important criticisms — that it's trivial and indiscriminate — would remain. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: the length set to ten may be somewhat arbitrary, however looking at the length of the itself, as well as my own CD collection, it isn't as arbitrary as it seems. Most albums have relatively short titles of usually less than a couple of words. Therefore this list makes it an interesting list of exceptions Spearhead 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not content about albums, but about album titles, and specificially album title length, making it inherently trivial, not encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic, not objective - how long is "paticuarly long" anyway? ViridaeTalk
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this could be interesting to someone. JIP | Talk 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spectacularly unencyclopaedic. If it somehoe survives AfD, I recommend changing its name to List of albums with titles containign more than ten words or similar so the title reflects the subject matter Lurker talk 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT as well as because this list is wholly based on arbitrary criteria. Who decided 10 words is "particularly long" when it comes to album titles? Why not 6, 8, or 13?--Isotope23 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is entirely unencyclopaedic. It's also very subjective - people have different opinions about what constitutes a long album title. If this article is renamed to List of albums with titles containing more than ten words, we'll doubtless have lists of albums with titles less than ten words long, lists of titles of albums containing a certain number, lists of song titles with more than 10 words, and so on. My point is, do we really need all of that? It's completely unencyclopaedic and subjective in the first place, and the lists it's sure to spawn will become unmaintainable. I also don't think an album becomes notable simply because its title is long. Additionally, I doubt anyone will come to Wikipedia to search for a list of albums with titles containing ten or more words. Srose (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; this one: List of songs with particularly long titles was kept through an AFD; so I don't see why the albums version should be deleted. Spearhead 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking at that page, I see that the result of the debate was "no consensus". -- Koffieyahoo 05:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spearhead's reasoning. If we don't delete one, that sets a precedent for the other.--Thorne N. Melcher 01:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not according to this policy it doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps we should closely examine the AFD for the other article. Precedents can easily be overturned, but the discussion contained in that AFD is most certainly pertinent to the decision before us with this article. Thorne N. Melcher 08:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fantastic idea! Let's look at the reasoning in that AFD: "I think this is notable" (with no explanation why and the nom didn't mention notability), "interesting," "useful and encyclopedic" (with no explanation of what it's useful for), "informative and we have sillier lists," no reasoning at all, "this helped me with research" (with no explanation what on Earth he was researching; I can't see this random selection of titles being useful for any sort of research project).
          This may be interesting, but it doesn't address the fact that it's a list of indiscriminate trivia and an idiosyncratic non-topic, both of which are longstanding reasons not to have a random list of factoids on Wikipedia. If it's interesting, put it on your personal site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not violate any policy: (i) WP:NOT does not mention trivia; (ii) list inclusion requirements are specific and highly discriminate - this article is not anywhere close to the defined clauses of WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Those clauses are specific, not elastic. They can not encompass any topic that a given nominator finds objectionable on a given day; (iii) calling this an "idosyncratic non-topic" is a matter of opinion. It is belied by the long-standing interest in album/song names throughout pop music history, evidenced by the work of Nick Hornby. This list examines an aspect of naming conventions in the field of recorded music. As such, it fully deserves continued inclusion at wikipedia, as previously validated in non-binding deletion discussions --JJay 13:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there long-standing interest in the subject of song name length? Would it ever be possible to write an article about song name length? (WP:NOT mentions indiscriminate collections of information, and it is being argued that the criteria for this list are meaninglessly arbitrary.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I discuss WP:NOT in my original comment, but I would encourage you to review the indiscriminate collection of information section. There is no mention of "arbitrary" in WP:Not. The "indiscriminate" section of WP:NOT applies to seven types of articles; this is not one of them. There is also very long-standing interest in song titles (of which this clearly examines an aspect) and it should be eminently possible to write a more developed overview of the topic, perhaps as an introduction to the list. A possible starting point might be Charles Lindsay's 1928 article, The Nomenclature of the Popular song [20]. --JJay 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment IMO, all of these arbitrarily defined lists violate WP:NOR as well. The idea that a list with "10 words in the title" is originial research on the part of the editor(s) who added this "criteria" as they have essentially used Wikipedia to corrolate or define "particularly long titles" with "10 Words". Unless one can provide some sort of external WP:V sourcing showing there is ample reason to believe that 10 words is a generally accepted cutoff where a song title becomes long. Otherwise, Wikipedia is simply allowing contributors to create lists based on their own personal, unverified criteria.--Isotope23 11:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You evaded my question, speaking instead of the topic of song titles, not song title length. Are you arguing that someone could write an article on Wikipedia about the length of song titles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The length is an aspect of the song title. I have no doubt that someone has written on the topic (like with the duration of songs). --JJay 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's delete this on sight as original research, then, when you find some reliable sources that discuss the subject of song title length, you can make an article based on those sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, OR is not a CSD criteria (not that I consider this to be OR). Please await the conclusion of this review before deleting the list. --JJay 12:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was quoting OR, not proposing speedy deletion but it seems that it's been changed as misleading. In any event, mentioning the study of song titles seems to be dickering; this list is still arbitrarily defined, impossible to complete and thus not authoritative (making it useless for research), an idiosyncratic non-topic, and just plain not suited to Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for restating the opinions expressed in your nom. If you are interested in reviewing my opinion, see my earlier comments. --JJay 13:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You never answered my question. Are you arguing that you could write an actual article for Song title length? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm writing an essay on list articles of this nature in my user space, feel free to have a look (though its not quite finished yet) and comment Lurker talk 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I see articles of this nature all the time... List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, list of bands with colors in the title, list of songs with more than one music video... the list goes on. Maybe you should attack those next. Calicore 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, we should start attacking those crufty articles. Lazybum 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial (if this is kept, at least drop the "particularly") ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate list with arbitrarily selected criteria for inclusion (why ten words ? who says that's "particularly long" ?) Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IE.COM[edit]

Alexa gives it a 423,423 out of several million. Fails WP:WEB as is. Daniel Case 04:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke 'n O's[edit]

Another promotional page for someone's favorite bar. Daniel Case 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable location, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. --Kinu t/c 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notability Pinkstarmaci 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anybody see that Daily Show segment on Hookah bars? Pretty good. tmopkisn tlka 05:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article doesn't assert why this bar would be any more notable than any other. JIP | Talk 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No g-hits. Unverifiable. Not notable. Not even a caterpillar . :) Dlohcierekim 04:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elahost Web Hosting[edit]

De-prod'ed by anon. Ad for webhosting service. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's often interesting to actually scroll through a few pages of the GHits. From what I can see, the vast majority are practically word-for-word identical, and they're ads. Fan-1967 23:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  :) Dlohcierekim 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Models for Screening of Drugs for Glaucoma[edit]

I'm not sure if this qualifies as original research or as an "indiscriminate collection of information", but the topic appears to be way too specific for an encyclopedia. Also, Wikipedia is not a mirror (refererence discussion at Talk:Animal Models for Screening of Drugs for Glaucoma). -AED 04:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Delete. Probably OR, but could still merge with Animal testing, otherwise delete. tmopkisn tlka 05:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge small amount and Delete far too specific. ViridaeTalk 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Reads like a thesis or abstract. It might be good to take some of the sources and incorporate the material into Animal testing.  :) Dlohcierekim 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be original research RainbowCrane 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge small amount and Delete KnightLago 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very technical and specific, may be original research Alexandermiller 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, likely OR or copyvio, way too technical and specific for a merge. Sandstein 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Way too technical and confusing, cleanup would be extremely hard and not worth the time/effort Seldumonde 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Written like a research paper though if published separately, could be used as a reference in Animal Testing The Talking Sock talk contribs 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWO-THIRDS-LIFE[edit]

Flash video on deviantart. Apparent vanity (author name is the same as on deviantart). Hardly any relevant google hits outside of deviantart. Not notable. Fan-1967 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Felber[edit]

Okay, this person's claim to fame is that he's published (electronically, not in any scientific journal) a four-page paper that theorizes on an "antigravity beam". Originally a probable WP:VAIN, this article has, thanks to some intelligent, thoughtful contributions, become a forum for critically evaluating the good doctor's assertions. Said assertions have now been so thoroughly deflated there seems to be no further reason for this page to exist, at least not on WP. Not a shred of notability remains. Pagana 05:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:WEB due to his having gained significant press coverage for some kind of "anti-gravity" discovery [21][22][23], and with that great notoriety within his field. Delete. Per nom, and "Um..." tmopkisn tlka 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um...Respectfully, I have to point out that these citations are (as discussed in the article) permutations of the same paid press release. This press release is extensively analysed in the article itself, which reveals that the impressive-sounding "Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin" is not an academic institution but a subsidiary of a fringe-science company. In fact, when I stripped the text of the press release (in all languages) out of a Google search, I ended up with only 27 hits for "Franklin Felber"--hardly a hallmark of notoriety. --Pagana 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, sorry about that, I did seem to see the same words alot, heh, I've changed my vote accordingly. tmopkisn tlka 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pagana. WP:WEB is completely irrelevant, as this is a biographical article. His only claim seems to be this controversial (ie, questionable) preprint, which I don't think is quite enough. JPD (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said WEB I meant BIO, but yeah, you're right, WEB is irrelevant in this situation. tmopkisn tlka 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pagana. NawlinWiki 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pagana. --Kristjan Wager 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this "grav beam" notorious enough that its inventor should be notable as a kook or pseudoscientist? If so, notability is established, if not, away with it. --Svartalf 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope...Subject appears to have a single instance of this announcement, not a verifiable history of efforts and/or assertions. If he had been notable on terms of pseudoscience itself (re: John Titor, etc), I wouldn't have AfD'd. --Pagana 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot see that this passes WP:BIO. :) Dlohcierekim 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, he is to present some earthshaking discovery. The article is more about his paper than him. Delete now and recreate if he becomes notable. :) Dlohcierekim 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony[edit]

Unencyclopaedic Kissmequick 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-This content has no encyclopedic value and should be removed by all means necessary. What the hell is this crap?? Opie & Anthony dont need 10,000 different linking pages on Wikipedia. This is nothing but slander and should be kept on their main page. JPJ 05:21, 11 September 2006

  • Keep Disagree. It's been a long standing part of the Opie and Anthony Main article, and there are many "Sub" articles, based around their upcoming comedy event, Friends and Employees of the show, and several other things. Payneos 06:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Payneos, it's a sub-article, broken off from the main article probably due to space. Besides, it's sourced fairly well and contains alot of information. tmopkisn tlka 06:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep. The content may merit its own page, but this has to be just about the worst-named article I've ever seen. --DocSigma 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Belongs at WP:RFD. Fixed copy-n-paste move by deleting target & doing a proper move. -- JLaTondre 11:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Analysis Software (Finance)[edit]

Contents moved to technical analysis software. Vanity now. A redirect is not necessary either. I'm not too sure if a speedy deletion is more appropriate in this case. Please advise. --Wai Wai (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. I believe both CSD G6 and R3 would work in this case. tmopkisn tlka 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. Not a speedy - the edit history needs to be maintained here. --JJay 10:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this redirect really valuable? Needed? WilyD 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not as far as I'm concerned, the only reason the parentheses are used in an article title is when a previous article with the same title exists. Since they would both have the same content I really don't think it would be necessary to have it even as a redirect. tmopkisn tlka 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is standard practice to maintain the edit history. The content has been moved. Therefore, this needs to remain as a redirect. --JJay 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... couldn't actually move the page, and then restore to the version it's supposed to be on.... and then delete the redirect. because honestly, this seems to be a very pointless redirect. tmopkisn tlka 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Knowing who contributed information to the articles and when they did it is more important than whether this will be used as a redirect. Also redirects should be discussed on WP:RFD not AfD. --JJay 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was APPARENTLY MOOT. Seems to be a content issue not requiring deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US history of exporting democracy[edit]

reads like an essay, POV by definition, specious JPotter 06:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been merged, as per a discussion on the talk page it was merged onto.
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:
Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
This user did not attempt to resolve his issues, which are POV issues. He has added nothing to the now merged article, not even a POV tag. Travb (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Page appears to have been merged with Foreign relations of the United States, and is currently a redirect. If you wish to delete the redirect take it up at Redirects for discussion, if you wish that the merged content be removed from its current article, I'd suggest taking it up on the talk page. Oh, and for the record, the page appears to have been perfectly fine, it was sourced abundantly and rather notable. The current administration's policy is to "Spread democracy and peace throughout the world" (or something to that effect), so I don't really see how this can be seen as POV. tmopkisn tlka 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks I will work on getting it speedy closed. Travb (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna Theory[edit]

the term not used in anthropological literature, only used by aquatic ape hypothesis proponents. Article is basically a strawman. Tried to redirect to Biped#Evolution but it was reverted. Hopeless JPotter 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge. Mostly Keep, due to it's heavy use, and the fact that the other theories listed under Biped#Evolution are significantly less notable, and were used for a shorter period of time. tmopkisn tlka 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, initially I was leaning merge to Aquatic ape hypothesis, but this article is a bit long for that. Aquatic ape hypothesis is, in my opinion, patently ridiculous (and even less supported than the "Stoned Ape" theory), but the argument against traditional evolutionary theory by proponents of AAH appears to be documented, and documented enough under the name "Savanna Theory" (or Savannah Theory) that it isn't a neologism. WP:V states verifiability, not truth and this seems to be a very good example of such. The fact that there is a Savanna Theory can be verified... whether it is true or not is irrelevant. Article has POV issues, but those are editorial concerns. We don't wipe out the Astrology article becuase it is complete bollocks... we edit it to be a balanced, encyclopedic view of the topic.--Isotope23 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, be it renamed or perhaps merged. I also tend to think the length renders it a poor choice for merging. People will definitely come across the term and come here searching for it. --Aranae 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard "Savanna Theory" used seriously by people who weren't "Aquatic Ape" proponents; admittedly, they were only doing so in order to have something to refer to the current most-popular hypothesis, but it's not just an epithet used by "Aquatic Ape" fans. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly, as referenced above, there are some tagential mentions of "savannah theory", but also the top google hits for it are all aah/aat proponents. So while yes there are mentions of the phrase, the phrase has mainly been co-opted by aquatic ape people. Also, the content of the article doesn't describe terrestrial based theories like Biped#Evolution does, but dedicates most of the space to the description of the idea vis a vis aquatic ape hypothesis and to criticism of the land based theories. I think a better landing for it would be something like Origin of bipedalism in humans with an expanding treatment of Biped#Evolution Thanks, JPotter 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The savanna theory article needs a lot of work, however, some of the older versions of the article are slightly more coherent. The savanna hypothesis appears to be a term that is actually used by a number of people, mostly proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis, and for that reason I am against deletion. Another possbility is a merge with the aquatic ape page. For more explanation of my position see the discussion section in savanna theory. As to the truth of the claims, I have no idea, but I agree with Isotope23 on verifiability, not truth. Nicolharper 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Reed[edit]

WP:BIO subject not notable. Vanity page for beach-bum who doesn't have a steady job but occasionally models for Abercrombie & Fitch. Unsourced and unverifiable Ohconfucius 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. tmopkisn tlka 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beach bum" strikes me as an unfair characterisation, but I agree that this fellow doesn't seem too notable. Interestingly, there's a whole 'nother person named Albert Reed on IMDb who is probably worth a shout ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Super model Albert Reed to feature in Slam’s sportswear catalog cover meets WP:BIO Looks like he may be more than a beachbum who occasionally models. Called a supermodel in more than one source.  :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all I've never heard of Slam sportswear, but I guess that doesn't make it particularly unnotable as I don't really follow the fashion biz. However, the source that you cited isn't very reputable, and appears to only details the fashion business. If it was indeed the only actual one you could find, the other you mentioned being nothing more than a blog, it shows that he is only notable in his own industry, and barely notable at that having only a single article. tmopkisn tlka 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, seems to be more than one source, but looking deeper, oohlalaparis link refers back to Slam sportswear, making it one and the same. Can anyone shed any light on notoreity of Chicago Fashion Magazine, Celebrity Male Models, and Simply The Best magazine? Ohconfucius 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenot notable, at least not yet. Akradecki 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated[edit]

Wikipedia: Notability (books)#Criteria (modern era). Author removed prod, so moving debate to Afd. SWAdair 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination. SWAdair 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote, so this extra little tidbit was definitely not required (and, as has been repeatedly shown over the past nine months, can be considered detrimental to the process). Also "Author removed prod" is one of those phrases that needs a damn fine reason to appear on AfD, and we don't appear to have such a reason today. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparent copyvio of several sources [24][25], or at the very least plagiarism. I'm not sure whether or not a speedy is possible here, since the content comes from more than one source, so I'll leave that to the experts. tmopkisn tlka 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's not speedy-able because it is not a direct copyright violation. BTW, prod tags were still on article so I removed them as this is now at AfD.--Isotope23 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shimeru 08:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's spam wacking time! WilyD 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's simple -- delete. NawlinWiki 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Kristjan Wager 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what to say except that I am the author of this book and it took me a great time to write, so I wanted to add it on here, there are more then 5 sources you can buy this book from sooo ummm I don't know what to say Also I do have an ISBN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball83 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: as author is around can I suggest he reads the Criteria linked to above. ISBN number is good but not quite good enough. A couple of published independent reviews would swing it for me. Stephen B Streater 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't establish notability. Also, as the editor claims to be the author, does this not violate WP:VAIN? I asked the editor to show us if the book meets Wikipedia: Notability (books)#Criteria (modern era). :) Dlohcierekim 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Embry[edit]

WP:BIO - Subject not notable. armed with a few production credits, none of any great note (but drops Minnie Ripperton's name), he calls himself "one of the most talented producers in the Atlanta area". No wiki links and nothing verifiable. Ohconfucius 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (company)[edit]

Non notable company. --Ragib 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as nominator. --Ragib 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You don't need to vote again, as a nominator. Anyway the deletion is not based on heads/votes, but good reasons. --Wai Wai (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not notable, nor verifiable. The article does not provide references to prove the entity. A quick search could not find this entity either. --Wai Wai (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. ViridaeTalk 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Michael 08:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Godbole[edit]

WP:BIO not notable no wikilinks and no information to indicate importance of subject or the organisation to which subject belongs Ohconfucius 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The site http://www.hinduunity.org/ is a controversial one, suggesting that the group's leader may be noteworthy. See http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/may/26hindu.htm Mumbai police gag hinduunity.org It could be argued that the term pro-Hindu in the article should be changed to anti-Moslem. That being said, I would be reluctant to write an article about the Hindu Unity group because I am afraid that the article would fall victim to POV wars and that the group's supporters (or perhaps its opponents) would try to get the article deleted. In short: obscure but not unimportant. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Current status of the article provides no information. Hindu Unity is at AfD too. My take would be to merge this one-liner article into Hindu Unity (if it survives AfD) and delete Amit Godbole with a hope that a red link would motivate some person to write a better article. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, not even his group seems notable... hard to get any outside info on them. --Svartalf 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Steve Hart 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Song (novel)[edit]

An advertisement that fails to conform to neutral point of view. Victoriagirl 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising. I especially like the empty "other books named Whale Song" section at the end. They tried so hard to make this look like it's not advertising, but failed dismally. --DocSigma 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to scream "oh, come on", then cover you two in barbecue sauce and feed you to fire ants (in accordance with ancient Russian tradition), but a certain source tells us that the book is self-published. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on it being an advertisement for a vanity-published novel. --Wafulz 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Svartalf 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author is really trying to get the article into a proper style, I think she should be given help, and time to do this.←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So in the end we might have a featured article on a nonnotable subject? --Svartalf 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, we have articles on lots of books, most of which I wouldn't be interested in reading, along with entire plotlines, episode guides, and made-up technology articles of various Sci-fi shows/novels/RPG's etc.... What's one more article about a novel? As for nonnotable... have you seen this, this, this, this .... the list does go on... Plus the book is now also being printed by Kunati Inc. Book Publishers of Canada so it's not just a Vanity publishing anymore.←ΣcoPhreek→ 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could rid WP of all the nonnotable cruft, and an unknown author with one openly published book is not yet notable... I tried with this and failed, so I no longer initiate AfDs, but I still support those others start. --Svartalf 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Thank you, Ecophreek, for your support!! I have done everything to re-write this article and to conform to policy standards, with help. Those who frown on self-published or POD books are simply biased and have no reason to be heard here. I thought the purpose of Wiki was to write factual articles in a upfront factual way. And to comment on content and writing as opposed to judging whether someone or their work is 'notable' or not. These books are available in bookstores and online and one has been recognized as entirely notable by your standards, since it has been picked up to be re-published as a special edition by a traditional publisher and has also garnered the interest of a respected film producer. People who downplay the importance of self-published works obviously have no idea where a large percentage of the great literature in the world has come from. Mark Twain and a number of other respected authors have started this way. If you delete this article on the basis that the book was first self-published, then you will have to delete articles on other authors who self-published, such as Mark Twain (Huckleberry Finn), Irma Rombauer (The Joy of Cooking), John Grisham (A Time to Kill), James Redfield (The Celestine Prophecy) Beatrix Potter (Peter Rabbit Classic Series), Whitman (Leaves of Grass), Jack Canfield and Mark Hensen (Chicken Soup for the Soul), Margaret Atwood, Tom Clancy, Deepak Chopra, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Allan Poe, T.S. Elliot, George Bernard Shaw, Virginia Woolf and more. Regardless, I can't educate the biased uneducated on the subject of literature because honestly you really have no idea what you are talking about, but I will defend that the Whale Song (novel) article has been edited now and is no different from other author pages listed on Wikipedia. And that is all that should matter.(Cherylktardif 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: My nomination was based on the belief that the entry was an "advertisement that fail[ed] to conform to neutral point of view". The entry has since been changed and the concerns are no longer valid.--Victoriagirl 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victoriagirl, for recognizing that I've worked at making this a NPOV article. (Cherylktardif 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. Self published, crystal ball, vanity. Dlyons493 Talk 10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The book has passed beyond self-published and is now being published by a Canadian publisher, also the book is to be turned into a movie thus fulfilling one of the criteria for what makes a book notable. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kunati gets some 50 Ghits, many associated with Tardif. Most of them talk about what Kunati will do i.e. crystal ball. I don't see an independent references for the movie. So also Unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My vote to keep was accompanied by a request for a citation concerning the statement that Whale Song, when published in 2003, "captured the interest of a leading Canadian film producer". The first citation provided, from the publisher's website, speaks of a "much-talked-about screenplay"; no producer is mentioned. The second citation, also from the publisher's site, is a word for word repetition of the claim ("captured the interest of a leading Canadian film producer") and provides no further information. In all fairness, the citations provided give no indication that "the book is to be turned into a movie". Furthermore, ghits for this "much-talked-about screenplay" (again, to be fair, the words of the publisher) appears to be limited to blogs and sites associated with the author. I suggest that this issue might be remedied by including citations to at least one trade journal (Quill & Quire or, perhaps, a film publication). The name of the "leading Canadian film producer" should also be included.--Victoriagirl 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of you understand how the movie industry works. When you submit a screenplay (and mine is in their hands now), most screenwriters will sign a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. This protects the producer from having their projects stolen until they have committed to it financially and are ready to release that info. So I am simply not authorized to release the name of said producer. My publisher on the other hand is fully aware of the arrangements between me and this Canadian producer as Kunati initially wanted movie rights and I could not give it to them. It has been documented all over the internet that a screenplay was in the works and that a producer requested it. I won't jeopardize my chances at a movie over a request for a citation that you deem viable. There already is a web link that backs up my claim. If this producer releases me from the agreement, their company name will go up immediately.(Cherylktardif 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Assertion aside, I do happen know something of what I speak when it comes to the film industry. A great many novels come under consideration by producers - sadly, few are accepted and the public is never the wiser. Were it not for the claims of a young, as yet untested publishing company, and those of the article's subject, we would know nothing of this possible project. Ms Tardif is justifiably proud that her book has attracted attention from the world of film, but her claim is unverifiable. I expect that in the happy event the novel is optioned, there will be a major press release. These things are always more than trumpeted on company websites and in Quill & Quire, the Canadian journal of the publishing trade. Until the time the claims can be verified, I respectfully recommend that references to the unidentified "leading Canadian film producer" and his request that Ms Tardif produce a screenplay be deleted.--Victoriagirl 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am now able to mention the film company and producer's name. More news on this topic to be added soon.(Cherylktardif 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep A published book seems fairly notable, esp. with a movie deal attached. Article could still use some clean-up, but that's no reason to delete. Icewolf34 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim of a movie deal is completely Unverified. None of the article links substantiate it. Dlyons493 Talk 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never made claims that there is a "movie deal". That is what another member said. I stated that the screenplay was being considered after the producer requested it. There is no "movie deal", let me stress that. I will be re-working this article again.(Cherylktardif 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Final edit on this page. Removed movie references. Added a citation regarding my brother's murder, in case someone wanted to contest my comment/claim was unverified.(Cherylktardif 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Violates no original research rule. --Atrian 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see, Kunati Book Publishers have not published any books [26] - they are a startup who hope to publish some next January. So until they publish her book this is a self-published book. Dlyons493 Talk 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothed female, naked male[edit]

Non-notable type of pornography, no Wikipedia:Reliable sources on this. I am also nominating the page Clothed male, naked female along with this Xyzzyplugh 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be a term someone made up one day to describe a fairly common phenomenon (ie one member of the sex is clothed the other naked - strippers for instance...) ViridaeTalk 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viridae. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitly notable, lots of TGP sites on that topic. Medico80 10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge the two articles together. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both. Merge if there is a suitable collective term that isn't original to wikipedia, don't just redirect one to the other. Thryduulf 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, that's 2 keep votes with no reasons at all given, and one claiming notability because this term exists on "TGP sites", which I believe means Thumbnail gallery post, a type of porn site. Wikipedia:Verifiability is official policy, we must have reliable sources. I assume those of you voting Keep have reliable sources in mind that haven't mentioned? --Xyzzyplugh 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. This appears to be a guy trying to find a niche for an adult website. If he's the first, he'll make money. Problem is, this isn't a fetish. This lies somewhere between neologism and things made up in school one day. Ifnord 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Googling for the title "Clothed female, naked male" or "CFNM" demonstrates that this is already a notable, and rather specific, pornographic genre. The counterpart, CMNF, is also common in fetish pornography,, but I have not seen the specific name used before: perhaps the two should be merged into a single article: perhaps Naked/clothed fetishism? This topic has the potential to keep gender studies academics busy for years. -- The Anome 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you found any reliable sources for this topic, or do you suggest we use unreliable sources or original research? --Xyzzyplugh 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there's a Yahoo! category for it: [27], and it's mentioned in an Ottawa X Press agony column [28] -- The Anome 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The yahoo category is not a source. Ottawa xpress, though... It's the most marginal of sources that might be useable, website with an alexa ranking of 300,000+, and the web version of a free local newspaper, and I'm not sure if this column is contained in the print version or not, but it is some sort of source. I personally only nominate articles for deletion if I think there's zero chance of them being keepable, so I wouldn't have nominated this had I been aware of this source. --Xyzzyplugh 05:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be misled by the quoted results of 92,400 and 1,720,000 - in fact there are only 267 results for each! (See [29] and [30] - even including the "omitted results" still gives less than 1,000 hits, for some bizarre reason Google gets confused sometimes.) 267 hits is no evidence for notability whatsoever. Mdwh 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think is. Take a glance at the hits and see that they almost entirely refer to sexual content, meaning this topic. Besides, the fact that so many websites have this acronym, cfnm, in their domain name should be enough to verify that the term is established. Medico80 23:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not suggesting that the hits aren't genuine. But even if every hit is a genuine usage of that term, 267 hits is practically nothing. Do you have any evidence of notability? Mdwh 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per nom. wikipediatrix 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. One presumes you could find examples of all such permutations somewhere online (of porn, of course, this is the Internet), but this provides neither reliable verification, nor multiple third-party non-trivial articles regarding notability of same. Appears to be original research as well. Tychocat 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a hybrid subtype of exhibitionism and femdom. The article does need improvement, lots of OR, but the topic is notable. We have smoking fetish and this might not be as widespread but it's not negligible or NFT.--Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, for both articles. "Clothed male, naked female" gets 57 hits [31], whilst "Clothed female, naked male" gets 267 hits [32]. Mdwh 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Links list woefully incomplete, user deletes relevant links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.148.244 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is neither exhibitionism or femdom. This is not a fetish, it's an over classification of photography. Vegaswikian 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Myers[edit]

WP:BIO subject not notable. Vanity page for would-be record label owner. Unsourced and unverifiable Ohconfucius 07:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NN. Michael 08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is not as obscure as he first seems. Amazon [33] lists a number of books by him, and his record label has released some interesting artists. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--Svartalf 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: has published multiple books. The 3:AM article about him is extensive; 3:AM appears to be widely mentioned. I'd be content with a short article here. Stephen B Streater 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know a lot of people who have published several books, and are not notable in the slightest. In particular, academics and vanity press customers. Check his books and tell us how big and mainstream his publishers are ... Publishing at The Disinformation Company is enough to be worse than suspect as far as I'm concerned. --Svartalf 07:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bailey[edit]

WP:BIO Subject not notable. Vanity page. Subject's only claim to fame is having heard Tony Benn say something. Ohconfucius 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Days of FOXHOUND[edit]

No sources provided despite a template being up for a month. Does not appear notable. Fagstein 07:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:NN. Michael 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB for lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles, no verifiability, appears to be original research. Notability also not shown, or implied, Alexa rating of 366,812. Only 166 unique Google hits, a lot of web directories. Tychocat 11:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow time for further editing. Voici 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I allowed a month with a template requesting even one source. How much time do we need? Fagstein 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I respect that you have, and perhaps I should have sought out this article sooner to begin editing, there is only one statement in the article that I can see that needs a citation, and it could be deleted without effecting the article. As for not being not notable enough - as of 07/08/06 it is rated above El Goonish Shive and Alien Loves Predator holding the place of 61st in the buzzComix top 100 webcomics, as well as being 41st in TopWebComics vote. I feel this is suffient evidence that it is a notable webcomic. Voici 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That it is ranked 61st out of an arbitrary list of a small fraction of webcomics is not much of an achievement. -- Dragonfiend 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even when ranked above webcomics that have articles? Voici 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Since such rankings are rather meaningless and trivial, yes. Presumably those webcomics which have articles that are coincidentlly ranked lower than this one on arbitrary lists of small fractions of webcomics either have articles based on verifiable information from reliable sources or they ought to be deleted as well. We are not building an unreliable encyclopedia, since one would be useless. -- Dragonfiend 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, does not meet our official policies starting with WP:V and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Dragonfiend 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I understand how the article might go agaisnt WP:NOT, I do not understand how it goes agaisnt WP:V as it contains only information presented in the comic. Voici 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: From WP:V: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Information presented in the comic is not a reliable third party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.-- Dragonfiend 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legrand Software[edit]

Notability not established. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Advertising. Sleepyhead 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ViridaeTalk 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having a high proportion of its customers in Falkland Islands and Botswana hardly argues for notability. Dlyons493 Talk 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4. Kusma (討論) 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Stevie Thinking? (second nomination)[edit]

Non-notable unaired spinoff of a Disney Channel show. Was deleted in a previous AfD, but has been recreated, so eligible for a speedy deletion. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per this and the previous nom. Nothings changed since the last AfD (that I can tell without viewing the previous version), so I tagged it for speedy.--Kchase T 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Lizzie[edit]

Unaired, non-notable spinoff of a Disney Channel show. WP:NOT a crystal ball. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Checking the author's history, there are hints that they also may (partially or completely) be responsible for the deluge of articles about canceled Disney Channel spinoffs and side-projects as of late. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 08:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oh, good lord, an article about a show that never aired? Tychocat 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above article's deletion. It's so time to improve Disney Channel itself. TrackerTV 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephainie "Stevie" Sanchez[edit]

Planned character from a unaired Disney Channel spinoff. Crystal balling, possibly WP:OR. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Essentially non-existent characters are hardly worth an entry. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oh, I see, a series of articles about shows that never aired. Tychocat 09:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I mean, come on. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Folsom[edit]

Non-notable cruft from the Jennifer Government: NationStates game, and a 3,395 word paragraph as well--seriously. rootology (T) 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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's a unanimous consensus that this article shouldn't exist on its own, which leaves the question whether we should preserve this page as it is or as a redirect for the merge. Normally merges result in redirects, but as these are quotes, if any were inserted into New Delhi bombings a redirect from here wouldn't be necessary as no-one's original GFDL-licensed work is being copied. Consequently I'm closing as delete on the basis that all of this can be found elsewhere, and if it can't, they're not verifiable quotes and can't be merged anyway, as Stephen says. Will restore into userspace on request if anyone was thinking of copying some of the quotes to New Delhi bombings but can't remember what they were. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World reaction to the New Delhi bombings[edit]

Originally, user:Litclass tried to list this article for deletion, with the explanation: "this is peoples opinion and lacks citations and not really encylopedia like". I repaired the AfD listing and happen to agree. The article was tagged for copying to Wikiquote for the better part of a year. It is a collection of quotes, with no sources or even context. I assume some of the quotes could be merged to the main article about the bombings, but right now there are no links in either direction. The title is an unlikely search term, so turning it into a redirect is unnecessary. Even the proposed copying to Wikiquote looks unnecessary to me, as the quotes are not exceptional, but the standard quotes every major act of terrorism produces. Thus, delete --Huon 08:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelygirl15[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

  • Delete On speedy, bt fiercely contested. The bottom line is that this person is nn and just someone who has posted some videos on YouTube. To put this to the point, my cousin has released 6 videos, so does that warrant her own article? No. Neither should this person. J.J.Sagnella 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have let you speedy it, either. Whatever the merits of an article on this young lady, it is clearly not a speedy. By the bye, please remember that AfD is not a vote, and a well-written nomination (as opposed to just plonking down a bullet point and some lame bold text and pretending you've done your duty) has been scientifically proven to make you more attractive to the sex of your choice. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What are you talking about? I don't see anything wrong with the nomination. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dime a dozen amateur video actress. Not notable. Ohconfucius 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • um.. well - Keep, obviously. Front page of New York Times nytimes.com and 700,000+ views = notable! This is actually fairly straightforward! (but then i did write the article.....!) Petesmiles 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - may have been on the front page but the newspaper website report [no hits]. Does not seem to pass any of the WP:WEB or WP:BIO criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not convinced that a YouTube viewing statistic is a good starting point for notability. There's also (at least in the Bio criteria) a requirement for "multiple non-trivial coverage" and one appearance on the nytimes site does not multiple coverage make. BigHaz 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube poster. 219 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article the author refers to, here, hardly constitutes a claim to actual notability, any more than does being blogged. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Times mention is hardly notable and if she ever does become famous she can be re-added. Mark Grant 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and per Starblind and BigHaz. Nonnotable youtube camgirl. Subject was not mentioned "on the front page" of NYTimes. Was mentioned in an NYTimes.com blog post which appeared as a small picture and link on the main page of the nytimes.com website for a day or less than a day. Also much mainstream news content is not encyclopedically notable and much is also not even news. Like this. Bwithh 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Starblind, BigHaz, and Bwithh all summed up nicely the problems I have with this article.--Isotope23 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reference in a nytimes blog does not remotely count as multiple non-trivial published works. Fan-1967 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Couldn;t find the NY times article, according to above she was mentioned in a blog post. Whhen she gets and article written about her, then she is notable (see Brooke Brodack) ViridaeTalk 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. or should we repeal WP :VAIN and start each doing our vanity pages? --Svartalf 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not-notable and fails WP:BIO. Scorpiondollprincess 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone and close up this AfD per WP:SNOW. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 22:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) No change in vote ←ΣcoPhreek→ 04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the only 'keep' voter, its obvious that you guys should delete the article - Just thought i'd mention that a quick google - and as perfectly highlighted on her site - [34] - now shows coverage all over the shop, or to put it another way, 'mulitple non-trivial coverage' - from the likes of NY Times.com, Denver Post, Media Village to name the biggest three (follow link to see more) .... Dare i suggest that perhaps some of these voters might not have had a good enough look at this one? hmmmm....... Petesmiles 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, All the pieces are brief blurbs or blogs (which are not reliable sources in my book). I would call them all "trivial" coverage or coverage from non-reliable sources. I still don't see evidence of multiple non-trivial mention in reliable sources and that is the problem here.--Isotope23 11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - BraDRoBBo writes:- Why delete it? It's informative nonetheless, and i was actually searching for this on Wikipedia and found it, it does not SAY she is fake, just says that some people believe this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.78.79 (talk • contribs)
  • STRONG KEEP - While I dislike LG15, we do have a precident of notablility set by other Notable YouTube users, such as Emmalina, Brooke Brodack, and BowieChick. She was noted in the New York Times, and is wildly popular on YouTube. I would suggest a major re-write of the page to Wiki Standards and also to create a reference link to not only the NYT's article but some of the other media she has been mentioned in. I'll offer to do this if we have a keep concensus. --Bschott 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles you reference are in the process of getting merged into Notable_YouTube_Users. Are you suggesting a merge? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep/Comment - Perhaps a complete re-write of this page with more detail and properly sectioned off areas with headings would be excellent. A merge though, would that make it so that it is linked, like the others are, on the Notable_YouTube_Users page? It should have a page of its own, as there is so much that can be written about this girl, whether you like her or not - but hopefully not from a biased point of view as to whether it is staged or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.78.79 (talk • contribs)
User's only edits are to this page, possible vote stacking. J.J.Sagnella 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, you can rewrite it if this article survives AfD, but it doesn't matter. It's not a formatting or style issue here, it is the fact that she meets none of the WP:BIO guidelines. A rewrite won't change that unless you are aware of reliable sources and non-trivial coverage that those opining keep are failing to mention.--Isotope23 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - the article has now been substantially cleaned up, and has had a whole bunch of productive editors contribute (though not to this vote... hmmmm....) I think the clear concensus here to delete is pretty self-evidently wrong, and would invite all voters to take another look at the article and the story now and I reckon you'll probably agree.... maybe! - cheers, Petesmiles 00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, she still doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines though... that is the issue here. The new external links section is all non-reliable sources and I'd say most of it (like her MySpace) should removed as self-promotional links that add nothing to an encyclopedic article.--Isotope23 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to notable YouTube users. --Ixfd64 03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What makes internet folks think that they become notable so easily?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If not, at least redirect to YouTube. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with and Redirect to Notable YouTube Users article. --Satori Son 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that every Youtube uploader can have a redirect page? Even the two people mentioned above? Where do you draw the line? J.J.Sagnella 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the slippery slope argument. Nicely done. Are you an attorney as well or do you just debate like one? My fully articulated position, your mischaracterization aside, is that while the subject of this article does not appear to be sufficiently notable to have her own article, it would be appropriate under the circumstances to Redirect to an article that already exists! I refuse to be baited into making predictions on issues not before us now, specifically, the likely notability of "every Youtube uploader" and whether they deserve their own article, a redirect page, or neither. As far as where "to draw the line", those issues should be decided on a case by case basis using the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. The intrinsic value of any precedence that may or may not be established here is another matter entirely. --Satori Son 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not an attorney. And I'm overwhelmed by some of those words, please try and descibe it in layman's terms. And care to determine what makes it agree with wp:bio. Just because this person has appeared on a notable website, isn't really very high. For instance my cousin who I have descibed at the top has appeared on the front page of a nn website as well. J.J.Sagnella 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I suppose since I did admit that the article subject was not notable enough for its own article, it does seem a little silly to Redirect to an article entitled Notable YouTube Users. I have withdrawn an earlier comment and stricken the above opinion. Apologies to all for my verbosity. --Satori Son 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! - Why does it matter wether its real or fake it is a real story in any case! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.211.237 (talk • contribs) .
User's only edit is to this page, possible vote stacking. J.J.Sagnella 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly Weak keep She has achieved a bizarre level of notability in a short time. The article needs improvement however. She is no less notable than the other Notable YouTube users. If those articles are OK, this should be too. Siradia 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(yet another) Comment[edit]

Hopefully a summation may be useful.....

Does Lonelygirl15's coverage constitute 'multiple non-trivial'? - my opinion, Yes - others above, No.

Does Lonelygirl15's 'notability' meet the Guidelines therefore? - my opinion, Yes - others above, No.

Is YouTube a notable website - concensus over the wiki says Yes, my opinion, Yes - others above seem to be saying No.

Is Lonelygirl15 'famous' on YouTube - pretty obviously yes - we all agree on this one!


Is this article a fun, informative, appropriate article for wikipedia, or another annoying geeky disctraction from the serious task of collecting knowledge? - I guess that's up to you Mr. Closing Admin...... (ps - go on, keep it!) - thanks folks! - Petesmiles 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Schultz[edit]

WP:BIO Subject not notable. Newsworthy for a while, perhaps, but Standford graduate and alleged high-classed prostitute hardly deserves to have a Wiki listing? Ohconfucius 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not a matter of deserving but rather of reference value. She is likely to be referred to in any discussion of debt levels from student loans (as well as being an example of why it is a bad idea to brag in public about your earnings without declaring them on your income tax return). Icky people sometimes have reference value. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - properlt referenced and notorious enough to be notable. -- Whpq 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She wont be cited on this side of the Atlantic and I'm not sure she'll be cited for long (if at all) on that side. Insufficiently notable, tomorrow's wrapping for a Fish n Chips supper... Marcus22 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 15 minutes of fame don't notable make. --Svartalf 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she received quite a bit of news coverage and her name still comes up in conversations about the massive debt that student loans can put people in-like this article from Stanford. Agne 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wood[edit]

WP:BIO 'Subject not notable Promising young musician is not yet there. autobiographical Vanity page Ohconfucius 08:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Three records, which is good. Performances seem to be primarily in or near Washington, D.C. though. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only real author of the article is User:Dwood0032, looks like a self-bio. Also a google search on "Daniel Wood" provides a number of more common uses of "Daniel Wood". --Utopianheaven 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems his albums are self made and sold on cdbaby. Making it lack a notable companies backing as per WP:MUSIC. I was on the fence when I seen the videogame OST, however thats not really an album per se. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC with ease, and almost certainly fails WP:AUTO. I really love this line: "His chart-topping song, entitled 'Type-M' reached the Top 100 for the Electronic Music Charts at #57." I have great respect for chart-topping songs that get as high as #57! -- Kicking222 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he had charted on an official chart even at #57 he would meet WP:MUSIC. As it is a MP3.com electronic music chart, he doesn't. A search for "Daniel Wood" electronic fails to come up with anything verifiable. [35]

Capitalistroadster 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Merge it, redirect it, stand it on its head and call it "Martha", do whatever you please ... but don't nominate an article for deletion because you want to discuss merging. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President of Southern Virginia University[edit]

I can't really see why this position merits its own article - just give it a section within the Southern Virginia University article. David Mestel(Talk) 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... I don't see anything to merge here. Smith is already mentioned at Southern Virginia University and has his own article. I supose a redirect would work too as they are exceedingly cheap...--Isotope23 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Opinions are exactly split between delete and transwiki. Wiktionary already has an entry for this word (wikt:頭), and as can be seen from that link, Wiktionary translations of kanji are written in completely different formats from this article. I'm closing this as delete rather than listing it for transwiki as none of the prose in which this article is written could be transferred. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okashira[edit]

Dicdef, bordering on CSD A3 David Mestel(Talk) 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Terror Beyond Grace[edit]

Minor band that has yet to do any significant touring beyond local shows. The entry is lifted straight from the band's website BrianFG 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:BAND. Can you provide a link to the site you think it's copied from? --David Mestel(Talk) 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not anymore. The bio from this entry originally appeared almost word for word on the band's site, but the site has been changed since. --BrianFG 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete based on WP:BAND. They have three albums- An EP, a compilation, and a promo album. Doesn't seem notable at all to me. --Wafulz 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Don't try this at home, kids! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKinese[edit]

I reckon someone's just presenting their own word that they've made up.

Forgot to sign! Dancarney 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like something made up at school one day. BigHaz 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article actually specifically states that it was made up at school one day... ChrisTheDude 11:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thought as much, but the "while on a free" was throwing me. It's not a term I've ever heard in Australia, so I hedged my bets a bit. BigHaz 11:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I was at school we used "while on a free" all the time — it means during a timetable period in which you and your mates have no class scheduled. I guess this means I'm either too old or too young, huh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. --David Mestel(Talk) 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Guinnog 09:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike[edit]

This is one of countless articles spawned from the current Israel-Lebanon conflict. In the scheme of things, this particular event, the Qana airstrike, may be regarded a minor detail of the conflict. There is very little substance in this article - the reactions could easily be summarized in the "parent" article Medico80 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back to the parent article, or delete. Seems a bit POV forkish. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only because I do not want to see it back in the original article. The original article is growing quickly as events continue to unfold. Unlike many wars everything in this one is open to the press almost and the article size limit is just not gonig to be enough. In order to maintain a decent sized article there is gonig to have to be splits and this is one of them. The information is important as long as it maintains an equal groupings views, it cannot be merged back into its main article due to size contraints and should stand on its own as it is important and relevant. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the current issue fades into historical obscurity. Major current events cause a massive amount of information to be added to Wikipedia, and splitting the articles is often necessary to keep them a reasonable length. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Stifle--Shrike 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep The information should be kept, but it's debatable whether it should be in a separate article of its own. Jacob 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, premature afd. --Striver 14:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per zerofaults. --Wedian 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the only reason that this article is "long" is that someone finds it nessecary to list an official statement from each country and organisation. Pardon me, but what is the direct influence of the statements by Chile, Norway and Singapore? Why can't these many "small" statements be summarized into a handfull of overall, global opinons? Medico80 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betsettler[edit]

nn, only 116 ghits, of which only 11 distinct, most of which are adverts. David Mestel(Talk) 10:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was- well, I'll take a bold move and say that in this borderline case (62.5%), I can't really see anything promising forthcoming from the IMDB profile, as the recent two movies that he was in (7 years ago) he was the 25th and 16th ranked cast member in a film which didn't seem big (I didn't recognise the names of any of his co-actors) judging by the links to the films. Personally, I didn't think that getting an IMDB profile was an automatic grounds for retention, as you could get one by appearing in some film for 2 minutes? As for the home and away stuff, there seems little info on him or his character, aside from the fact he had a half-year stint on the program.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lloyd (Australian actor)[edit]

WP:BIO subject not notable brief career as a soap actor, no hits in Google for this profile Ohconfucius 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 10:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Confusing Manifestation 13:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not sure where the no google hits comes from. Seems to have acted in a few tv shows at various times.[36] JPD (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah Ewart has pointed out that the link I gave is not accurate. It is better to stick with the IMDb link below. I now consider the this a borderline case. JPD (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He strikes me as plenty notable (see JPD's link, and IMDb). I'm not too sure about how much research you did before nominating here. The article needs expansion, not deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete he seems to have done some work, but I think that he falls short of WP:NN. Thε Halo Θ 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been in a number of TV series in the 1980s so notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nn actor, all minor credits (except Home and Away). Also, the credit list at Tv.com cited above is incorrect. It blends the credits of two different actors of the same name--an American Frank Lloyd and this Australian actor. See the American actor and the Australian one. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be NN actor in a large pond of NN actors --Garrie 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMK-BMK[edit]

This page was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason "Complete fancruft", which isn't really a valid criterion so it's here. However, I'm bound to agree with the reasoning. The terms also don't seem to be in wide use based on a cursory google search (amk+mortal kombat gets some results, but only things that refer to this usage are wikipedia mirrors). - Bobet 10:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are up against a hundred-headed monster. I too have tried to get video game fancruft (i.e. Street Fighter universe) deleted. It's impossible... Medico80 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "...AMK-BMK are not used by Midway or Mortal Kombat's creators...". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - made up term not in wide use -- Whpq 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's not up against a hundred-headed monster- this isn't fancruft. It's just something someone made up. WP:NOT and all that. Also, the computer and video games Wikiproject keeps track of most AfD's having to do with it, most are deleted. --PresN 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this so much fancruft as something made up in school one day. Ace of Sevens 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Unverifiable. No sources cited, and I fail to see how any could ever be cited. Smells strongly of WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I can't believe this has been around for over a year. And that they stole the term away from the disambiguation page! Please fix that, too. --SevereTireDamage 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This has survived for how long?! RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just made up. I've personally never heard it used. ---SilentRAGE! 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Parker (pioneer)[edit]

Tagged for speedy, but a reasonably plausible assertion of notability is on the talk page, so I am bringing it here. No vote. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somebody can say how specifically he played a central role in the battle of the Alamo. --David Mestel(Talk) 10:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see no evidence that he was anywhere near the Alamo, but I don't see how that's relevant. --BrownHairedGirl 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies, I meant the Fort Parker Massacre. --David Mestel(Talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, is being killed in it somehow not playing a central role in it? BigHaz 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 9 million people were killed in WWI - are you saying that they all warrant an article? --David Mestel(Talk) 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, but reading the article on the massacre it seems that it was predominantly the Parker family (and some others who were in the fort at the time) who were killed. BigHaz 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. As the article's creator, I wrote the notability assertion at Talk:John Parker (pioneer)#Reasons_for_hang_on, and as per what I wrote there, I think that this AFD is premature. To my mind, notability is clear; the question is whether there is enough material to deserve a separate biographical article, rather than merging the article to Fort Parker massacre. As per my hangon explanation, I'd prefer to tag the article for expansion and revisit it in a month or two if it has not been expanded. --BrownHairedGirl 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the best bet at the moment would be to merge him with the massacre in question, and then spin him (or indeed his entire family) out into another article if/when someone who knows more about the events turns up and contributes what they know. BigHaz 10:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fort Parker massacre. Right now, there is simply not enough verifiable information to support an article. A redirect would take anyone looking at this to a page with much more information on Parker and the events that may make him notable. No predjudice against the redirect being replaced with a true article about Parker if and when BrownHairedGirl finds more verifiable info to expand the article with.--Isotope23 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't intend to expand it myself; I proposed tagging it for others to expand. --BrownHairedGirl 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and REDIRECT as per Isotope23 -- Whpq 12:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability seems pretty clear to me. I wouldn't be opposed to merging (now, who's willing to do the leg-work, hmm?), although I don't really see the need. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with massacre article, as per BigHaz's comments. Subject seems notable, but this article doesn't do anything to establish that notability. I fail to see this one sentence stub encourging other contributors to write more. As part of another article, it might read better and establish notability more authoritatively. It can always be re-created as it's own article, without prejudice, when/if author(s) have interest, time, and more information. Scorpiondollprincess 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I agree with the article's creator. There is substantial material available for a separate biographical article, and I will help expand it before the end of August. Fort Parker was a unique and interesting settlement on the fringe of the Comancheria, and an article on the man that settled his clan in such a remote and hostile area, rather than with the other early settlers is merited. His motivations were distinctly different from the other Anglo immigrants and will be expounded on. I'd prefer to tag the article for expansion and give it month or two. --Texan Traveler 07:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this music?[edit]

nn fanzine Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"nn" is jargon. People who cannot be bothered to explain their meanings are evidently unprepared to put in the amount of effort required to nominate an article for deletion, and thus should not be doing it. Please take more care in future. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • its best known 'exclusive' was the first ever interview with Glasgow-based pop superstars Franz Ferdinand seems reasonably notable. Other interviewed bands/artistes are also notable. Can a magazine covering a number of artistes be a "fanzine"? Keep. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would not consider this a fanzine as it has interviews with numerous different artists and reviews etc. Its a bit more advanced then a fanzine, their exclusive is also an interview with a major artist. There are other mags that cover indie or up and coming artists. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This magazine seems quite notable to me. I can only assume, Kungfuadam, that you didn't know who the bands mentioned in the article were when you nominated it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at the very least, I can confirm that this publication is very well known in its field, namely the Scottish underground. Established long enough to merit inclusion. Ac@osr 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. If someone can provide citations to "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that would confirm the notability of this publication, then please do so and I will be more than happy to change my opinion. --Satori Son 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAS Games[edit]

I've proposed this article for deletion since it appears to be promotional material from an account whose sole purpose is to promote this website. Until a few hours ago, the article's sole contributor was a user coincidentally named "DASGames". This user has no other edits. "DASGames" deleted the {{prod}} tag shortly after I added it, and again later on, both times without discussion.

It's since been edited by anonymous IPs whose recent edits only have to do with the site in question, and one or two by what may be a sockpuppet account.

I expect the {{afd}} tag on the page to be deleted without discussion, just as the prod tags were. But he'll be unable to erase this page. --Mr. Billion 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with removing PROD tags, with or without discussion. You should not have replaced it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, this is a fairly easy mistake to make - I did precisely the same thing when I first involved myself in the AfD process. No need to bite him for making a silly mistake. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's promotional/vanity. --Mr. Billion 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Why'd you add that? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm sorry, I am new to Wikipedia, and I did not know how to explain myself. Yes, I am the owner of DAS Games... but I did not create the page to promote my site. I made the page so new members of my site, and anyone interested, can see the history of it, and edit it as new events happen. Those accounts were not sockpuppets, but members of my forums trying to contribute to the site's page. I did mostly all of the page myself, yes, but I just laid down the basics. I'm now leaving it up to however wants to in the future to edit and improve on it.

I'm for any trouble or misunderstandings. --DASGames

    • What you did seems to be more or less an innocent mistake. Wikipedia discourages people writing about themselves or their own creations, but it is not forbidden. In any case, the article seems to be reasonably neutral, which is one of our most important goals. I'd say the biggest problem about keeping this article is that DAS Games is not notable under our standard for web sites. I suspect this is what the nominator meant by the article being "promotional", though perhaps it could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner.--Kchase T 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. My first AFD. Thanks! --Mr. Billion 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I added some changes to the page myself. I am not DAS Games or representing the site. There's no need to delete this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walnoj (talk • contribs)

I copied Walnoj's comment from this AfD's talk page. It was clearly meant to be placed here. It is Walnoj's second edit.--Kchase T 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletechange to neutral below per notability concerns expressed in my comment above.--Kchase T 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep They were mentioned on G4 which is basically the top of gaming news commercially. If they can prove other sites they have been used as sources for that would further support it. I would remove the evolution of the page and list of editors etc as its very self promoting and doesnt speak about the content or stories the site has broke or other major sites that use or have used DAS Gaming for sources. Agreements or hosting etc for Nintendo or major companies would also help establish notoriety. I would give it time to grow some more. But based on the G4 and Joystiq, both major sites I think it should be kept. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would reccomend to the authors that contribute or want it kept that they provide some more information that may be helpful to this discussion as per WP:WEB specifically, unique hits, member count etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being featured on Attack of the Show is impressive, as is the long list of (I assume; could easily be wrong) independent contributors. The article could stand to be improved — while its author has clearly done his best (well done), it's still quite evident that the site's creator was heavily involved in the article just from reading it — however, I don't see a good reason to delete it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Attack of the Show. Being featured there implies notability. It needs cleanup, but a delete is not necessary. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Peephole 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:WEB. With all due respect to the owner of the company, who obviously worked hard on the article, being mentioned on Attack of the Show! does not make one notable. Every day, AotS shows half a dozen YouTube videos or funny web sites, and in no way does that make any of them notable. They have a "MySpace Girl of the Week" contest every week- does this mean that those three girls are all notable enough to be on WP? No. I love AotS, but a program on a not-particularly-popular cable/sattelite channel is merely one reference, and I wouldn't even call that reference point a reliable source. This article is simply an advertisement for a non-notable web site, and nothing more. -- Kicking222 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight difference in being pointed and laughed at and being used as a source of information. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, even if we accept this mention as a reference from a reliable source, the site still fails WP:WEB, which 1) requires multiple independent references, and 2) excludes trivial coverage. -- Kicking222 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say it again, I did not make a Wikipedia page to promote my site. I didn't even think that being mentioned on AOTS was that big of a deal, it was just a piece of the web site's history worth mentioning, in my opinion. I made this page as an archive for newcomers to my site, and in no way intended for it to come across as biased, or as an advertisement. --DASGames
  • If you really really need a page to put the history of your site for newcomers, why not place it on your site? Wikipedia isn't a free hosting service. --ColourBurst 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want anyone to be able to edit it though, isn't that what makes Wikipedia what it is?
  • Then I'm slightly confused. History is an immobile thing, so why would you want people to edit it? And anyways, Wikipedia isn't the only site where anybody can edit - if you need something like that on your own site, there's a list, and you can install one of those programs on your server. --ColourBurst 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm withdrawing my vote because there are strong arguments on both sides and I no longer feel familiar enough with these sources to make an informed judgment. Incidentally, even if the author created a non-neutral article to promote his site (and I don't believe he did), that is, by Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not a reason to delete but an issue to improve. Whatever his motives and relationship with the site, they are not important to this discussion, but to a discussion about NPOV if the article is kept.--Kchase T 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an Alexa ranking of over 1,000,000 leaves me unconvinced that this site is notable enough to warrant inclusion. No apparent notability: its forums have a massive 153 users registered... RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus if it is non promotional why is there an external link to DAS Games Merchandise in external links? ←ΣcoPhreek→ 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I was new to Wiki editing, and I modeled my site page after Smosh. And I still dont understand. How long will this debate last, and who decides the final verdict? --DASGames
      • It "goes on" for approx 5 days unless it's a WP:SNOW See also:here ←ΣcoPhreek→ 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment DAS - an admin will come through in a few days, review the arguments and decide which side has the stronger case, and make the decision from there (either keep, delete, or no consensus, which defaults to keep). As far as content and style goes, your article is ok for a starting point, and that's not really the issue here. The real difference beteen DAS Games and Smoosh is the significant media coverage Smoosh has received, as evidenced on that page. JoshWook 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Although I'm usually skeptical of website owners creating wikipedia articles about their own products, it really doesn't look like a vanity article. Could use quite a bit of cleanup, but it talks about the site from a NPOV and the creator is obviously working in good faith. Still, notability is a concern, and wikipedia is admittedly not a web directory. On the fence, I guess, but why not? Note to Daylon - as ColourBurst mentioned, if all you want is the wiki software and you can host the site yourself, it is freely available. It would probably be a better option for you anyways, since you've stated that you intended the article to primarily be for your users. JoshWook 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precident set by GraalOnline delete and deletion endorsed at review. Very similar policy involved (primary sources, WP:SOFTWARE) Daniel.Bryant 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GDrive[edit]

Apart from this one sentence "With infinite storage, we can house all user files, including emails, web history, pictures, bookmarks, etc and make it accessible from anywhere (any device, any platform, etc)", there isn't any information given regarding this 'GDrive'..of which even the name seems to be a speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball..—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is tagged {{future software}}, which says: "contains information about scheduled or expected future software.". That's at odds with what it actually says in the article, which is: GDrive is the name of a service speculated to be offered by Google. The service is believed to be some form of unlimited online storage space (my emphases). So it's speculation about something which is "believed" (by whom?) to exist. Fails crystal ball at least, and appears to rely on a statement found on "a Google website" that boils down to "with infinite storage we could store infinite stuff" (which seems self-evident.). Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure speculation Lurker talk 11:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as pure, unsourced speculation. --BrownHairedGirl 12:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the massive amount of press coverage this has been getting: 959,000 Google hits and 63 news hits, among them prominent sources such as Computerworld, eWeek, Ziff-Davis, IT Week, and The Globe and Mail. At this point, even if it gets cancelled it will still be notable for all the ruckus it caused. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is speculation. --Kevin Walter 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind. "Crystal balling" is allowed when multiple major news sources have covered the speculated product and when such a product would be notable even if its release was cancelled. Simply being speculation about a future product is not grounds for deletion; for example, there is an article on the Playstation 3, which isn't out yet either. There is a cutoff of notability where encyclopedic information from secondary sources ends and pure speculation begins, and this article is not past that cutoff due to the sources. However, someone does need to go in and add the various news sources to the article, as without them it appears much less notable or confirmed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After checking the various articles it appears that everything in every single news source that is related to GDrive simply refers to a single "leak" of what is probably an in-house feature only. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This looks like promotional spam, plus it may be a case of vaporware, so media coverage is not proof of notability. --Svartalf 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is compelling evidence. See [37] --Cataphract 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compelling evidence? I researched that link you provided, and I found out that this very same website stated: "Google will be providing "infinite storage" for something — but it's still a bit of a mystery as to what. I think it will be Gdrive, and others think Gmail is gearing up for an infinite storage inbox. Maybe it's both." (from [38]). The website seems to be contradicting itself...I find this particularly confusing, at least. GDrive; Gmail..what will this space be for? Noone knows. Therefore, this article is built of speculation and should be deleted.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Dark Shikari as crystal-ballery. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who cares if it is pure speculation? So is the Loch Ness Monster, but it is useful to create knowledge around a significant concept in online zeitgeist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paziz (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 August 2006
    • This is not a fair comparison. Tales of 'Nessie' have had their fair share in the local culture of the area surrounding the Loch Ness Lake and has been attracting many tourists, scientific investigations, broadcasts of famous television shows and a whole lot of photographic material. GDrive hasn't received that kind of attention as of yet.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescue Of Wolves (LP)[edit]

Record by non-notable artist. Dancarney 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Le tournoi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le tournoi. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le tournoi[edit]

Non-notable artist. Dancarney 11:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rescue Of Wolves (LP). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, all Google is giving me is irrelevant results for both his real and stage name (though "stage name" is a bit much here). It doesn't look like he comes close to meeting WP:MUSIC, given that the closest he comes (as far as I can tell) is producing a song from another band which received "national airplay". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, only 7 non-wikipedia ghits for latest album, including two from his own website and three from his record label. What's "national airplay" if not specified? It could mean all over BBC Radio 1, or it could also mean a one-off middle-of-the-night play on Radio UtterlyObscure, broadcasting on a DAB multiplex? --BrownHairedGirl 12:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, plus it looks like author was doing a WP:VAIN thing too.--Svartalf 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Subject not notable; also {unreferenced}: fails to cite source of "glowing review" -perhaps it was from his mom or girlfriend ;-) Ohconfucius 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Schmidli[edit]

nn-bio of filmmaker-- Syrthiss 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity site, also a stub. Maybe if a neutral party came in with some more information to make it worthwhile.Chinesegary 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His only film entry on the IMDB is one that doesn't even come out until next year. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. The page also looks like it violates WP:VAIN. Thε Halo Θ 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and halo. --Svartalf 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous peoples with ADHD[edit]

Similar pages have been deleted (and protected) before; it is unverifiable and hard to maintain [39] [40] [41] --Kevin Walter 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep if sources can be added for those that are verifiable and those that aren't verifiable removed. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the unsourced entries... that is, all of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy as recreated article. What are the criteria for "famous" and how is ADHD verifiable? If kept, correct the "peoples" in the title.
  • The definition of famous people is on Wikipedia in the Famous people article and of course in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ADHD is verifiable if a reputable secondary source reports on it (that means not the Weekly World News), the same way anything else in Wikipedia is verifiable. Of course its quite possible that it may be hard to find good sources for this sort of information. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize There are categories for people with other diseases (see Category:Cancer survivors, for example), so I don't see why there can't be one for people with ADHD. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as no sources are given for the inclusion of any of the people on this list, and therefore removing the unsourced entries is tantamount to blanking the article. To those who say "the linked articles are sources," I'd point out that the reliable source guidelines say Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Second, when sources are not actually shown visibly in a list, there is no way to tell quickly which of the entries really have sources and which do not. It is frequently the case in lists of this kind that the linked Wikipedia article will not even say that the person [has ADHD] [is bisexual] [is a Brandeis alumnus] [whatever]; far more frequently it will make the assertion but cite no source for it. Lists of this kind simply invite passersby to type in the name of someone they're pretty sure they've heard was really inattentive, then type a pair of square brackets around it, and, voila! it's a blue link. There's no way for anyone to tell whether the person who added the name even looked at the linked article, let alone found and verified a reference in it. List articles where the WP:V verifiability policy is not enforced and sources are not required when items are inserted rapidly become muddled mixtures of perfectly legitimate entries and casual hearsay, that cannot be disentangled without hours of work. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've now moved the unsourced entries (i.e. all of them) to the article's talk page and rewritten the opening sentences. This old version is the version discussed above. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless people start finding sources for any of this. Articles on people mention whether they have cancer or not, they don't tend to mention whether they have ADHD (not to mention that the ADHD article says that diagnosis is controversial). If kept, this should be moved to List of people with ADHD. Notability/famousness is implied and doesn't need to be restated in the title. Recury 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Williams (King)[edit]

Article is blatant vandalism and has no worthy information on offer. Links from other (since reverted) pieces of vandalism on Wikipedia. Raider2044 Bio • Talk • Contribs 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, at least until someone yells really loud. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RNFFSHF[edit]

Deprod by author. No Google hits, fails WP:CORP, nonnotable. Quite possibly also misnamed, but that shouldn't matter (and anyway it can be renamed if that's a problem). --ais523 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason why the author can't de-prod stuff. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly a hoax, but close enough. Appears to be a joke article set up in honour of one of Mr Noble's quips, but I imagine fans of the fellow could say precisely. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nail (anatomy). - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernail bed[edit]

I'm not sure how to categorize this one, but somehow it doesn't seem like it belongs on Wikipedia CPAScott 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eggers[edit]

NN person. Zero ghits for "Thomas Eggers" and "Lowry Foundation". The "Lowry Foundation" itself yields only around 500 ghits. Does not appear to have done anything notable. --Fang Aili talk 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as far as I can tell, it's a hoax created by a vandal, who also linked to it from Eggers as a 'Failed New Zealander' and tagged United States for speedy deletion an hour after that. - Bobet 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, I removed the reference from Eggers. NawlinWiki 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V. --Satori Son 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 restore REDIRECT. Rje 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bums[edit]

(I prodded this, but the label was removed, so to AFD with it.) This "sport" is probably nonsensical; the only references to it are the author of the article spamming mentions of it in other pages. As for "traditionally played at University College, Durham", they managed to convert Palace Green into "Bums Pitches" without my noticing for several years... Shimgray | talk | 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire - Unreferenced patent nonsense. Syrthiss 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "bum". — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then recreate (and protect if necessary) as original redirect to Bum. Perfect example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Fan-1967 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources provided, and not something that's come to my attention in my 8 years in Durham. TSP 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — it's a fabrication. 10 years as a member of University College, and I've never seen it before. (So maybe it's original research instead, in which case, delete it.) Strib 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Cruft. Thε Halo Θ 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (after deletion of original material) to bum. -- Scientizzle 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I played it at Eton and Castle (Univeristy College) and its a proper game played mostly in the summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.238 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T01:21:11
  • Some university students are mis-using Wikipedia as a free wiki host for documenting their private game. The article is both original research, being documentation of something that has never before been documented, and (as per the above) unverifiable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Revert to the redirect. Uncle G 11:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to original redirect. Or delete, or redirect to bollocks. Also review the edit history of User:Brittle bones and User:195.97.248.74 who have common interests. -- Solipsist 08:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have similar interests because User:195.97.248.74 is me when I forget to log-in. Nice work Sherlock... re. redirect to bollocks... great trash talk old chap, I won't stoop. --Brittle bones 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a game is a well-known football-variation often played in england, as well as other european countries, when there are too few players to create a viable competitive game. Other such games could include "headers and volleys" or "Wembley doubles". This game is refered to in many ways (most commonly, "one bounce, one touch") and has a variety of permutations. The origin is likely to be very difficult to determine, although it is doubtful that it was Eton, an inclusion in this article designed to suggest credibility. The game depicted in this article is merely a variation played by members of University College AFC since 2006, and thus the article refers to members of University who wish to immortalise themselves in wikipedia. (PS - if you look at the photograph carefully you will see that they are wearing modern trainer-shoes, as well as the VW polo in the background)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.64.137.79 (talk • contribs) .
    • If it is well-known, you should be able to cite sources to demonstrate that. Please cite sources. Uncle G 11:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with the deletion policy on Wikipedia, but this game is not made up. It's a bit of harmless fun, commonly played by public school type boys in the UK. The mention of Durham University does not surprise me as it is notoriously associated with these people. While you might argue that it's moronic (I couldn't possibly comment), the article is definitely not a fabrication, and not an attempt to immortalise a very small band of friends. It would therefore be unreasonable to delete it, methinks. One might even say that retaining it may strike an egalitarian, horizon-widening blow against eliism by helping normal people cut the the dense and confusing games, language and traditions of private schools and prestigious universities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.129 (talk • contribs) .
  • i went to eton and played bums, good spot of character building. you people take life too seriously, frankly i nearly popped out of my plus fours when i read that some chaps dont beleive the game to have originated in the college of our lady. Did they go to the school? If not then how would they know that it was an inclusion to give the game "credibility"? Absolute tosh, bloody good game though. I have spread the "joga bonito" to UCL of Gower Street in London. So that proles can be put in their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.110.20 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-06 22:32:06
  • As a member of University College I can confirm Bums has been ongoing for AT THE VERY LEAST the three years I have been a member of the JCR there. Furthermore, when I joined the College I was made aware of the game and what I understood to be a strong tradition very early on in my residence - the game must have been around for some considerable time before I started.

    I have also played the game with various public school boys - at least one from Eton - who have confirmed the existance of the game within their schools before commencing University. To suggest this is a gimmick to "create a tradition and credibility" is both shallow and naive.

    Each year Bums is played nightly (games usually start around 5-6pm) in Easter term on Palace Green - the central geen by Durham Castle and the Cathedral. Participants include a wide variety of University scholars - not just a group of friends. Indeed there have often been occaisons when three seperate games of Bums between three seperate groups with no relation have been playing at the same time and even emalgamated to create one big game.

    Over the three years there have been various calls for a "bums constitution" outlining and consolidating the rules. This article does this well and thus should not be subject to any deletion. Those who beleive deletion should be appropriated are the few who refuse to accept the emergance of new traditions, clinging desperately to that of the past and refusing to embrace change. Bums embraces this change brilliantly, not only allowing new tradition to be created but also reflects the climate of the age we live in when receiving a good "bumming" can be talked about in open and laughed at in jovial spirit in and around a diverse cross section of society.

    Please hold deletion as I am currently searching for viable sources. I have travelled in South America and China teaching English as a Foreign Language and have come across many variations of this game (including "keepy-ups", "one touch, one bounce" and "fondo-crudo"), which seems to be a popular alternative to football worldwide. I think a page should be created on Wikipedia in order to cover these types of games in which bums could be included (although a page exists for "keepie-uppie" I feel it is not as comprehensive and well written as the Bums article (or as it could be, with some editing) and perhaps the articles could be merged in some way.)--195.97.248.74 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should also be noted that the current article on the universally popular game of keepie-uppies is badly referenced to a subjective personal website which holds no academic sway. However it is widely acknowledged that this game is played world wide by millions of people (in a similar manner to Bums). It seems to be true that with such 'word to mouth' inherited games there have been no authorities which have suitably documented participation in such sports and as such it is difficult for authors to provide viable sources. Any suggestions on how this can best be achieved would be useful --195.97.248.74 09:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, there are plenty of books and journal articles on childrens games, this having been the subject of research for centuries. If the claim that this is a real game that has become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge is true, it should be easy to cite sources.

      Yes, keepie uppie is currently a bad article that cites no reliable sources. But that's irrelevant to the discussion of this article. Uncle G 11:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Uncle G, my point was that this is a page on a similar, universally well known game for which no suitable sources have been able to be discovered and which, as a sport played at some point by almost anybody who has owned a football, has as much right to be represented on wikipedia as bums. I simply made reference to the said artice in the manner of a case lawyer providing approved examples in order to help decide matters concerning a current case. For example if I were to produce a low quality line darwing of someone getting bummed and place it on a geocities website, would the article on Bums become 'academically sound'?

        Could this article not be reclassified as a stub until a reference can be found?--Brittle bones 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • The argument that "the existence of article A justifies the existence of article B" does not hold water. The argument to justify the existence of this article, and to counter the argument that it is unverifiable and original research, comprises cited sources. None have been cited. No other argument will work. Please cite sources. Uncle G 14:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Keepie-uppie" is now cited from the BBC and the Scotsman, among others. Readers are invited to find articles on "Bums" in such sources... Shimgray | talk | 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to the game 'BUMS' can be found on this page, about half way down. 

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:UOoV0cpZQYIJ:www.football365.co.uk/opinion/mailbox/story_180617.shtml+More+Misty+Water-Coloured+Memories...+bums+football&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

I too was at Eton College, where 'Bums' was widespread and played in the evenings every summer. It dates back at the very least 12 years, but I imagine was an institution much earlier than that. I am likewise a current member of University College JCR at Durham, and can confidently say that this (albeit low-key) sporting tradition continues each summer on Palace Green. Being as yet an obscure activity, online references may well be hard to find (but please note the reference on the above link) - I urge whomever it may concern to have patience in this matter.

  • Vigilant deleters, please note that heads and volleys mentions the bums out rule, but doesn't have any references. I doubt this rule does or ever has existed. I would also like to know how to flag articles lacking citation as I have spotted a number myself, mainly being related to the minutae of various Online Role Playing Games created or contributed to by the critics of our illustrious folk-ledgend/sport.
  • Delete, then recreate (and protect if necessary) as original redirect to Bum, per nom and User:Fan-1967. --Mais oui! 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louie John Buluran[edit]

If this isn't a hoax article, I don't know what one is. He pretty much copied the Allen Iverson article and changed it to be about him. Even the one reference given about leading his team to a state title goes to an article about Iverson. 131 hits for "Louie John Buluran" but none prove his basketball prowess. ZERO hits for Buluran on the PBL's website, which is odd for someone with 3 MVP titles, Rookie of the Year, etc. Delete as a hoax article. Metros232 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was deleted twice on May 10 as G1, then G1/A7/G4 [42]. It doesn't qualify as any of those in its present state since it does assert notability and is coherent (and recreation of deleted material doesn't apply to ones that were speedied). Metros232 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Nonsense. Too subtle to be "patent nonsense", but not subtle enough to be an effective hoax. Sample line: "Louie John Buluran was born in Norzagaray, Bulacan (where both Hampton and Newport News are located)." Oh, are they? Unless someone with a very big shovel recently moved them, I think not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, so tagged - I think copying the Allen Iverson article and changing the name to your own counts as patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX and WP:PN Scorpiondollprincess 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does not qualify for CSD, whether G1 or a hoax. Let this AfD run its course. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Umm, why should this AFD run its course for 5 days? So that Louie can submit evidence that he really is Allen Iverson? Maybe an application of WP:SNOW is in order. NawlinWiki 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another responce It's been deleted twice before (See above) under speedy templates. I've applied {{db-repost}} as a result of this blatantness. I reccomend protecting-deleting this one since the responsible party has shown he has no qualms about continually re-adding blatant nonsense. 68.39.174.238 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the {{db-repost}} tag, since it's not an exact repost of the earlier deleted content. In fact it's not even close to what it was. It does not qualify to be speedied per WP:CSD. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, in addition to the different content, repost only counts for articles deleted through AfD, not speedy and prod. Metros232 13:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the previous versions were deleted, this wasn't obvious to me. Secondly, the {{db-repost}} only mentions "in accordinance with Wikipedia's deletion policy", the top of which page lists prod and db. 68.39.174.238 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, at WP:CSD, G4 says (among other things): "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions" Metros232 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no convincing counterarguments made to keep the article. The vast majority of the keep comments are attacks on the nominator which neatly sidestep the question of this MUD's notability. Kimchi.sg 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Shattered Lands[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Non-notable Bjsiders 13:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search returns less than 300 hits, Alexa ranking for the web site is 1,391,069.

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

  • Keep, I fail to see reason why this entry should be deleted, given the comments here. I fail to find BjSiders has any credible reason to nominate it thusly, given his personal previous connection to the game. I believe this vote should be cancelled, and the article allowed to remain, at least until a more credible user can debate the article's relevance. As well, should this article be deleted, then it must as well hold true for all text-based computer games. The bottom line here is, this is an actual game, with many thousands of people who have played it or at least know what it is. Personal opinion of said game should never be a valid reason for deleting an article here. TjMarshal 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. 125 users at a time isn't big enough to be notable. --PresN 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB Thε Halo Θ 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP has approximately 1,391,069 articles so this one may be just the last. Also, 391 is the year when : King Gwanggaeto the Great of Goguryeo ascends to the throne :). --DLL 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion, nor is Alexa ranking. Regardless, that many users on at any given time is huge for a MUD. (It could still stand to be trimmed a good deal, though.) --Keolah 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So if I created a website yesterday, Google gave zero hits, Alexa gave no ranking, and the website was obviously very unimportant (say, I posted pictures of my dog, and that's it), this website could have its own article on WP? It couldn't be deleted simply for being non-notable? -- Kicking222 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - We're not talking about a personal homepage, though. We're talking about a game that obviously exists, has been around for years, has a substantial playerbase, and is quite firmly on the level of "extremely large" so far as muds go. You may or may not realize that most muds consider themselves glad to have 10-20 players. And yes, notability isn't a criteria for whether a subject should have an article, verifiability, however, is. Or would you argue that we should not have articles on, say, Tropical Storm Lee (2005), which existed for 3 days and did nothing of import?
        • Notability is an interpretation of WP:NOT (the part about indiscriminate collections of info), which is a deletion criterion and Wikipedia policy. Articles are deleted for lack of notability all the time, so your opinion is in the minority here. Recury 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tropical storm lee was probably national news at the time, depending on where it went and what it did. Millions of people knew about it. A MUD is another matter. Also, the 125 users figure is peak, not a rolling average. Bjsiders 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tropical Storm Lee existence was discussed ad nauseam, so that isn't particularily the best example you can give. The only reason it was decided to keep it was because articles on the rest of the storms of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season had articles, so it couldn't be the only odd one. By the way, Bjsiders, thanks for that line. It was immortalized in WikiProject Tropical cyclones's latest newsletter... Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Recury 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally non-notable. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet relevant notability guidelines. Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep. Article was nominated by BSiders due to him being exposed to out to get this MUD due to him being fired from said MUD 10 years ago. Kind of sad, really.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) .

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

  • Keep. Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion, nor is Alexa ranking. This is also one of the most successful MUDS of all time and stands tall after being online for over a decade.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jinx Oldschool (talk • contribs) .
    • Yes it is, see above. Recury 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article doesn't assert notability. I'd also like to note that Jinx Oldschool has only four edits, two of which are to finish an attack AFD listing on the nominator's user page. Ehheh 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I nominated the users page for deletion for the same reason he nominated DSL for deletion. He's not notable. Why do you guys keep deleting it since I followed the same procedure as he? Isn't that against the rules you keep quoting to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs)
    • You don't get to vote again. Also, what are you talking about? Recury 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am talking about the FACT that BSiders used to work for DSL, he was fired, and is now nominating it for deletion? If that doesn't fit against any sort of personal attack/agenda rules, than this site truely is a joke. Also, this "nomination" was given after he's spent the last few months posting lies about the game on its article. This is all personally motivated by a vengful user who has an obvious agenda.
        • If that is true, then the AFD should be closed since it is a bad faith nomination. But I should say that even if it is closed, I will put it up for AFD myself since I don't think it deserves an article. Recury 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I think the least examination of my record here will bear out that this is not a bad faith edit. Considering that an army of editors recently sprung up to cheerlead for the article in question, remove all non-positive from it, personally attack me, and vandalize my user page, I'm hardly the one whose faith ought to be questioned here. Bjsiders 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it is worth, even if the nominator had nominated the article in bad faith, other users have commented in good faith, so this is by no means a speedy close. Titoxd(?!?) 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 63.166.155.221 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep. This is one of the most successful MUDS in history, period. Also, there is no doubt that this IS a bad faith nomination. BSiders nominated this as a result of being unable to post his attempts to defame and slander the game that fired him and the owner of said game. If you doubt this, simply go read the history of edits on the game and count how many false accusations in the "controversy" sections BSiders and the IP of BSiders have posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.166.155.221 (talk • contribs) .
    • Once again, I gladly invite any curious party to examine my editing history on the DSL article and any other articles on Wikipedia. You'll find no compelling evidence of bad faith editors or misbehavior. I wrote extensive laudatory material about the "owner of said game" and it was removed. Please feel free to review my record and make your judgments on the faith of this nomination accordingly. I'm not sure what IP you're referring to, considering that I use no less than six different methods of connecting to the internet, two of which are cable internet services where the IP can be recycled and changed every 8-12 hours. I have a login and I make my edits exclusively from it. I can also be found on record REVERTING material in the article that was unfair and libelous. Bjsiders 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Non-Notable is not a valid reason for deletion. This rule does not exist here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy nor here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT. This is beside the point that the article and the MUD is very notable. But anywhere, someone please point out this non-notable rule? Where is that listed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) .
    • Notability is an interpretation of WP:NOT (the part about indiscriminate collections of info), which is a deletion criterion and Wikipedia policy. Recury 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Read the articles for deletion log for any given day, and you'll find dozens of articles removed for non-notability. As said above, it's an interpretation of what Wikipedia is not, and is a very ingrained part of the policy here, to the point where standards of notability exist for a number of different media and topics. For more information, see Wikipedia:Notability_criteria. There are a number of categories into which Dark and Shattered Lands might fall, including web sites, fiction, and software, and it fails in all three. Even as MUDs go, it's not especially notable. Large MUDs sport user populations in the a thousand or more simultaneous logins. DSL never, at the height of its popularity, close. That DSL is successful goes without saying. But being successful doesn't make something notable. It's not even especially notable within the mudding community. Aardwolf is a notable MUD. Sojourn is another. Bjsiders 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentNice try BUT Aard has only 170 people on at current time, 50 more than DSL and they allow multiple logins per account. DSL's login are all unique. Also, Sojourn does not exist anymore. No mud has over 1000 simutanious unique logins at one time. Also, I'll remind you that you do not speak for the so called "mudding community".69.6.167.240 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Sorry to burst your bubble, but Aardwolf has a very strong policy against multiplaying, and as I'm writing this there are over 300 users logged in. And this isn't peak time! Winklerd 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Something no longer existing is not sufficient evidence for its non-notability. The Byzantine Empire isn't around anymore, should we remove its article, too? Last time I logged into DSL there were 70 people on. Is that a fair body of evidence to cite DSL as only having 50 logins on average? Also, do you have a source for your claim that no mud has over 1,000 simultaneous logins? Bjsiders 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep. Very sad that the person nominating it for deletion can still be holding a grudge after all these years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdabc (talk • contribs) .

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

  • Keep, As a MUD that has existed for ten years, Dark and Shattered lands has been a part of the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of people. Some of the information in the histories in this article can only be found at this source. Players use this page, and it is very helpful... not only to them but to anyone else who would like to know about the things that do not come up during play. DSL has been one of a kind in many ways, and I think it would be a travesty to delete this article. --Victoriam 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep, In a day and age that most are playing visual games, the fact that even 50 people KNOW about this Mud, is an accomplishment in itself. To have upwards of more then 50 individual logins a day, is more proof that the world and game of Dark and Shattered Lands is by the very least notable. I am unsure of the real purpose of wanting to remove the article, those who do not find it notable need not acknowledge its exsistence by looking at it, and those who find it useful have the ability to come and look. I myself have used it, I know others who have used it. We can at least establish the fact it is indeed being looked at, as to how many does it really matter to those mature enough to know that pretty much anything can be found on this site. Keep it, please --Treeguardee 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pretty much everything is not found on this site, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that the DSL article either does or does not belong. Statements like, "it belongs because basically anything belongs here" are the exact opposite of a keep reason. Perhaps this discussion can eventually spur something more concrete, such as a "notability" standard for muds and video games. DSL may very well belong here but under current guidelines, that's less than apparant. Bjsiders 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am sorry you mistook my general statement as being more then what it was, other then a general statement. I suppose what I would love to know then is, how often does the material on this site go through a keep or toss state. Further more to what is there to gain from having it removed? I am not sure I am entirely witnessing the point of having something that could easily be "not looked at" if it offends or does not fit a portion of people's definition of belonging here. Notability or not. Understand that for a very large community of players, it is notable. While it may not be for the entire world or for the entire community of mudding individuals for those that do play this game, it is notable. And by even recommending this article to be removed you are telling a very real number of people that their game is not notable enough to have an article of this fashion. Its sort of silly isn't it?--Treeguardee 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All material is constantly in a state of consideration as to whether or not it should be kept or removed, because anybody can nominate any regular article for deletion at any time. A lot of things are very notable to the right community. My webcomic was incredibly notable to me. But it was not notable enough to the public at large to justify having its own article here, or even to be LISTED here with other web comics. Yes, we would be telling a real number of people that their game is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That's not silly, it's called having the standard. The guy who invented MUDs doesn't even get his own article. It's not because he wasn't an important or worthwhile human being, it's because notability, in the sense of an on-line encyclopedia, has to involve more than the emotional attachment of a few hundred people. Dark and Shattered Lands may meet that criteria. I've seen no evidence so far that it does, and the arguments present so far have consisted almost entirely of personal attacks on me, the nominator, emotional pleas, challenges to Wikipedia policy, and challenges to the definition of notability. Only the latter stands any chance of keeping the article, and the challenges presented are pretty unconvincing. The game's long tenure is perhaps the most compelling argument that could be made, but LOTS of MUDs lasted ten years and almost certainly do not merit their own article. Our challenge is to determine what merits notability for a MUD. Tenure is certainly one of those things, but it is not, in my opinion, sufficient. Bjsiders 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commment - Actually, the guy who invented muds does have his own article. And anyway, the article needs improvement, not deletion. I have never actually played this mud, and yet I've heard of it, in spite of not even actually having been too involved in the mudding community. Oh, and FYI, Tropical Storm Lee did nothing, it was never a threat to land, it was barely even a tropical storm, out in the middle of the ocean. :P --Keolah 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I do agree that this article does need improvements. If one looks at the discussion held during the construction of this article, one can see that there was debate upon which facts should be cosidered for inclusion. This article could be developed with more body and substance if it is given time to do such.Cufece 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, firstly I'm not attacking you, nor have I.But I do find it silly that out of all things you could of possible decided to lend your strong opinion on was an article about a game. It does no real harm to allow it to remain, for those that really have no invested interest in its stay or go. Right? I mean do you sleep worse at night knowing its here? But I digress, what proof are you looking for? Numbers of players? Number of hits? Number of responses here? A petition, girls with wet t-shirts that say "I love DSL"? I would like to know what exactly you are looking for.--Treeguardee 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again, "it doesn't hurt to keep it" is not sufficient grounds to keep it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Everybody with a web page or a MUD doesn't get to have a page here. People begin to treat Wikipedia as an advertising opportunity and that's not what it is. This discussion is about grounds for keeping or removing the article, you need to stop making the discussion about me personally. What exactly are we looking for? Some evidence that this game is notable enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. A half dozen astroturfing users who have been directed to this article by the MUD's administration aren't it. Neither are emotional appeals ("but I met my wife on DSL!"), personal attacks ("the nominator is just a bitter jerk!"), speculation about the nominator's sleep habits, insistance that nobody is harmed by the article's presence, or almost anything else that's been presented by the "keep" crowd. We have good evidence using Wikipedia standards that the game is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Nobody has presented anything to the contrary yet. Bjsiders 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My husband, and its not an emotional attachment that keeps me coming back and responding to you. Its an article in a web encyclopedia I will not cry if its removed, because eventually it will be posted somewhere else, and in short all anyone did was remove it from one web source. Hence my, what's the differece attitude. And again, at no point have I made any personal attacks to you, I thought we were being quite civilalized. However, do not for one moment believe that either side here is solely working on a unbiased opinion, that itself is just plain silly. But dispite that, I could give a rat's backside as to what, why or whatever your reasons are for doing this, or how many friends you may have called in or how many friends this person told to post here, or how tall joe the construction guy is, as you say its not relevant to the point we are discussing. However, what you have still failed to produce for me is, exactly what is needed. You claim it has not been provided and yet you cannot claim what that proof is. Below you state some sort of published work to give it credit or notablility. How many muds that others claim are notable, have these? What lends one mud notability and not this one? --68.45.253.107 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I didn't say you were attacking me personally. I said that one of the arguments for not deleting the article has been personal attacks and speculation about me. I have provided evidence for this article's subject not meeting notability criteria on Wikipedia, and the community of editors has overwhelmingly agreed. The onus is on you you disagree to demonstrate that the article does belong on Wikipedia. One method would be to demonstrate that the game is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. A game can be plenty notable but still not notable enough to belong here. We have guidelines in place, look them up. You have not provided evidence that DSL is notable enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia. That evidence could be: a reference to DSL in national media, a reference to DSL in academic research, sufficient Google hits, sufficient Alexa ranking. Look at the requirements for notability in software, web sites, or even organizations. See if you can meet it. We don't have a specific MUD notability standard, I proposed working towards one, nobody expressed any interest. The onus is not on me to provide you with the key to preserving this article. I proposed its deletion and cited evidence. If you want it kept, you need a reason. What is your reason? That hundreds of people play it? That's not good enough. That you met your husband through it? Not good enough. Bjsiders 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Okay, now we are were I want to be. So I can ask this, every mud listed here then has met things like, being printed in a newspaper or other such media, or has enough hits, sufficient Alexa ranking and so forth, yes? And as for the personal attacks, did you expect it to look any other way that if it were true you had been a jaded ex-whatever of the game, it would be seen as anything else then a jaded player having a tantrum? You might look at this way then, everyone who has an emotional attachment in even the slightest, not post? As I said before, no one can pretend to be unbiased here. There is emotional attachment all around. Hate, love, so forth and so on the circle will go. But thank you for pointing some things that those who choose to keep this open or not, will be looking for. --68.45.253.107 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure that there are other MUD articles that don't meet the notability standards, either. But that's not an argument for keeping this article - it just means that someone who likes contributing in that way ought to go through the MUD articles and list the other nonnotables on AFD. Ehheh 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep, An online game could be considered notable if it has an impact beyond the game play itself. In that aspect, this article is about something notable. This game has been used as a teaching aid for a psychology class, several users have found positions of employment through playing this mud, and 30 or more couples have met and married while playing this game producing over 15 children. --Cufece 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That stuff all sounds like good arguments for notability, if they can be referenced. It would be a good idea to get some third party sources for that information, and put it into the article. Ehheh 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I happen to be one of those couples and have a child all due to DSL. If it were not for the game, I would not have met my husband, whom shares the same crazy interest in Mud's.--Treeguardee 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The psychology class in particular lends notability. The rest of that is stuff that happens every day in chat rooms, and it certainly is not sufficient to qualify notability. If it were, every IRC channel and chat room every conceived deserves an article. Bjsiders 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That psychology class was strange enough, but isn't the first class or use of DSL in a school. My question is, do you need a signed document from the school to believe it? And while that stuff may happen everyday in chat rooms, try explaining it to real people that it happened on a game, its far less common to hear. Trust me, it wasn't easy telling my family, oh this guy I'm going to marry? Where did I meet him? Yeah..you see...there's this thing called a mud...--Treeguardee 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, that's an emotional appeal and not grounds for notability. If DSL has been referenced in a published work somewhere, it would lend tremendously to its notability. An on-line reference is preferred to a signed document but yes, the claim alone is insufficient. Anybody can claim that their MUD, BBS, comic, web page, etc, was referenced by an academic setting. Bjsiders 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Obvious Problem Here IF THIS ARTICLE WAS SO "NOT-NOTABLE", then WHY did BSiders spend so much time contributing to it? He only nominated it for deletion after he had been called out for trying to smear this game and its owners. If this is not a bad faith nomination, then there is no such thing.69.6.167.240 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is about whether the article should be kept or removed. Attempts to make it about me are not going to advance the discussion. I originally got involved in the DSL article because Wikipedia policy required my sign-off on some material reposted there on which I own the copyright. Bjsiders 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not own ANY copyright to anything DSL related. I was an immortal from day one and to be one, you have to understand that any content developed for this game is owned by the game, not you. This was discussed publically with every one. Just like when game developers write code for a game, the game company owns the code, not the content developer.69.6.167.240 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose Kender, Ogres, and Minotaurs are the intellectual property of Tony Allen and DSL, then? Run that by the legal staff at Wizards of the Coast. You don't own a copyright on something that you didn't create unless a contract of some form (for example, employment) has been entered into by both parties. I never agreed to any contract of any sort. The entire DSL project was originally a an offspring of DragonLance that, in many cases, didn't even bother to change names. Kender. Conclave. Moon magic, etc. Be careful which slings you launch about who owns what intellectual property, you're sitting on a pile of intellectual piracy as it is. So are most MUDs, I'm not uniquely indicting DSL, but it's a bit vexing to have anybody insist that a MUD owns a copyright to somebody else's work, when said game is a collection of copyright violations itself. You produce a signed contract with my name on it, I'll agree that I have no intellectual property involved in DSL. Bjsiders 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By your logic, Blizzard entertainment doesn't own the copyright to their own game because they used Elves and Dwarves. You own NO part of DSL. None. Zilch. And if you were such a expert on copyrights, you wouldn't have helped used the stolen DSL code 8 years ago to set up a new mud using original DSL races like the Shalonesti elves. You own no copyright for DSL, period. Quit pretending that you do.
          • They own the copyright to the code because they paid people to write it. A contract. I'm not pretending, that's how the copyright system works, I'm sorry if you find it inconvenient. I didn't help anybody set up a MUD using stolen code, and even if I did, I don't see how that bears on my knowledge of copyright law. Bjsiders 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am in the game development business. You are not. We do not sign contracts. It is understood as a practice of general law that when you work on someones else's project, they own it. The companies, not the employees. Again, you own nothing. Is that what started this attack on the game? Or was it the fact that DSL stood tall when ALL of your projects failed?69.6.167.240 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am in the legal business. You are not. You do not sign contracts, but you do hire people, and employment is an implied contract. I was never employed, and in the absence of an implied contract, you need a real one. What company did DSL belong to during my tenure there? None. DSL wasn't moved under the umbrella of any kind of private business ownership until after I had departed. In fact, some of the code I contributed was written for another project of my own first, and then copied to DSL. Again, it's not a big deal, I'm not demanding it be removed or anything else, but please don't accuse me of making claims to what's not mine. Bjsiders 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are a student, not exactly in the legal business. Also, Allen Games was established in 1995 which is verifable by myself and the other imms who were there from the beginning as well as the State of Alabama in which he registered the business. This was all common knowledge even before you became a part of the project. Also, per Tony Allen, he has taken the appropriate legal measures to legally copyright his game. Its obvious that being historically accurate isn't exactly something you are concerned with, but I'm afraid you are just going to have to accept that fact that you own no part of this game that you consider to be so "non-notable".69.6.167.240 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then Allen Games failed to inform me of any conditions of my employment, and also failed to compensate me. For a contract to be valid, those beholden to it must at least be aware of it. What legal measures where taken to copyright code that Mr. Allen did not write? Bjsiders 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and Google. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just so we are kosher on the goggle part, wikipedia even states its inconsistant and not a source of definitive terms of notability.--68.45.253.107 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, 68.45.253.107. However, as this is a computer-based item, it should have a LOT of google search results if it is notable. The "Google Hit Test" is used in almost all AfDs that involve web or computer based products or groups, although it is not Wikipedia policy. However, it is still a notability test. Also, see WP:WEB and WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete. Srose (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Muds do not have hundreds of thousands of players on at any given time, ever. Not even some of the most popular MMORPGs have been around as long, either. So far as muds go, it's extremely "notable". I know perfectly well that the average mud is lucky to have 10 players and only lasts a couple years if that. I know that because I ran my own mud for three years, and regardless of how great and innovative I think it is, you don't see me putting up articles about it. Regardless, WP:NNOT. While "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I don't think all the "notability" that gets flying around all the time is quite warranted, even when, in context, something is very notable. Also, think of this, if there's over 100 people online at a given time, how many people must have played it at some point or another? Tens of thousand? Hundreds? Check out this recent AfD for a game I'd call considerably less "notable" (has been around a lot less time and far fewer players) that nonetheless was kept. --Keolah 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still feel that this article violates WP:WEB, no matter what category of website it is. I seriously doubt that "tens of thousand[s]" of people have played this game if it has an Alexa ranking in the millions. However, if this is kept, I would say that it should be trimmed down a little and checked for copyvios. It's quite lengthy and reads like a game guide. Srose (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Alexa doesn't reply, as it isn't actually a website. Muds run off telnet protocol, not http, and telnet activity is not taken into account with such things as Google and Alexa. And yes, I've never argued that about 90% of the article needs to be deleted. --Keolah 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - If nothing else comes of this, I think we need to start drafting a policy for MUDs. Someone needs to figure out how we can establish notability for this type of thing. Srose (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I would agree that there should be established guidelines on what makes a mud notable enough to warrant entry. This article does have the potential to develop into an example of what content should be included in an article about a notable mud. Several have given various reasons as to why this article is about a notable mud and as it has been pointed out, this article does need improvement to highlight what has been mentioned as reasons for its notability.Cufece 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Again, I agree, and I mentioned this a few days ago. It could be as simple as saying, "a MUD with a tenure exceeding 6 years is notable by definition," or "a mud whose lifespan was at least 60 months" is notable. DSL (and hundreds of others) qualify by default. Or perhaps minimum traffic. I dislike this one, however, because it means that MUD admins who want their game listed can simply inflate traffic figures since they can code the game to report however many logins they want. Page hits on the web site isn't completely fair because not every player is going to view the web site, but considering that DSL doesn't have in-game notes anymore and 100% of non realtime player communication takes place on their web site, an Alexa ranking is probably a pretty assessment of the game's popularity and notability. This won't be the case for all games, however. DSL may even be a rare exception and it doesn't deserve to be penalized because of that. So what standards DO make sense? Tenure strikes me as a critical one, but hell I ran a game that was up for almost five years and never had more than 2 or 3 people on it. Does it deserve an article? God forbid. Perhaps a proper comparison is web comics -- it's a medium with a tiny handful of big hitters, and a legion thousands-strong of wannabes. What's the standard for a webcomic having its own article? What qualifies as notability for a webcomic as compared to other webcomics? What percentage of comics qualify? We may then be able to abstract those standards to come up with a way to distinguish a qualifying from an unqualifying MUD. I would respectfully suggest that the various astroturfing accounts be discouraged from getting involved in any such debate, because I think it's pretty clear that they'll advocate for any standard that's loose enough to allow DSL to qualify. For my part, I don't care whether DSL qualifies or not. Going by the tenure standard, I'm strongly inclined to say it would. Bjsiders 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Which brings me to ask once again, why nominate it for deletion then? Although we all know the answer to that.69.6.167.240 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Respectfully I take offense to your judgement of other accounts being made here to discuss this debate. Is it true that I made an account here for just such a thing. Yes quite frankly I did. I'm also a working professional that has been on discussion boards for setting standards up in the industry I work in. I will also state that there are probably more just like me that have done just such a thing as well and our comments have been nothing more than countering any statements that have not been true. I don't know you personally, you don't know me and I really don't care if I know you or not. You have also contradicted yourself a few times during this whole entire debate. First you say that the DSL article should be removed because it's not notable. Further down you state that on your proposed list of requirements it would meet 2 of them and that you say it should. So which is it? Even in this statement you are saying that it should. So yes, why is this being nominated for deletion? In most of your discussions you keep referring to WebComics not being recognized as notable enough to warrant its own article. What do WebComics have to do with an article about a MUD? They are two completely different genres that should not fall under the same standards of notability. If you have issue with how WebComics are handled in regards to articles, would it not be better to discuss them elsewhere rather than taking it to a discussion on whether or not THIS particular article should remain? WebComics and its subsequent guidelines for notability have nothing to do with this particular discussion. I will state this quite plainly here, I will agree with any set standard that is in place that removes the chances of bias, regardless if I have played on that site or not.Cdabc 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're offended that your account was tagged as being exactly what you admit it is? The statements made here have consisted of much more than "countering statements that [are not] true." Some of it has been personal attacks. Some of it has been blatant astroturfing. And some of it has indeed been fact correction. I nominated DSL's article for deletion because I don't think it merits its own article. As the discussion has unfolded, it appears that having an objective standard to measure MUDs by would be helpful. I proposed one. DSL would happen to qualify under it. So be it. I'll take an objective standard over an arbitrary discussion, even if it means that subjects that I don't think merit an article end up getting one. I mentioned webcomics because it's a somewhat analogous situation. Webcomics consist of a tiny handful of big names in a sea of anonymous and unotable entries. There are thousands of web comics that nobody has ever heard of, and a few dozen that anybody has. MUDs are similar. However, the media are different (telnet vs http) and so our metrics and standards would have to be different. I've been trying to hammer some out, nobody has really been helping, only criticizing. I don't have any issues with how web comic notability is defined. Bjsiders 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No I'm taking offense to the fact that just because we had made accounts we should be discouraged from speaking or contributing to the subject, when even as you had stated some of these people have made factual corrections for you. You still have not stated though as to why exactly you want it deleted. You said to you it doesn't merit it, on what judgement are you drawing that conclusion? If someone wrote an article about some other obscure MUD would you still be of the same opinion? That is not a personal attack on you, just a mere question. The problem with a great many things on the web, all numbers can be skewed to reflect how people want. So you have to take a great many things at faith. There are only certain things you can ever claim to be exact and verifiable. The day the game started and the day the game closes. # of users on at a time, again as was stated previously, MUDS that permit multiple logins skew that #. Do all of the MUDS report that they allow this? Chances are some do and a lot don't. I don't claim to know every single MUD out there. You can certainly use the # of average players a day on the game as one of the criteria, odds are it will reflect near an actual, but it can't be one of the deciding factors. Again longevity of the game, as another person pointed out, why you chose 80 mths over something more rounded I don't know, but in my opinion in this day and age, if a game lasts over 5 yrs and is still in regular use, it is a game of note. Sure having a write up in a paper, newspaper, magazine.. but what sort of write up are you suggesting here. Because there was actually a write up on two of the players on the game that I know of in their wedding announcement that DID mention DSL as being the place where they had met (including a brief outlying of the type of game it was. Which if you agree that that is an acceptable write-up, as lots of people do read the wedding announcement pages of their local paper, I'll try to track them down in order to obtain a copy of that for you. Cdabc 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, I see the source of the misunderstanding. The point of the "single purpose account" flag is not to "discourage" anybody from speaking or contributing, but to distinguish experienced members of the Wikipedia community from possible cheerleaders or astroturfers. Your opinion is as valid as everybody else's, but if there are 10 seasoned Wikipedia editors who say one thing, and 50 SPAs that say the opposite, it smells like astroturfing. Nobody doubts your sincerity or wishes for you to not talk at all. The reason I think the DSL article ought to be removed is that the game is not especially notable, even for a MUD. It's major notability stems from the various controversies surrounding it, especially in its first few years (note: well after I was not involved in the project). I could document them, but I'd simply be accused of lying and making things up to "bash" to "slander" the game. If the DSL article is going to be so sanitized and diluted as to only contain a summary of the in-game history a few lists of features, very few of which are especially interesting or unique to DSL, then it's not really all that notable as compared to any other MUD. You asked, If someone wrote an article about some other obscure MUD would you still be of the same opinion? Absolutely. I've worked on dozens on MUDs, several of which are still around, one of which is just as tenured as DSL and has nearly as large a player base. I'm not making an article about it, and I'd discourage anybody from doing so. It's not a notable game. You asked, why [would] you chose 80 mths over something more rounded. I just pulled a number out of a hat. Five years seemed too short, ten seemed too long. The idea was not to suggest THE number we have to follow, but to get the idea out there and let the community debate how long the tenure actually should be. Regretfully, this hasn't really happened yet. You said, if a game lasts over 5 yrs and is still in regular use, it is a game of note. For a game starting now, I'd agree. If another game started when DSL did and died out after 5 years, I'd say no. You asked, what sort of write up are you suggesting here. There was a MUD that got mentioned once in an issue of PC Gamer in the mid-nights. Imperial City or City of Dreams or something. That alone makes it notable, in my opinion. Anything that might elevate the game to the level of being exposed to either national media (e.g., published in a magazine that enjoys national circulation), or a work of academic repute. What kind of write-up? In this case it was just a mention by an author, that he'd played Ultima On-Line and EverQuest and found a text-MUD to be a more immersive roleplaying experience. A wedding announcement is not a matter of the game making news. Anybody can put almost anything in a wedding announcement. I'm talking about the game being featured in a story, where it has earned the attention of people who are not involved in it. There's the key distinction. The genesis of the mention is critical. If I'm a MUD player who happens to be on the faculty at the University of Dayton and I wrote my graduate thesis about the MUD, that's not notable. I play it. If a professor who is not involved in it decides to study it and write about it, that is notable. Clearly, there's something unique or notable about the community/game that warranted an academic taking a professional interest in it. A couple of players mentioning DSL in their wedding announcement is not notable. Bjsiders 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Minor Correction - This game still uses in-game notes extensivly. It does have a web forum in addition to in-game notes for discussion reguarding the game and other items of interest to those that may or may not play this game. Also, not everyone that plays this game utilizes the web forum. Cufece 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Major Correction That's not minor, it cancels my entire point about DSL, thank you for bringing that up. Bjsiders 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Bjsiders is a good man, and has made important contributions to many articles, but any MUD that has lasted this long is worth notice. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it contains information no other encyclopedia has. What other encyclopedia has articles about every single episode of Star Trek! Rick Norwood 19:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I was dead, I would be rolling over in my grave. Recury 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving this from the talk page to here)

  • Keep ...personal agendas are not grounds for deletion. It is pretty obvious in reading the comments one user used this source to bash this mud, when this was prevented he then wished to remove the article. Childish behavior like this does not reflect well on Wikipedia.

````Xacoris

Show me one edit that was "bashing" the MUD unfairly. Assume good faith. Bjsiders 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith was assumed until you started posting every rumor you could find and then when revealed, you nominated it for deletion.69.6.167.240 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, show me one edit that was "bashing" the MUD. Bjsiders 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? ALL of the revisions you did for the uneeded controversy section were LIES or rumors based from those players denied from the game. (a list of which your name would be included) When you got called out on posting the lies to the article, you made a post that you were "withdrawing" from the project and nominated it for deletion.69.6.167.240 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Controversy" section was largely written by 24.107.0.250 (see this diff [43]), not by Bjsiders. Bjsider's contributions have been, IMO, valuable and informative. Regardless, the AfD has been made, so we should discuss the MUD's notability rather than the motives of the nominator. -SpuriousQ 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me an example. Quote one of my edits that was a malicious lie that I knew full well wasn't true but posted anyway to "bash" the game. Bjsiders 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not know the information you are posting is truth beyond a smidgen of a doubt, you should not be adding to Wikipedia articles with it. The mention you made of the lack of use of in-game notes leads me to believe you have not kept up to date on the subject of this game. Lillathrin 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed quite wrong about the notes. I have indeed not kept up to date on the game. Nothing I've added to the article bears on current events in the game, however. Bjsiders 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI will preface this vote by saying that I actually came to this website to see what Wikipedia had on Dark and Shattered Lands, because it popped up on my google search when I was looking for a different page. I'm apparently coming in to this at the end, and made an account specifically to place my vote. Take that as you will. Now, on to my voting reason. Once cannot assume in any way shape or form that the number of players at any given time confers notability. If one were to look at the MudConnector stats (http://www.mudconnect.com/index.html) one would see that 6 of the top 10 muds listed have less than DSL does at any given time, yet enough people enjoy the mud to vote repetitively to get it to that top 10. (The 6 being: SlothMUDIII (25-49), Federation II (25-49), Duris:Land of BloodLust (25-49), Shadows of Isildur (10-24), Mozart MUD (10-24) and Armageddon (25-49)) I will be the first to acknowledge, now that I've seen what is on the Wikipedia DSL page, that it should be updated to be more informative, rather than just an in-game timeline. Given the chance to edit it, I will do so. As for notability, I can assure you that any of the numerous couples who have met and gotten married due to this game, or facilitated by this game, would take offense that this game is being considered non-notable. Add in the college psychology course where the professor and several of his students played (some of which remain playing, a year and a half after the fact), and its notability grows. Is it World of Warcraft, breaking records for subscriptions and money earned? No, but having just come back from the annual DSL Convention, which 55-60 other players attended, I can assure you, it's far from non-notable.Lillathrin 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also noticed that about MUD connector, which is part of why I think traffic alone is not sufficient to merit notability. But tenure shouldn't be either. Some combination of the two might make sense. If we were to go by Alexa rank and look at other MUDs on the Top 10 from Mud Connector:
Bat Mud: 456,251
MUME: 2,177,875
SlothMud: 1,474,538
Medievia: 487,509
ZombieMUD: 747,024
Federation II: 316,951
Shadows of Isildur: 1,050,430
Armageddon: 3,174,400
MozartMud: No Data
Land of BloodLust: 5,661
The trimmed average of all these, not counting Mozart, is in the range of 700,000. It's notable that MozartMUD doesn't even registration. This puts DSL firmly out of the running based on Alexa rank, but Armageddon, for example, has an atrocious Alexa rank but few serious MUD'ers would argue that it's not a notable MUD. It also has a small player base. Further, should a new game with a big player base not qualify because it's new? I would suggest the following criteria for MUD notability.
If a MUD meets two of the four following criteria, it merits its own Wikipedia article.
1. Active user base numbering in the hundreds (that is, 100+)
2. Alexa ranking of 750,000 or lower
3. Meets notability standards of existing Wikipedia guidelines, such as WEB
4. Game has or had a tenure of at least 80 months.
This way, if a game existed forever but nobody ever played it, it doesn't qualify. If a game is short-lived but very popular, it might qualify, and if it lives long enough, it may qualify even if its player base declines. Now, we can fudge all these numbers, too. The Alexa one in particular I think could use some adjustment.
Further note that DSL would meet criteria #1 and #4 and would thus, under my own proposal, merits its own article.
Any thoughts? I also notice after the fact that Arm probably wouldn't qualify under this guideline either, so tweaking is clearly necessary.
Bjsiders 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can honestly say before reading all this dialogue, I had never heard of Alexa, and thus it took me a few minutes to figure out exactly what everyone was talking about! :) The most accurate way I've found to average numbers such as those (the Alexa rankings) is to throw out the high and the low, since they're so very much higher and lower, and add up and divide the ones that are left. (This is what we did in my Statistics for Psychology class.)That leaves you with an average of 958,654 which I think is a more representative Alexa figure. I would put an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 as your cut off in that case, since that number seems more representative for MUDs these days. I do realize it would still cut off DSL in this case, but so be it, I'm talking about for future notability issues. I'm not sure why you went halfway through a year and went for 80 months, I'd even it out and go for 84 months. It's also kind of rough determining what meets those notability standards, since it at least partially appears to be a matter of opinion (hence this discussion!) I do think it's a very good idea to determine a set guideline for notability overall for MUD pages in Wikipedia.Lillathrin 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rankings of greater than 100,000 are unreliable and really shouldn't be compared, because the sample sizes are too small. See Alexa's site. Ehheh 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that there should be a set criteria for notability overall for MUD pages. That I don't contest. What I'm curious about is to why you are including Alexa ranking in it, when did you not previously say that it is not a reliable source to judge things by? Cdabc 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly it is reliable, just not for so small a data set. I'd suggest then that replace the "Alexa" requirement with something else. Or, we can simply evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Few other MUD articles should be as contentious as this one. Bjsiders 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Alexa relevant? Doesn't it rank traffic statistics for users who have downloaded their toolbar? And how does web traffic dictate the over all use a telnet based game? The same goes for Google. DSL was live more than two full years before google even became a search engine.69.6.167.240 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point and purpose of now saying that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis?? IF you are going to be doing that, then there is no reason to even try to set a standard and a guideline. The point of having a guideline is to avoid judging things on a case-by-case evaluation, it either is or it isn't. If there is extenuating circumstances, then it can come up for review. Simply saying now to evaluate on a case-by-case basis only allows for bias and regardless of what you do and do not say, no one is completely 100% unbiased about things unless they have never had any interaction with or knowledge of the particular topic at hand. People judge things based on their own personal opinion, thoughts and beliefs. If you are going to set a guideline, then these personal opinions can not come in to play at all. You need a solid guideline that does not allow for this. Cdabc 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Alexa was rejected as a basis for any evaluation for web content previously, not the least of which because it is not an unbiased, accurate, or reliable source, nevermind the fact that a mud isn't even a website in the first place. Alexa is a piece of spyware that quite a large number of people do not use, and you really end up only measuring how many people visit a particular website who happen to be using Alexa's toolbar. Don't even bring Alexa rankings into any discussion on "notability". --Keolah 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting here that at least one other genre of media on Wikipedia use Alexa ranking as one of several standards for notability, so it's already been established as appropriate for part of Wikipedia by the community of editors. There is (at least) one key distinction, however, and that is that the other genre (webcomics) is by definition measurable by web traffic. There is no reliable measure of MUD activity unless one wishes to trust the MUD to self-report its players accurately. I don't know of any games offhand that don't have accurate player reporting, but as somebody pointed out above, games that allow multiplaying can appear to have more players than they do. Further, if people know that to merit a Wikipedia article, one need only have X number of players, it's trivial for an unscrupulous MUD admin to conjure up enough logins to qualify. Hence, my contention that something beyond simple player count is necessary to establish notability on Wikipedia. Tenure is, I think, a strong measure as well, but there are long-tenured MUDs with small player bases (Armageddon comes to mind) that are notable. And there are long-tenured muds with small player bases that most certainly are not. Moosehead SLED was the development playform for a major release of the ROM code base, which is still in widespread use today, and it existed for well over ten years. Player base was in the 50's-60's at its height, and at one point it had over 100 logins. It eventually died off. Notable? As in, Wikipedia-notable? I really don't think so. Others might. So how do we determine which games merit an article? I think having a list of 4-5 criteria, and requiring that a game meet at least 2-3 of them to be considered worthy of its own article is a good idea. That kind of method allows for a variety of factors to constitute notability in a MUD/MUSH/MOO/whatever. So, back to ideas. I think tenure is clearly one, and so is population. Verifiable mention in a published work (newspaper, magazine, academic paper by a professor or as part of a dissertation, not some undergraduate student thesis in Psych 101) could go on the list. Any other ideas? Bjsiders 17:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of saying that is to suggest that it's another option to weigh against a standard. I don't like case-by-case all that much, but it's out there. Bjsiders 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after precident set by the GraalOnline AfD, which was endorsed at deletion review. Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For those that may not know, here is the discussion for the AFD on GraalOnline. Is the point you are making, that this game does not conform to WP:WEB, that both sides had major disagreements which could not be resolved for the greater good of the article, or a combination of both? Cufece 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Lloyd[edit]

Unknown young British poet; nonnotable. NawlinWiki 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've been watching this article trying to figure out whether it passes or not. Clearly it's vanity To me the deciding factor is the four books and two CD's. For every single one of them, when I search for the title and his name (like this) I get his myspace page and homepage and nothing else. Not one single other site mentions any of these works. None of the ISBN numbers show up in any of the ISBN searches. Something seriously wrong here. At minimum, unverifiable, to put it politely. Fan-1967 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. -- RHaworth 14:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable - no valid hits on ISBN 1844607984 Dlyons493 Talk 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Delete vanity. clearly autobiographical, subject/author attempted to create links to 2 other wiki pages on 3 Aug, 2006. SPEEDY? Ohconfucius 17:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not speediable, as it asserts notability. This discussion is on whether the assertion is valid. Fan-1967 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep it I saw this guy at the Jazz Cafe earlier this year, he's very nice and is definatly up and coming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.99.63 (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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of a Thousand Heartless[edit]

There is not enough material to create a coherent article, it also fails the notability test. After the editor, Killerman2 removed the prod tags, I tried to explain why the article couldn't improve beyond its current state and redirected it to Kingdom Hearts II. He has reverted the redirect twice and ignored requests to stop reverting the article so now I'm listing it for deletion. Axem Titanium 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Like a say, Then I hade play the game so can I give the article more material. After all, you play the game so you can improve the article. Killerman2 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More material in the article does not make a topic more notable. Delete. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There won't be much good information for this article; even in game it didn't feel like a vital part of the story. It was a more like a mini-game challenge. --melodiester 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nominator. As I said, no amount of information can make this a coherent article. There's a sentence about it in the plot part of Kingdom Hearts II and it basically sums up the entire article. Axem Titanium 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and because most of it is original research as well. --ColourBurst 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Merge eligible material in related articles--Svartalf 17:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a rather unneeded article. The Gwai Lo 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo prime[edit]

Advert for a non notable company; Google gives me only seven independent hits for "Indigo prime" + "data management". WP:CORP should apply here, I think.

I am also nominating the following related products of the company:

Ioannes Pragensis 14:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Recury 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom Polzeath is responsible for all three, and no other postings to his name. No wikilinks. Suspect promotional. May risk being confused for Belgian company Indigo Software
  • Delete all per nom. Advertising. --Guinnog 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Luisa Maria, Archduchess of Austria-Este[edit]

Has this "Princess" done anything notable? I can't see ay assertion of notability. She is just a person and there is nothing notable specified. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - aren't members of royal houses automatically notable? If the article was stubby I'd say redirect to her parents, but it isn't... Syrthiss 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them notable? Blood? What if i was to say my blood was more royal then hers because im english, would that make me notable :P? i doubt it. All i can see is some child. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know that monarchies (especially modern ones that are mainly ceremonial) seem pointless to many (most?) of us, but generally my criterion is nth in line to the throne where n is a single digit. Barely makes the cutoff here. Fan-1967 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm torn on this one. She hasn't done anything of note yet, and I can't find any English-language articles from reliable sources that focus on her. But I suppose that's normal, as she's 11. However, with royalty I tend to agree with Fan-1967; she's born into notability, however scant. Prince Harry has been notable since birth, and the biggest news he ever made was dressing up like a Nazi for Halloween. In my opinion, royal children are notable simply for their close association with truly notable adults. Kafziel 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wasn't there also press about Harry smoking ganja about 5 years back? At least in the states I think that was a bigger story than the Nazi Halloween constume...--Isotope23 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha... yeah, that Willy is a real prodigy. Kafziel 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as I remember, there has never been an official consensus on notability of the nobility. Personally, I don't believe in automatic notability by birth, hence delete as this person does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't believe in the automatic notability of anyone from Belgium. But for royalty, I just look at it kind of like WP:BAND, where if one famous guy is in the band, the others may be notable by association. I could get behind a merge and redirect, but not deleting it completely. Kafziel 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite there not being anything much to say about her except who she's related to. No objection to a merge into an article on the family tho- that's what we do with minor fictional characters. Many would argue that royalty are inherently article-worthy, and this might be arguable. But even if that's considered borderline, I see little point to deletion of this. Friday (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the other members of the royal family have pages, so I think that we should keep this one. I would also argue that she passes WP:BIO as notible. Thε Halo Θ 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is she; Someone has yet to assert notability. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asserted notability. There's no concrete policy on it, so it remains a matter of opinion, but I have given reasons. Kafziel 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Because she is Princess Imperial of Austria, Princess Royal of Hungary and Bohemia, and is ninth in line for the throne. I think that if she was a member of the British royal family, no one would be asking if she was notible. Thε Halo Θ 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)- as a side note, shouldn't there be a WP:ROYAL guideline for this? Thε Halo Θ 16:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe members of royal families are inherently notable. NawlinWiki 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per comments from Fan-1967. Scorpiondollprincess 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the child, because there are so few members in this species that it might become extinct. If we ban royalty in the world then it will only be a nice souvenir in Wikipedia. --DLL 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Royal, in line for succession, decent closeness to reigning monarch and succession... She's not so very notable yet, but it would be a shame to delete that piece now.--Svartalf 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being a member of the royal family (at least inner circle) makes one automatically notable. WilyD 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same way Paul McCarty would've been worthy of his own article if he had become a cobbler after the Beatles broke up. I'm not really sure how to explain something that seems so obvious to me ... there are a number of things where being X makes one inherently notable, so that all Prime Ministers of Canada are inherently worthy of an article, for example, even if they're John Turner bland. WilyD 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He would of done something notable tho, but being born doesnt make you notable. He wasnt notable till he was in the beatles. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, its a kind of name recognition. For example, you're standing around with a bunch of other people at a party. Someone says "Oh look its Clint Eastwood", and likely many people will turn to look at Clint Eastwood. Someone says "Oh look its John Jones" and unless there's some reasonably famous person named John Jones, maybe one or two people will look. In this case, if someone says "Oh look its Princess Luisa Maria of the Royal House of Belgium" I believe (being a dumb american with no royal house myself) that there would be a similar, if smaller, reaction to Clint Eastwood.Syrthiss 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's saying being born makes her notable. Being Princess of Austria-Este makes her notable, regardless of how she obtained the position. Every Dalai Lama is notable, but their chosen either becase a) They're born with the soul of the previous Dalai Lama or b)They lucky guessers. Either way, they didn't really do anything. In any event, to claim that being born into something is less encyclopaedic than achieving something through hard work or whatever is a pretty obvious violation of WP:NPOV. WilyD 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People at large have heard of her, not of you, capice? --Svartalf 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite this? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment per that criterion, she qualifies, if barely. as per 1.1 (ok, stuff from people magazines and nobility watchers can be regarded as trivial anyway), she's been covered by the press; and 3: her titles may be empty, but here they are. --Svartalf 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, we shouldn't use those criteria in this case since they are really at the essay stage of development. If at some point they become guideline then they become a benchmark we can use. Syrthiss 11:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, she doesn't qualify per those guidelines anyway. #3 specifies a substantive title and none of her titles is substantive. -- Necrothesp 21:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That baby was notable before and after birth, she was born notable by the fact she was the first baby concieved that way -- thus a medical break through. The 2 latter children have done nothing notable and do not warrant articles. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I second the points made by WilyD:
      1. Royalty are intrinsically noteworthy, not because of personal deeds, but because their kinship to monarchs confers upon them national (and sometimes international) position (usually, though not invariably, reflected by title), fame, and constitutional relevance.
      2. Excluding them would be a reversal of encyclopaedic practice, usually defended on relatively recent, egalitarian principles that are inadmissably POV: believing that royalty shouldn't be intrinsically notable seems to be a growing trend, but it does not make them non-notable. Whereas treating royalty as non-notable is ahistorical (not to mention Western-centric): The burden of proof that historical encyclopaedic practice has been overturned due to a sufficiently great change in current standards of notability (rather than due to, e.g. space considerations -- a limitation from which Wiki does not suffer) rests upon the advocate for change.
      3. Thus far no argument has been put forth here that royalty have lost notability -- rather, the chief argument presented here is, implicitly, that they did not deserve it previously, and that Wiki should pro-actively strip them of it. Not Wiki's job.
      4. In this particular case, I also agree with Halo that the question of notability would not get serious consideration if the princess in question were a granddaughter of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (e.g. Princess Beatrice of York) rather than of Albert II of Belgium, although both are current monarchs. Lethiere 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the same people would still consider them non-notable. The difference is that few would dare to slap a non-notability claim on a grandchild of Queen Elizabeth, since there are far more Britons here than Belgians. They probably think it's easier to get away with doing it to a Belgian princess. -- Necrothesp 10:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Halo and other comments above, close members of royal families are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Does This Always Happen To Me?[edit]

It is just a paraphrase of the lyrics to the song Joltman 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Non-singles usually don't need separate articles. Wickethewok 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok --Guinnog 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love the song (I have never been anything but open about my love of Weird Al), and I love Ben Folds, but this song is non-notable' no matter how much could be said about the song, it would continue to be non-notable. -- Kicking222 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Sorry, Al. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previous precedent states that individual songs only deserve an article when they were released as singles or were particularly notable in their own right, such as Stairway to Heaven. --Thorne N. Melcher 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Homer Simpson's jobs, List of vehicles in The Simpsons[edit]

Fancruft list like List of vehicles in The Simpsons that belong on The Simpsons Archive not Wikipedia. PMA

  • Weak keep My first instinct would be a merge to Homer Simpson, but that's a pretty hefty article already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. Best to keep it in its own article: if it was deleted, people would again try to stuff it into the (huge) main article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom - belongs on a fan site, exactly so. Listcruft. Fancruft. Wikipedia is not a free hosting site. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "If it was deleted, people would again try to stuff it into the (huge) main article" is an argument for 1) warning/education of those people 2) slimming down the main article but not a reasonable argument against deletion. Bwithh 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list of jobs, delete the list of vehicles. —Scott5114↗ 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, excellent examples of fancruft. Recury 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; refer the author to Wikia. --M@rēino 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of jobs - it is noteworthy/important. Not every detailed article is cruft. I'm less sure about cars... WilyD 17:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both the list of vehicles resulted from an AfD saying such articles should be merged, in accordance with typical practice regarding fiction on Wikipedia. Leave it alone. It deals with vehicles seen by millions in multiple episodes, and prior to the list some had individual articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both are too specific a level of detail and sets a precedent for someone to do this for virtually any other TV series. 23skidoo 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precendent? Paul McCartney has his own flippin' category but we always manage to delete Bands' whose sole claim to fame is a MySpace page. Most editors have not lived on Mars for the last 20 years, in a cave, under a rock, with their fingers in their ears, so they're aware that The Simpsons is not just another TV show. Please give them a little credit. WilyD 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Popularity is no excuse for having articles about ridiculous minutiae like this. Recury 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Popularity is not significance either. The latter is a reason to cover things in depth. WilyD 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "In depth!" That's a nice way of putting it. Another way would be "in so much depth that no one except Simpsons fans could possibly care about it."
            • That's true, but the former statement is true, but the latter statement is false. The article is appropriate, and This article covers this encyclopaedic subject too well is a lousy criterion for deletion. WilyD 08:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What other TV show has a character with over 100 jobs? Darksun 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the jobs article, delete the vehicles article. --Darksun 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this article-someone put a lot of time and effort into it. It is no worse or better than many other articles. aegir101
  • Keep big lists and useful information. --Caldorwards4 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Recury and 23skidoo. Lazybum 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for List of Homer Simpson's jobs. Homer's "wacky new job of the week" is a very well-known and much-discussed aspect of the series. Very weak keep for List of vehicles in The Simpsons. This one is pretty crufty, but the Simpsons is such a cultural phenomenon that we might as well keep it. Zagalejo 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as to the jobs, delete the vehicles. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete both, as per my nomination. PMA 04:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn - these articles while well done are not encylopedic enough for a general interest encyclopedia ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the above comment that Homer's constantly changing jobs are a well-known recurring gag on the Simpsons. It's even self-referenced on the show occasionally. Delete list of vehicles - these aren't generally the source of running gags on the show, except for the Simpson family's two regular cars being destroyed frequently and then magically fixing themselves. --Natalie 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list of Homer's jobs. This article is the result of the work of several people and Homer's jobs are a staple of the series. Delete the list of vehicles and merge some of the more important ones into The Simpsons article itself.Toonmon2005 22:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This level of detail, in list form, is inappropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. It's truly fancruft. Nandesuka 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Homer's job is clearly an important plot element that merits analysis within the Simpsons oeuvre. It is frequently discussed in Simpsons literature and critical studies. The vehicle page is less vital, but certainly deserves inclusion if we want encyclopedic coverage of this pathbreaking show. Both fully adhere to the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline on how to treat this type of subject, although more refs would be welcome. --JJay 22:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Bwithh: yes, Homer changing jobs is a Simpson trope, but the jobs are not important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list of vehicles; neutral for the list of jobs. At least Homer's jobs are an important element in the show. But vehicles? Honestly, they rarely play a role, and nobody needs an encyclopedia article to learn that Otto the School Bus Driver drives a school bus and Mr. Burns has a limo. Important one-shot vehicles are already covered in the episodes featuring them. Maestlin 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valuable info that should be kept. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would not set a precedent for other articles like this to be made, as hardly any TV shows have characters that could possibly have an article like this. This is the sort of information that would normally be on the character's main page, as a brief note, but this is an exceptional case: the number of jobs is so huge that it can constitute it's own article. This is basically a part of his main article, but it is too unwieldy to not have seperate. --Rayshaw 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just a cartoon show. You people should have better things to do than care about the list of vehicles vs. list of jobs of a fictitious character.
  • Keep Very well known list. --IcyGeddon 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep List of Homer's jobs is an excellent piece of popular culture. There really isn't a more compelling reason to delete it than the fact that you (the person suggesting the deletion) hates it. --Bluebulb 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If "listcruft" has any meaning, it is this. Non-encyclopedic, doesn't belong here. Medico80 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both lists don't belong here. Isn't there some kind of Simpsons Wiki out there? Post it on there. Homer's one time jobs certainly don't belong here. RobJ1981 23:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's not like Wikipedia is going to run out of paper --Rubber cat 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per nomination --RMHED 01:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DXRAW 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical mottoes[edit]

I prod'd, per this appearing to be a random collection of facts. author removed prod, citing the possible desire of users to browse. I felt this was unlikely and AfD'd it i kan reed 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created, and I de-proded. Rationale: I was going to create Portal:Occult today with this included for easy navigation of Occultists bio's. This would also compliment the project I created a while ago: WikiProject Occult. But if the community decides its not needed then I will have to go with consensus. SynergeticMaggot 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This is hardly a random collection of facts: its focus is quite specifically on the mottoes chosen by members of magical organizations of the sort whose initiates were expected to choose one. People who did this are often referred to by their mottoes or its initials in the relevant literature. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Specific, narrow criteria are established for inclusion on the list. Verifiable, with sources cited. Could be encyclopedic to those interested in occultism. Seems to have some room for expansion. I'm not sure the title, "List of magical mottoes" is appropriate -- I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this wasn't it. However I don't know enough about the topic to suggest something better. Keep and continue to improve. Scorpiondollprincess 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure but that we'd be better served by moving the article to magical motto, and expanding the background with the history and significance of taking magical names, their role in initiatory magical societies, and the beliefs that prompt the practice, and retaining the list as a part of a broader article. Calling anything a "list" is like waving a red flag in front of a bull anymore. Smerdis of Tlön 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Maybe a move would be better for the future (or future AfD's). I should have thought about that from the start. SynergeticMaggot 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good suggestion. I would absolutely favor moving the article to magical motto and expanding the background, significance, etc. Never compile a list when you can actually write a full-fledged article. Good thinking! Scorpiondollprincess 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Tampa Plane Crash and Milan Plane Crash[edit]

Utterly non-notable incident, not even titled properly ("Plane Crash" is not a proper noun - these crashes happen all the time and are not major incidents with only minor news coverage. Chacor 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also [48]. Strong delete, or redirect/merge Milan into Pirelli Tower. Chacor 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- this is a notable plane crash. Storm05 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Planes don't crash into buildings "all the time". BoojiBoy 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. --Guinnog 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Milan Plane Crash is mentioned in Pirelli Tower. The Tampa crash is most certainly non-notable. Chacor 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, tiny plane with a 15 yr old child who died? Wikipedia isn't a news archive, is it?--Andeh 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge, and I wouldn't call it completely non-notable. I actually remember this event being on the news. It's probably not worthy of its own article, due to lack of much occurring, but what about having Plane crashes in Florida or Plane crashes in 2002 for this sort of purpose? There is some decent information there, and if it's deleted then the info is gone. Having it in a broader page could work. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the link given above below the nomination, he has tried to include it on a page it didn't belong. Chacor 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe that page wouldn't work. What if the crashes were treated how we do Hurricane seasons? It would list every one in the year, and give links to crashes that already have articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Both plane crashes aroused fears of a repeat of the September 11th attacks and security of aircraft. Which makes both crashes notable. (see the sources in both articles). Storm05 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't. A boy stealing a plane and crashing it is not notable, and WP:NOT a lot of things, including a memorial and a news service. Chacor 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes they are and the article does not violate WP:NOT. Storm05 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Chacor 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles does not violate that ether and they are notable (read the sources!). Storm05 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- And the answer again that those aritcles does not violate WP:NOT in anyway and these are notable because of the coverage and the fears aroused because the time period of those two incidents that took place. Storm05 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unindented. You are not getting my point. News coverage does not equals notable. Chacor 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- I got your point , but in reality those plane crashes are notable. Storm05 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are they notable? The Milan one may be notable, but it isn't notable enough for an article - indeed, Pirelli Tower deals with it quite well. The Tampa one is utterly non-notable. Chacor 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- okay, first both aroused fears of another September 11th style attacks, both aroused concern of aircraft and airspace security and both attacted an national and worldwide media. In all that makes both plane crashes notable. Storm05 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard of the Tampa incident, that clearly did not attract worldwide media. The pilot was a 15yo. Sept 11? Please. The Tampa incident is really non-notable. Chacor 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-It did attracted national and world wide media because of the fears aroused after the incident. Storm05 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tampa crash, merge content from Milan crash to Pirelli Tower. A crash of a private aircraft with one fatality isn't notable IMO and the Milan crash would be more appropriate in the Tower's article.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Just because there was one fatality does not hide the fact that the incident was notable. Storm05 16:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one fatality displays the fact it wasn't notable. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- no it does not, notabilty based on death toll is irrelvent. Storm05 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- again, both plane crashes aroused fears of another september 11th style attack and attracted a large media coverage because of those fears. Storm05 16:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But little still happened, which is why I think it should be part of a broader Plane crashes in 2002 article. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- They can be part of the broader Plane Crashes in 2002 article, but they still are notable. Storm05 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge where appropriate. I appreciate the concerns about notability. However, multiple, independent, non-trivial media coverage resulted from these unusual events. I believe this qualifies as notable, though I would not be opposed to streamlining and merging. Scorpiondollprincess 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to chase this, but under that criteria, a July 2006 pepper spray attack on Mahathir would be warranted. Chacor 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Tampa plane crash was notable enough because of the fears of terrorism it evoked that I remember it clearly. If the criteria for keeping is worldwide media coverage, then I will rescind my vote if it does not meet required criteria. Mattisse 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in Scotland and I heard about it. --Guinnog 16:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Edgelord 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 45th edit, mostly to other AFD discussions[reply]

  • Strong Delete All These plane crashes are utterly non-notable from an encyclopedic point of view. The reasoning that these subjects should have their own article "because it reminded people of 9/11" means that 9/11 is encyclopedically notable and not these incidents. Wikipedia is not a news report database, and as I keep saying, there are many stories (even ones which receive worldwide coverage which people in Scotland hear about) in the news media that are not encyclopedically notable. Widespread media coverage is not guarantee of notability. This is not the the myth of Icarus. These incidents were of substantially less consequence than, for instance, the 1998 USMC/Italian cable car disaster or the 1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. These were not large scale air disasters, but they both had serious long-lasting effects on much broader and vital contexts (US-Italian relations in the first instance, and the British counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland in the second). The two crashes in this afd did not. Will the general public care much about the two afd incidents in 100 yrs time or even 10 yrs time? Some people seem to want to put everything that's reported in the news media in wikipedia, but that's not what an encyclopedia is for. (Try Wikinews instead) Bwithh 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- These articles are inegible for wikinews because that site only covers current events. As for the encyclopedially notable part, these plane crashes are notable enough for any encyclopedia. Storm05 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting Transwiki-ing. I'm suggesting that people wanting to write articles on non-encyclopedic news stories should try Wikinews instead. I seriously doubt that these crashes are "notable enough for any encyclopedia". Maybe an aviation-specific encyclopedia. Or antiwikipedia. Bwithh 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bwithh, pretty much what I was going to say. Recury 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment-Hey, those articles written in a way that is appicable to an encyclopedia. Storm05 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh... very persuasive argument.--Isotope23 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-these plane crashes are notable, and sorry theres no such a thing as an encyclopedic point of view. Storm05 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Also theres no limit on what topic that people can cover (including these plane crashes). Storm05 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, notability or non-notability of these incidents is merely a matter of opinion. Sorry, but Bwithh has made a very compelling argument. These plane crashes have no demonstrated long-term effect or impact even 4 years after they happened. There is no reason to believe they will have more impact or "notability" as time progresses.--Isotope23 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment, there are lots of articles on this encyclopedia that have no long term effects even after four years. Also theres is no limt on what topic that can be covered on this encyclopedia. And this encyclopedia is not bound by time regardless how compelling that users argument is. Storm05 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that is a straw man argument... the existance of "A" does not jusfify the existence of "B". Looks like we will just have to agree to disagree Storm05, unless some more compelling argument for retaining these articles is made.--Isotope23 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. wikipediatrix 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I remember hearing about this when it happened. Nothing has reminded me of it until today. It had no long term impact- or even a short term impact. It was forgotten within a couple of weeks. It remided people of 9/11? A toy plane hitting a wooden block tower would as well. Plane crashes happen all the time. 1 death and no impact makes it non-notable. --PresN 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with comment. I partly agree with Storm05, but also with some of Bwithh's comments.
    1. Both of these incidents made international news at the time because they occurred not very long after 9/11/01, and because both of them involved planes crashing into buildings.
    2. Small plane crashes do occur every day, but plane crashes into buildings are quite rare, which makes these incidents more notable than they would otherwise be.
    3. As PresN has stated, nothing much happened so their importance as news was transient, and they have been forgotten by most of us. The articles seem to overemphasize the importance of the events.
    4. Nevertheless, they are verifiable events, uncommon in nature, and remarkable for their timing—so that's a reason to keep, possibly trim them down a bit, and maybe merge them.

-- Slowmover 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All per Slowmover. The 9/11 context makes it very notable. hateless 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Tampa plane crash article. It was international headlines news when it occured due to the panic it sparked of a terrorist attack. I'm putting in a Weak Keep for the other article, it's verifiable and reasonably notable for certain people. I can't think of a good reason not to have these articles here. -- Darksun 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, utterly notable just like American Airlines Flight 587. Gazpacho 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That crash killed 265 people, and I've heard of it. I haven't heard of this two. Chacor 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heard of both when they happened. The significance was the historical context rather than the bodycount. Gazpacho 07:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - before you "vote", think of this. Did you know what the articles were about as soon as you came here? Or did you have to read it? That should say enough about whether this is really notable such that it's remembered after a long time. Chacor 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I don't see what relevance my faulty memory has with being a notability guideline. hateless 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, if September 11, 2001 attacks, Hurricane Rita or 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was AFD'd, you'd know what it was without looking, right? So clearly if this doesn't evoke memories about the incident, it's not notable enough. Chacor 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the Tampa crash article was named "2002 teenager crashes small plane into a tower", then I'd remember it without clicking. I fail to see how me not remembering the location of the crash makes the whole incident less notable. Also, do you really want to add another subjective test for notability? Haven't we had enough of them? hateless 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, Both of these crashes are notable since they (again) arouse fears of another september 11th style attack and fears of terrorists using small airplanes as wepons, the security of airspace over a major city and security of small aircarft which is always the case in the post 9/11 world. Storm05 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recall both of these incidents. Given that they were a part of the post-9/11 hysteria and were most definitely reported on by news outlets, I think these were perfectly notable. - Bootstoots 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' 2002 Tampa Plane Crash, keep Milan Plane Crash Jaranda wat's sup 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Tampa plane crash is notable due to the proximity and similarity to 9/11. The event made big news at the time. Notable.
  • Keep. Fatal aviation accidents seem notable. Both of these accidents attracted media attention. Cedars 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - There are hundreds of fatal air crashes worldwide yearly. Exactly how notable are some of them? Not at all. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash. Chacor 07:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mainly non-notable plane crash, we can't write an article of every plane crash in history. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-Wikipedia is not restricted to any topic or event. Storm05 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is. You won't find articles on August 2006 possible development of tropical system 91L.INVEST, for example. Chacor 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment-That is a compelety different event and is not relevant to this discussion at all. Face it, you are just over-reacting and mis-interpeting the rules of wikipedia. Storm05 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your accusation has no grounds and almost certainly violates Wikipedia policy (civility). Be civil. Your tone is becoming desperate and uncivil. Chacor 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment-Uh?, my reponse does not even come close as being uncivil. Storm05 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Per WP:CIV: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another". You have clearly accused me. Also, to your point about it being irrelevant: your "Wikipedia is not restricted" is then also irrelevant. Chacor 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment-"Wikipedia is not restricted is relevant. Storm05 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And, in reply to your assertion, if the article on 91L were to be created, it'd be deleted. Wikipedia is restricted. Chacor 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In reply, to that discussion, 91L will be deleted becasue Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. However, accoridng to WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia meaning theres no limit of what events or topics that can be covered. Storm05 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm not talking about crystal-balling. I'm talking about a fully-encyclopedic article written on what was the possible development of this system, if it never does. It'd still get deleted. Chacor 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per Bwithh (again). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-The Tampa and Milan crashes are notable even though there were a few deaths. (fears of a repear 9/11 style attack, security of airspace over a major city and etc). Storm05 16:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CNN broadcast non-stop, so any minor event can, and in this case did, make the news. All the refs show is that the event was reported. There's nothing to suggest it was anything important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • May be true re CNN, but these events were reported internationally by other media; not just CNN filler material. (Some of us don't rely on CNN for our news.) -- Slowmover 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both received massive coverage in the wake of 9/11 and caused fears of new attacks. Part of the historical record. --JJay 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both were notable crashes. We don't need a massive death toll to make a plane crash or incident notable, see Air France Flight 358 and Air Transat Flight 236. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Eusebeus 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas[edit]

Does not appear to meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), Wikipedia:Notability (people) for authors, or Wikipedia:Notability (books). Possible violation of WP:VAIN. AED 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the concerned Individual. I have been guided to this page by my friend. There are enough proof (Publisher Web Site) that I have actually written those books. Hence the criteria of Verifiability has been satisfied. How can you deny that I have written 6 books. Being the concerned person, I oppose to the words "non-notable".

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) : I satisfy the following points

  1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources. (Area of Expertise - Entrance Preparation. If you do not even know what it means, it is regarding coaching students for various entrance examinations in India
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. Same as above. See www.rxpgonline.com or www.aippg.net/forum or www.netmedicos.com or www.targetpg.com to know the questions directed at me
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). 6 Books (entire books and not just papers) that are selling well in India are proof for academic work

Wikipedia:Notability (books)

  1. Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (That has been given)
  2. Self-publication - 4 books Published by the leading Medical Publisher in Asia. remember that there are publishers in Asia also
  3. Sales numbers - You have to consider this with the usual number of Medical books sold in India (with the number of seats in Medical Schools here) and not compare this with Harold Robbins or Dan Brown. Any how, you can always contact the publishers

Wikipedia:Notability (people) 1. Published authors, - Rest of the points already given

WP:VAIN An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in WikipediaDoctor Bruno 01:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Relatively junior doctor who has written some non-notable exam-cram books of limited shelf-life. Colin°Talk 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can I know as to how this user may justify your insulting terms like "non-notable" "exam-cram" "limited shelf life". Is he a publisher / distributor / book seller who can comment about my book. Or did he call them and verify. One should note that the WP:V criteria holds true not only for the articles but also for the allegations made against a person in these pages
I accept that I am a junior doctor. But can the user show the regulation or guidelines in Wikipedia that prescribes the minimum age for notability
I strongly condemn his allegations which are baseless and totally a result of your imagination and are made with ulterior motive of insulting a person on the debate page. How can one pass a judgement even without reading the book (or even seeing it)Doctor Bruno 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if Dr Bruno finds my comments insulting; they are not intended to be. My personal opinion is all that is required on this page - WP:V applies only on article-space. You are welcome to disagree with me, and clearly do. To answer your challenge: I have read some of one online version of Dr Bruno's books at this site. I think it is reasonable to assume all six books are of a similar kind, given the titles. I completely stand by everything I said, including the nominator's comment that the article/subject fails all three notability guidelines.:
  1. Doctors need to be significant experts in a medical discipline, not in examination/training. Otherwise every teacher and lecturer would have a Wikipedia page. Dr Bruno's books are not "textbooks" according to my definition - they list exam questions, highlight the correct multi-choice answer, cite the actual authoritative textbook from which answer can be obtained, and provide some additional information/guidance.
  2. Books - See Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria (academic books).
  3. People - Full requirement is "Published authors ... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"
The "junior doctor" statement is not given to indicate that age should prevent the subject having an article. Merely to show that in terms of the medical world, this person has not (yet) risen to the level where one might expect to be notable (professor, consultant, etc). Regards, Colin°Talk 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the following words - Dr Bruno's books are not "textbooks" according to my definition I repeat that I satisfy the criteria given by Wikipedia. Each one of you will have one definition for textbook and a book cannot satisfy all your whims and fancies

Coming to your comments

With reference to the academic books, the guidelines are Academic books are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, are not sold in most bookstores, and may only be available in specialized libraries. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick.

COming to the individual criteria

  • Is the book printed by a reputable or well known academic press? Jaypee Brothers is the biggest publisher of Medical Books in India
  • How widely cited is the book by other publications/media? For this inquiry, be especially mindful of how specialized the book's subject is and, thus, how circumscribed both the book's audience and the body of literature in the area may be.
  • How well known is the author in general, and how well know is the author in the field of interest covered by the book? You can search in google regarding AIIMS, All India PG, TNPSC, TNPG, etc or you can visit the sites www.rxpgonline.com www.aippg.com www.netmedicos.com
  • How influential is the book considered in its specialty area? Unless you are in India, I don't think you can answer this question. My books along with Other authors like Mudhit Khanna, Sumer Sethi, Amit, Aashish are the current books followed in India
  • Is the book known to be taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions? No

Hence the book satisfies 4 criteria followed by Wikipedia. Please note the the published work means both papers as well as text books


I have to disagree with the following words I think it is reasonable to assume all six books are of a similar kind, given the titles This is highly insulting. If you don't have the patience or time to go through the entire material evidence, then you should refrain from voting. Please note that YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO ASSUME ABOUT MY BOOKS Of the six books, two (PrePG Medicine Handbook and TNPSC Interview Buster are textbooks)


With reference to the words Merely to show that in terms of the medical world, this person has not (yet) risen to the level where one might expect to be notable (professor, consultant, etc) I would like to tell that I am a consultant at www.rxpgonline.com www.aippg.com and www.netmedicos.com Hence this statement again is baseless and totally imaginatory.

Hence I guess that the user will look into the matter as a whole and decide.Doctor Bruno 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my assumption that all the books are similar. Dr Bruno has kindly pointed out that he considers two of them as "textbooks", though admits that neither are actually "known to be taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions".
The first is "PrePG Medicine Handbook". This is a book, originally authored by two PG students called Zulfi and Raj. Hence the full name is Zulfi Raj's Pre-PG Medicine Handbook. According to the cover photo, this was revised (for the 3rd edition) by Dr Bruno. From what I have been able to gather, it is a supplemental handbook to be used alongside Harrison. According to Dr Bruno[49] it contains 2% of Harrison but "that 2 % of Harrison you get from Zulfi Raj will help you answer 20 % of Question from Harrison". The only recommendations to buy this book (indeed, the only information on this book) comes from one of Dr Bruno's own web sites, the sites of his affiliates and from Dr Bruno's own postings on forums. The following forum discussion regarding the book has Dr Bruno explaining the copyright situation regarding condensing Harrison.
The second is "TNPSC Interview Buster". Details of this book can be found here. It is published by TargetPG, who appear to be affiliates of Dr Bruno. This is effectively self-published. It may be a comprehensive guide to passing your medical interview, but that doesn't count as a "textbook" to me. This book fails on all counts of notability.
I used the word "consultant" in the UK medical meaning: Consultant (medicine). Sorry for any confusion.
Regards, Colin°Talk 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are trying to cover up your own mistakes of having cast a hasty vote and insulting sentences in the first place
You have very well said that ONE Book is self published. But you have intentionally ignored that 5 other books are published by reputed firm. I am sure that 5 is greater than one
You have very well said that ONE Book is the revised edition. But you have intentionally ignored that 5 other books are own works. I am sure that 5 is greater than one.
One more Question - Is the Notability (Book) criteria intented for having an article about the book or the article about the author Doctor Bruno 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I haven't made myself crystal clear. I accept only two very minor changes to my original comments:
  1. One of the six books is not an exam-cram book. It is a self-published guide to passing medical entrance interviews.
  2. Not all five exam cram books are the same. One of them is not based on the past-questions-with-answers format but is a condesed supplement to real textbooks (such as Harrison). In addition, Dr Bruno is not the original author.
Let me also make it clear that I still do not regard any of the books as textbooks (i.e. a book worthy of being the set-text in an education establishment). The Notability (Book) criteria are for an article on the book. Very few published authors are notable. If one of Dr Bruno's books was notable in itself, then that might help establish that the author might be notable. IMO they are not and he is not.
I am more than prepared to revise my opinion if an indpendent experienced Wikipedia editor can show that I have misinterpreted the Notability guidelines. Colin°Talk 09:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Delete as per nom, plus article subject is highly unpleasant about the whole matter, and seems very keen on rule lawyering when he himself has taken rather dubious moves, and utterly failed to demonstrate his notability or good reason to be in this encyclopedia. Maybe this article might be more suitable on wiki:hi, wiki:mr or wiki:kn? --Svartalf 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not able to comprehend as to what this user feels about Unpleasant. I have not done anything unpleasant, except pointing out the mistakes committed by User Svartalf in this debate If pointing out the mistakes of the user is termed as unpleasant, then I cannot help it
The point regarding notability issue has been given below. I am again not able to understand as to why this user says that I have failed to demonstrate the notability.
Any way, the very reason that this SAME user has been keeping on recommending the article to be deleted (and has been recommending about me on various other user talk pages also) makes me suspect that this particular person acts in bad faith and wants to tarnish my image
If the user is ready to engage in a meaningful debate by answering the points given below, then I can be of helpDoctor Bruno 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been guided to this page by my friend. There are enough proof (Publisher Web Site) that I have actually written those books. Hence the criteria of Verifiability has been satisfied. How can any one deny that I have written 6 books. Being the concerned person, I oppose to the words "non-notable".
Any one can verify with the Publishers whether such books have been published or not. [50] [51] Or you can mail them. Or you can call them and confirm
How can one assume that there is no verifiability even without verifying Can the user tell what steps were taken to make sure that there is no notability. Did he call the publisher or book seller. One can tell that it is not his duty to call a publisher to verify notability. Then he should refrain from claiming that the book is non-notable
Just because a book is not available in Amazon, it does not mean that such a book does not exist Doctor Bruno 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, since the concerned person has repeatedly tried to blank both his page and this AfD discussion, better give him his wish.--Svartalf 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I request your kind attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete it. Hence, I guess, as per policies, I have every right to delete an article about me. I don't want guys who have NO (I repeat NO) knowledge about Indian Books pass judgement about my merit unnecessarily. The article was proposed for deletion first on notability. When I proved notability, it has changed to Vanity. I guess it is some one who does not like me trying to tarnish my name. This is a phenomenon that has been emerging in Wikipedia. Since they cannot write rubbish in the main article, they nominate the article for deletion and vent all the frustations (non-notable, limited shelf-life etc). One guy has written that the author is non-notable since he has "never read the book". I have never read any plays of Shakespeare. Can I tell that Shakespeare is non-notable just because I have not read the books. If there is any doubt regarding the books, one can always email or phone the publisher. Instead, nominating biographies for deletion and then slandering the individual has been the recent (sorry) phenomenon in Wikipedia.
I find that you have recommended that my biography be deleted.
WHen I prove that the AFD does not hold as per the established guidelines you take it as an offence and ask whether the subject can intervene. I have intervened only as per the above guidelines.
Please note the policy. And one final request. Before keeping or deleting an article, be sure to read everything

Wrong Information being given about me by USER AED. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AED Doctor Bruno 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify as to how My Biography is Vanity, before recommending that for deletionDoctor Bruno 05:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are no commercial links.
  • There are no Vanity links.
  • There are no Vanity photos.
  • There are no Vanity text edits.

On the other hand, I invite your attention to the following guidelines

  • An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia
  • Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.Doctor Bruno 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhesitatingly Strong and speedy Delete I am a graduate (MBBS) & post-graduate (MD) from Delhi, India, and am myself a doctor with extensive education and major contributions to two international textbooks. I have no hesitation in recommending a delete for this article written for self-propogation. The use of Wikipedia is to spread information, not project one's own self. The very fact that one has written an article about one's own self on a public website is suggestive of vanity. Otherwise all doctors would write and have a page dedicated to them, since at least some of them and their patients may think that they are famous.

Moreover, books written should have a purpose other than 'made for cramming' exams like the Post-Graduate (PG) medical entrance in India - indeed a short half-life. Compare that with widely read books like Harrison's Principles & Practice of Internal Medicine, or Bailey & Love's Short Practice of Surgery, which are authoritative texts with multiple editions and enduring reference value. Frankly, I never read this particular author's "books" to prepare for my PG entrance exams in Delhi, nor heard about him from my extended group of doctor/medical student/PG friends all over North India. Otherwise also, doctors like Salgunan, Bhatia et al could claim to be much more widely read authors of such "best-sellers", with an evidently much wider circulation.

However, a new article about Post-Graduate entrance exams in India may be written with a "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV), which can include a listing of the main authors of PG entrance exam books rankwise (probably based on concrete evidence of copies sold, not necessarily "Out of print") and mention his name in the appropriate place - that should be acceptable. EyeMD 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you assume that there is no verifiability even without verifying Can you tell what steps did you take to make sure that there is no notability. Did you call the publisher or book seller. YOu can tell that it is not your duty to call a publisher to verify notability. Then you should refrain from claiming that the book is non-notable

Attention Rewster The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. The very fact that you have not given any arguments, and also falied to answer my points prove that you have malicious intention in defaming meDoctor Bruno 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Svartalf

  • Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a deleted part between <s> and </s>, as in "Delete Speedy keep".

The very fact that you did not even take time to read the basic intructions, but has wanted this article to be deleted shows that you are hell bent on defaming me and not on maintaining Good Spirit of Wikipedia. How can you justify is recommending for deletion more than one time

You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:

  • A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.Doctor Bruno 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intervene only in those where I think I grasp the problem well enough to talk. Thanks for your concern. --Svartalf 19:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the established guidelines of WP:AFD, one (who grasps the problem well enough) should modify his original recommendation rather than adding a new one Unfortunately, I see some one (probably with malicious intend) voting more than one times and that too without giving any specific valid reason and not responding to questions and that is a point of concernDoctor Bruno 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per established rules, blanking an article out of due process, and a fortiori an AfD discussion page is not allowed either. Add to it that if I erased my "second vote to get legit again, your comments to it would definitely stop making any sense... I let it stay. plus, since you take malicious intent out, do you have any reasons why I should bear malice to an unnotable person half a word away from me? You had better have pretty solid grounds to go agains WP:AGF. Unless your obnoxiousness is a usual trait and you're used to people hating you. --Svartalf 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about your mistake of trying your level best to delete this article ignoring all the basic rules. You can see the pages in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_4
DO you see in all those articles the peculiar phenonemon of same person voting three times for the same article to be deleted. When you are going to this extent (that too inspite of me giving all the proof for notifiability and verifiability) and citing new reasons such as unpleasant behaviour in the debate page (remember that my replies were posted AFTER your messages - In such a context, what is your justification for your initial message asking this article to be deleted) as the reason for deletion (since you have no valid reason) how can you I assume Good Faith. In the present circumstances, after verifying with publishers and book sellers and various web sites pertaining to Entrance Exams in India, if you can give a reasonable opinion, that is AGP
Even if you take your "vote to get legit" how can you deny that you had voted more than once. And what is the reason for this strange phenomenon. It implies that for reasons unfathomable, you have a biased view against me. How can a biased person decide about the notability Doctor Bruno 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a borderline notability case if you ask me, but the apparent vanity pushes me toward deletion as the proper rationale. Doctor Bruno: I am sure you are very experienced, and you should stay around as an editor of other pages because your knowledge could really help the project. It's also very possible that a disinterested party could author a suitable article on you in the future. It just isn't proper for you to be editing your own article, though. Read WP:AUTO. If you're not convinced, look at this AfD compared to the others on the list of articles up for AfD. Erechtheus 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC) The user assures me he did not create his own article - he made a couple of recent edits out of frustration due to the charge of non-notability. I think he understands that was not the proper course of action and will limit activity to the talk page in the future. Due to the borderline nature of the notability, I change my opinion to weak keep.Erechtheus 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EyeMD first said that the subject is not notable. After proving the notability, he has switched over saying that it is violation of WP:AUTO. I strongly feel that this is an attempt by some guys who do not like me in real world. If you could see the basis for nominating the article has changed from Notability to Vanity to AutoBio. I invite your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you I did not write this article in the first place. I am forced to edit here to avoid my name being slandered. Hope you look into the matter deeply. Doctor Bruno 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete does not meet notability criteria in the least. Fails WP:BIO by a longshot. Writing exam cram books does not make you notable as an author or physician. -- Samir धर्म 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - wrote a few tip-books on how to pass exams, this is not medical notability, you need reserach papers and academic textbooks for this stuff.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Guidelines do not say that Exam-Oriented-books are not notable and only text books are notable. Can you please show a guideline like that. Also a writing a book needs more research and effort than a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)
Not necessarily true, when I finished my high schooling, I wrote my own solutions to exams for the Australian Chemistry Olympiad and Australian Physics Olympiad (totalling more than 200 hand-written pages) and photocopied them and gave them to my high school so that future students could use them if they found them helpful. Five years later, I still haven't done any original research that could result in a 2 page publication in a proper physics research journal. I know that my notes haven't been published in any particular way, but it is similar to a lot of high school teachers who make their own exam solutions manuals and sell them to students. Personally, I'd rather not have some high school Chemistry teachers have their own bio seeing as a lot of them (in Australia anyway) seem to think that 1M of H2SO4 gives 2M H+ for instance, or don't know what NMR spectroscopy is or then think that the alpha-hydrogen of 2-propanol gives rise to a septuplet splitting due to the bogus rule "methyl makes four" rather than realise that there are 6 adjacent hydrogens for the n+1 rule. Also you see most high school physics teachers say stuff like "mass increases as speed increases", so to be honest (imho), I don't personally trust academic publications by people with bachelor's degrees unless they have got scientific publications. As for the WP:BIO, it is a guideline, which is not a rock-solid rule, and this is my personal opinion. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't compare Xeroxed (photo copied) versions of "notes" with a text book published by the biggest publisher of medical books of a country with 1000 million population. It is very clear that the own handwritten notes which are photocopied are non notable (and non verifiable also) and a book with ISBN Number published by a publisher and available in online medical stores is notable. These are not to be compared. Even I had compiled a question and answer quide to be used by students of Devendra College of Physiotherapy in 2003. My notes have been used by a lot of juniors. They are non notable. Doctor Bruno 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that I am changing tack since my original argument on Monday as to why I feel this article should be deleted. As I said before WP:BIO is a guideline - there is no magic formula. I never presumed that I was of similar notability to you because of my comment about the solutions to the Olympiad papers which I wrote for students at my old high school - I simply used this to explain your comment that writing solution manuals and exam guides are not at the same level of academic achievement as doing original research and formulating new theories and experiments. My comment about high school teachers selling lots of Yr 12 solutions manuals and study guides still holds - most of them cannot remember what they learnt in first year university which is why I'm saying that I don't automatically trust the academic worthiness of material published by a person with a bachelor's degree outside of scientific journal publications. My comment about my home-made volunteer notes were only to reply to your suggestion that a solutions manual takes more skill than to do original research. Personally I disagree with this. I am not being stubborn and refusing to switch because I have been "proven wrong" - I am still unconvinced. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify my comment, I don't believe that the academic bar is passed in this case; we have a person with a bachelor degree who is writing exam study-guides. I guess I could meet that criteria by joining a dodgy club with a few other guys from high school who write exam guides and get myself on WP as a physicist? Generally a person who writes reputable textbooks will have a research record and is a university academic. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the discussion is about Books. I never said that I have got a PhD. Please don't invent criterias to justify the initial hasty (wrong) vote (or opinion) based on wrong criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)
I am well aware that you never claimed to have a PhD. There is no concrete criteria by which notability guidelines must be enforced. I can't think of a case of an exam guide author having a bio or being AfD'd before, so I don't know of any precedent which may be used to make a guideline in WP:BIO for exam guides. Maybe this would be a good test case. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The simple fact is that WIkipedia's guidelines just say the following points
  1. Published by a reputed source
  2. Not self published
  3. Has ISBN Number
There is NO RULE in wikipedia that differentiates Exam-Oriented-Books published by Reputed firms and Text Books Published by reputed firms. Following the current concepts, you have to treat this as any book with ISBN published by reputed firm. The invention of new criteria of exam books to justfiy the initial hasty vote is the main problem with this discussion
    • Never I have seen an author valued using his Degree. By the way, is it a crime to write books before you do post graduationDoctor Bruno 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case we are measuring you as an academic, so we are looking for reaserch level publications and university textbooks. No it is not a crime to write books before graduation.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just curious sake - Why can't you measure as an published author Doctor Bruno 07:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you measuring as an academic. Consider it as an author of 6 Exam Oriented Medical Books.
We can: requirement is "Published authors ... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Colin°Talk 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean to say that if there are reviews/awards, even a junior doctor with no post graduate degree is notable. WHy did you first give another reason. You seem to be searching for reasons to delete this artilce ??Doctor Bruno 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least now do you agree that your initial hasty comment was a mistake. The very fact that you have changed your points three times show that you have misinterpreted the notability guidelines and your only aim is deleting the article without going into the actual merits of the case but based on some reason. If you had given the reply you give now (after I countered all you previous baseless arguments) on the first instance itself, I may not have said a word in this page and let the independent editors decide. At least now realise your mistakes and don't repeat it and insult another person in Wikipedia in future. Any how, thanks for changing your stance after being pointed out. Few guys do not even have that courtesyDoctor Bruno 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even a small child from an ordinary family can be notable, if they have recieved substansial press coverage for some reason, despite their lack of any qualifications. Quacks and conartists again are easily noteworthy if they become famous. Qualifications alone does not make anyone noteworthy, meerly more of an authority on a subject LinaMishima 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of their points have been well countered. Unless you give some good explanation against my points nominating based on their opinion (which has been countered by evidence) makes me believe that you have not read the discussion, but is giving a hasty vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

I still stand by my comment & thoroughly agree with the additional arguments given by Blnguyen. I do not believe that your arguments have established your notablity & I do not appreciate your insinuation that I have not read the discussion before commenting. Your apparent hostility against everyone isn't likely to intimidate anyone. I suggest that you tone down your comments a bit. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Does not appear notable. Cedars 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the criteria given in WP:BIO for published authors is very well satisfiedDoctor Bruno 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained clearly as to why this article is not vanity. Please be kind enough to read the discussions and then give your opinion and don't give the opinion in haste and then try to justify Doctor Bruno 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)it.[reply]
I read the discussion. I makes a convincing case for my argument - and it's here for everyone to see. WilyD 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you justify as to how My Biography is Vanity, before recommending that for deletion
  • There are no commercial links.
  • There are no Vanity links.
  • There are no Vanity photos.
  • There are no Vanity text edits.
On the other hand, I invite your attention to the following guidelines
  • An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia
  • Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Can you please Let me know as to how you explain Vanity in this case. I had already asked this question in the discussion to another user who recommended Vanity. He has not answered, but he has been going to various Talk pages and is trying to get people vote against me. Please try to explain or please change the opinionDoctor Bruno 01:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity means that he suspects that you, your family, your organisation/associates were responsible for the creation of this page. Vanity isn't really a deletion criteria, but simply doesn't look good - when quoted in deletion debates, it normally implies that the commenter feels that it is nn and vanity, but I don't want to put words into WilyD's mouth.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I am saying.
The initial claim was Verifiability - They said that there were no books even without caring to check for it. I proved that I have written those books. After I had successfully countered the claim, the criteria for deletion changed
After they found that the article was verifiable and that they could not argue on that point, they changed the criteria to notability. When it was proved that the subject has written 6 medical books with ISBN Numbers and published by the biggest medical publisher in India and the current concept and the established guidelines of Wikipedia does not differentiate between Text Books / Fiction / Exam Oriented Book, there were insulting remarks like junior doctor / academic qualifications etc. I have proved that All those claims were inappropriate
The present claim is Vanity. Now even BInguyen agrees that "Vanity isn't really a deletion criteria"
The only reason for including this criteria is to discredit and defame me. If you want proof, I can give you examples as to how few users are going around all talk pages and trying to gather opinion against me
There are two reasons for this debate
  1. Few Users do not like me in real world and want to tarnish my name. If you want proof, I can give examples. I have already shown that to few users personally and don't want to dilute the main discussion. They have not responded to my question here (where as the genuine wikipedians have responded here and also at my talk page) but drag my name into controversy at various talk pages and discussions
  2. Few Users (Genuine Wikipedians) have given a hasty vote and just want to justify their initial mistake. Their ego prevents them from going back and rectifying their own mistakes. SO to defend their initial hasty vote, they invent new criteria
  • One user's initial comment was "junior doctor" "exam-cram books" of "limited shelf-life". He was not able to substantiate any of the reasons. It was well decided that age is not a criteria. The user has no right to label "limited Shelf life" even without seeing the books. And there is no criteria that differentiates Exam Oriented books from Text Books [52] The user did not stop with this. He went to the extent of saying that one of my books was self published and hence not notable. But he intentionally avoided mentioning that 5 of the books have been published by reputed firms and hence they are notable. THis is a clear cut case of personal bias and not staying neutral
  • One user's comment was Vanity. When it has been proved that I am not the creator of the article, he has not responded. Also I have proved using the existing guidelines as to why this is not vanity. What pains me is the fact that there are users who do not have the patience of reading my well quoted points, but just give their hasty opinion
  • After that It was pointed out that I don't have an post graduation. There is no criteria as to say that only doctors with post graduation has to write books or that only those with post graduation are notable. This criteria was later withdrawn
In short I have clearly proved that this article satisfies all the established and current criteria and guidelines of Wikipedia. If you have any doubt regarding any particular point, discuss that and I am ready to respond
And please don't compare Xeroxed (photo copied) versions of "notes" with a text book published by the biggest publisher of medical books of a country with 1000 million population. It is very clear that the own handwritten notes which are photocopied are non notable (and non verifiable also) and a book with ISBN Number published by a publisher and available in online medical stores is notable. These are not to be compared. Even I had compiled a question and answer quide to be used by students of Devendra College of Physiotherapy in 2003. My notes have been used by a lot of juniors. They are non notable. Doctor Bruno 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem has been brought out by one user. It is a simple case of not differentiating between a published book and photocopied notes. Doctor Bruno 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise

1. Notability of Books. THe books have an ISBN Number. 5 books are published by reputed firms. 4 of those are published by the biggest medical publisher in India. In such a case, one user who gave a knee jerk comment in the first place has choosen the 6th (1 out of 6 minority) and say that it is self publishable. He has ignored 5 because his ego prevents him from going back on his earlier words 2. Notability (people) 1. Published authors - 6 books is more than enough to satisfy this criteria 3. Notability (doctor) You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [53] www.aippg.net/forum[54] and www.netmedicos.com [55] and unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area (PG Preparation), you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help.

Then

Regarding the counter points 1. The article was not written by me. When this controversy erupted, I read the guidelines regarding autobiography and has followed what is given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you Even without going through the debate, when users accuse of vanity (as if I have created the article) it hurts a lot 2. WP:BIO clearly says that you can have articles on published authors. There is no talk about Junior/Senior, Undergraduation/Post Graduation, Fiction/Nonfiction etc.

My main concern is that all these points come out only after I put a counter question. They are not the real facts, but are made up as the users ego prevent them from stepping back. In order to substantiate the hasty vote, they invent new guideline. Wounded by these new "self invented" guidelines, I even deleted the article my self, but that has been restoredDoctor Bruno 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please make sure that NOT ALL MY BOOKS are question answer books. I have contributed 6 chapters to the Pre PG Medicine Handbook and 6 chapters merit more attention than an Paper.Doctor Bruno 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have read this page carefully and the arguments put by both sides. This page makes me deeply uncomfortable. While Doctor Bruno may be satisfying the letter of the rules and while he may be very adept at quoting them I feel he is violating their spirit. As far as I can see, that appears to be the core underpinning of many of the delete arguments here.
Writing/ not writing a minimum number of books or having/ not having a PhD is not the issue -- it is the subject's notability. For all the scraping over the minimum level of the "notability bar" that Doctor Bruno is claiming to have achieved, in practice there appears to be no evidence that he has actually achieved it. He is not actually notable in people's minds.
Perhaps, with his level of audacity he will be in the future. But right now, this article is simply not in the spirit of Wikipedia. 193.129.65.37 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there appears no evidence, You can do a google test and find about the notability. You can look at AIPPG [56] and Netmedicos [57]
This is really amusing. When it has been proved beyond doubt the rules are in favour of keeping the article and only the user's ego of getting back on the initial hasty decision and few persons' personal vendetta leads to deleting the article, we get a comment from anonymous user telling about the spirit.
This proves my earlier claims that there are forces working against me with the sole intention of deleting this article irrespective of wikipedian guidelines. They keep giving various criteria for deleting and after it has been successfully argued that the guidelines are very clear regarding keeping the article as per the opinion of one user who says that satisfying the letter of the rulesDoctor Bruno 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article is clearly a Strong Delete. There is an element of paranoia concerning Doctor Bruno's responses that I find disturbing. I am unaffiliated with the people who initially chose to nominate this page for deletion. However, I find myself in strong agreement with them. I am NOT part of some international ring committed to persecuting Doctor Bruno. Frankly, I have better people to persecute.
My feelings are very similar to those of user 193.129.65.37. Whether he remains anonymous or not is irrelevent to the validity of his comments. This is about the spirit of Wikipedia rules - not about their wording per se. We are not lawyers bound to argue over the triviality of individual words. We are looking at which articles contribute to the essence of what Wikipedia is. This article does not.
It is hard precisly to define why it doesn't. This may infuriate Dr. Bruno but is merely part of the underlying difficulties of the English language. It is very inadequate at explaining certain concepts. For instance it's harder to explain what a table is than to know one when you see it. Similarly, it's hard to explain what is notable but it's easy to know it when you see it. Doctor Bruno might like to read the book Blink before saying that people can't make judgements without wading through lots and lots of his verbose arguments.
This is my best attempt at explaining why this article doesn't work:
1. The focus group Doctor Bruno says his name is notable within (a particular set of people chosing to take a particular set of exams within a particular field in a particular country) is already very limited. And yet, I find myself wondering, were I to take a blind sampling of such people and show them a photo of Doctor Bruno or ask them if they recognised his name - would they say they recognised him as a leading light?
2. The web sites Doctor Bruno provides do not, I think, provide proof of notability in and of themselves. They have the appearance of vanity publications themselves - like Who's Who in Engineering or Journalism... as opposed to the original Who's Who. A quick search for Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas in MyWay.com (which uses Ask, Google, Yahoo and Look Smart) shows most of the links to Doctor Bruno are to his own web site - not external pieces on him. The few that aren't again appear to be meta lists of vanity web pages. While not proof, this is an indication that reporters, external peer reviewed journals and other academics just aren't talking about this gentleman.
3. For a doctor and a gentleman I find Bruno's language to be not far off brow-beating in its intensity. I would recommend Doctor Bruno, if he is as notable as claimed, asks some of his more detached supporters (who have less self-invested emotional interest in the article) to outline positive reasons for its inclusion.
These arguments don't do my position full justice (as outlined above). But I feel they give an adequate indication of my unease. There is, quite clearly, little notability here as far as I can see. I'm sure that will change in time and I wish Doctor Bruno luck in the future. Coricus 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an after thought on "the word of the rules versus their intention", I'd like to refer Doctor Bruno to the comments at the top of Wikipedia's page on People and Notability. It says: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included." - in other words: follow the rules unless Wikipedians tend to feel they shouldn't be followed in a particular case. That would appear to be the instance here. Coricus 07:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean to say that the rules shouldn't be followed if say 20 guys are against that Doctor Bruno 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) Again, you attempt to use specifics to counter a generality. It is a very tiresome form of deconstructionist argument that loses its fascination quickly for people who don't like debate simply for the sake of it. If I give you an answer you will merely retort "well, if not 20 people then how about 21, or 22?".
Such pedantry on your part does not alter my opinion. 3 books, 6 books, 156 books make little difference. Notability is not the same as how much you've been published - or every journalist in the world would appear in Wikipedia. It is about the essence of notability. Quite simply -- how many people would say "I know him" if I stood in a particular place at a particular time and said "Who knows this guy?". I think you fail that test. I have outlined my reasons and I feel your retorts are motivated by ego. Coricus 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be my retorts are motivated by ego, but my simple question is how can you think that the test will fail even without doing that and that is not verifiability. Every one can think anything, but wikipedia is based on verifiability and not on imaginary researches like if i ask. If any one of the editors here had infact tried this test and then said not notable, I would not have retorted But that is not the case.Doctor Bruno 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly trolling. This discussion is going around in circles. The closest proxy we have for the test concerned is a web page search. I conducted one and, as mentioned above could find no evidence that reporters, external peer reviewed journals and other academics are talking about you. Coricus 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Doctor Bruno posted the following comments to my personal page. I feel they indicate a willful, almost troll-like, desire towards pedantry. My opinion remains that this article should be deleted. Coricus 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I respect your words that reporters, external peer reviewed journals and other academics just aren't talking about this gentleman and hence the subject is not notable. You should also understand that I never disagreed with people who gave such decent explanations. On the other hand, you should also understand that it may be insulting when some one invents criteria like exam books/ junior doctor etc It was against those words that I choose to argue.

But I disagree with your words that I ask some of his more detached supporters to outline positive reasons for its inclusion That, I feel is a wrong way to do this. The case should be argued on the basis of merits and not based on the number of people supporting it (as it has been done now). Again this sentence make me doubt that you have misunderstood my intentions. I was arguing not to "keep" the article, but to protest against the hasty decisions and invention of new criteria in justifying facts.

And your words a particular set of people chosing to take a particular set of exams within a particular field in a particular country is again a misinterpretation. It is about EVERY ONE in a particular field in a particular country taking the COMMON Exam after Undergraduation. The exam is taken by some 60,000 doctors every year. Hence I feel that you have not understood the reality correctly and is of the wrong opinion regarding the limited scope. The scope is of course limited, but not as limited as you could think of.

And you have not given any reason as to why an author of 6 books is non-notableDoctor Bruno 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting extraordinarily annoyed by your redundant and useless commentary. Hate to break it to you but consensus here defines the rules. Do you have even one Pubmed citation? Even one? Cause I sure couldn't find any [58]. This practically meets speedy deletion as A7. Don't try to twist arguments into your favour; you can't even get a tenure track position on the basis of 6 exam prep books, much less an encyclopedia article!! This is a ludicrously easy to spot vanity article, and the commotion that you are raising here just shows how precious this article is to your ego. The consensus is overwhelming here that you are not notable. Go troll elsewhere. -- Samir धर्म 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deletion discussions are a sampling method to help determine what the community at large feels about an issue, and to examine the relationship to relevent policies and guidelines. There are no arguments presented that would justify over-riding established and broadly accepted inclusionary standards, and while there was little participation by established community members, it was sufficient to determine that consensus to delete exists. - brenneman {L} 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantr II[edit]

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 194,501 and it scores 51,000 google hits. Peephole 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Information about the game should be verifiable in the game's documentation or community discussions, which satisfies WP:V; it's too early to see whether the "critical evaluation" will be sourced, but give that the benefit of the doubt. As for the other two, it looks like the page is being edited. Wait and see. Sho Uemura 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no indicated notability. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a unique concept to me --Nick Roberts 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep otherwise, may as well delete other wikipages such as World of Warcraft's. --Lassaris 10:11, 7 August 2006 (GMT+10)
  • Keep I use the CANTR wikipages regularly and the information contained in the pages is verifiable in the game. If these pages are not considered suitable for wikipedia then neither are any of the other RPG games pages listed. --Dinallt 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Dinallt (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
    • Comment: It is true I have not made contribitions outside this topic but why does that invalidate my contribution to this one? I haven't seen a topic on which I wanted to make a contribution before. Dinallt 12:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google-backed, referenced and mentioned in plenty of gaming webzines, as valid as any other RPG article. --Drivera90 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has twenty-three edits prior to this discussion. - brenneman {L} 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Actually, there isn't a single reference and i don't know what the hell google-backed means.--Peephole 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:There isn't a single reference? And you've read every single webzine ever released? I've read several that have mentioned Cantr as a prominent society simulator, and if you don't know what google-backed means, I suggest you don't make such radical claims as it apparently not having a single reference. Ta.--Lassaris 10:32, 9 August 2006 (GMT+10)
      • Comment:I meant there wasn't a single reference in the article. --Peephole 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- References present to nearly 20 genre-specific sites, zines, presses excluding its own Webzine (listed seperately on Wikipedia) including for example Userfriendly.org, etc; also referred in Wikipedia-like informative sites such as About.com and Answers.com. The references certainly attest to the subject's credibility as being significant and innovative in the MMORPG and RPG genres. Also noted that there were countless references to Cantr in other Wikipedia pages (e.g Text-based, MMORPG lists, etc) way before being subject for deletion as the date history will correlate. (Granted, I also don't know what "Google-backed" means, unless it is describing the even larger list of outside references to Cantr by Googling it) Czneddie 12:14, 9 August 2006 (GMT-5)
    • User has twenty-five edits prior to this discussion, seventeen to the article. - brenneman {L} 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Oh please, I have removed all of these. Not a single one was a reliable source (see WP:RS). They were just directory listings, blogs or online editable encyclopedia's.--Peephole 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Does that include the -- GameWyrd's Mark of Approval Dinallt 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: And that quoted is: GameWyrd's Mark of Approval goes to Cantr II . Here we see kingdom roleplaying at it's best. It's not about engineering the perfect combat character, it's about social engineering and legacy building. The Award Council liked that.Lassaris 3:45, 12 August 2006 (GMT+10)
  • Delete after precident set by the GraalOnline AfD, which was endorsed at deletion review. Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apoultrian[edit]

Non-notable neologism (the article even says "neologism"), apparently coined four days ago in a webcomic. Was deprodded by original author with no reason given. —Scott5114↗ 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and the article is also unlikely to become more than a dictionary definition. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe it should've even been speedied. And wiktionary certainly wouldn't take it, it fails their guidelines. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO. (It's a syndicated newspaper comic, not web.) Check your calendar, Scott. This showed up this morning. Fan-1967 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, seems my computer's clock is off by four days :) —Scott5114↗ 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a2, since the page is just cut and pasted from another wikimedia project. - Bobet 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazárok[edit]

Kazárok should be deleted because the entire text ain't written in English (possible error) DLL 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have tagged it for translation into English; however, this page exists as an excerpt of the page that is found on the on the Hungarian WP. --Porqin 16:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translate and Assess. When we know what this is about, then we can decide if it has a place here. --Svartalf 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Boozecream[edit]

Delete unless this term is of significant value or is in widespread use. If so, article needs significant cleaning CPAScott 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable phenomenon in the life of unspecified number of teeners from nobody knows where. term not in wide use. --Svartalf 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this page doesn't even seem serious. --FeldBum 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 6 google hits. No sources. WP:NFT. --Porqin 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest this was CSDable as nonsense, failing that, suggest a speedy close as Delete per other commenters... ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I was tempted to make good on my RfA response to your question, Lar, I don't think this is quite patent nonsense and would like to start off with a more strawberry cream color. I removed a speedy tag from it as there was an active AfD underway. That said, I would be fine if this were speedy closed as Delete. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at it and it seemed nonsensical to me. but on reflection I can see how maybe it might not be COMPLETELY nonsensical maybe... no worries in any case. :) ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Rank Group. - Mailer Diablo 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca_bingo[edit]

Not notable. Page only exists for spam link to site. FeldBum 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ad. Shimeru 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Should be redirected to The Rank Group (the parent company) like all other similar type busineses and articles, with a sentence or two added to the Rank article. (Rank's business is clearly notable.) 2005 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Mecca is notable within the UK, with most sizable towns having a branch (or so it seems). LinaMishima 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Weinmann[edit]

Not significant enough to include; article written like soapbox CPAScott 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Bit premature to afd this stub, any US Serviceman charged with espionage is notable. The fact he has been held in secret for four months against established legal precedent makes it especially so. Not sure why you consider it soapbox, the article contains the available facts. --Paul E. Ester 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My first reaction is to say, keep. It certainly looks like a notable case to me. Any concerns of soapboxing/POV could be addressed through editing. However my worry is that there's not much information on this yet. I couldn't google anything on the subject other than the one source already cited. I'd feel a lot more comfortable in asserting notability if multiple verifiable sources could be cited. Has anyone else started covering this story? Scorpiondollprincess 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is, it isn't to be found online. Google returns exactly two hits on the name, both referring to a seventh-grader, and other search engines produce similar. Very strange, I'd think a blog or two would have picked up the story at least. Not necessarily indicative of anything, though. Agree that the case would likely be notable, if true. Shimeru 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:It's a breaking story and has yet to be picked up by the blogs I saw it on drudge this morning. Google News returns hits for Ariel J. Weinmann. FWIW military.com has reprinted the article. --Paul E. Ester 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting story and more sources will become available. If anyone wants to discuss it, please feel free to say so on my talk page. --TheM62Manchester 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this is the only major source for this breaking story that I found. Why is it up for deletion?
  • Strong Keep Notability has gotten much larger with more and more media coverage. [59]FancyPants 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject, and enough material has emerged at this point to support an article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will definetly become a news story. I recommend we hang on to it. --Daysleeper47 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Is this suggested deletion censorship? Spruce up article if necessary. Today's Haaretz (Israel) quotes a Saudi news report that Weinmann spied for Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748434.html 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep' and rewrite. This is a badly written article about a highly notable espionage case that we should describe. Google is currently showing 20 hits for http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1188753.php/US_sailor_faces_espionage_charges ➥the Epopt 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is nothing to stop you from improving this article while it is listed as afd, if you have improvements I would encourage you to make them. --Paul E. Ester 23:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original tag placer, it seems clear that as of today, enough notability has been established -- facts that did not exist when the tag was originally applied (no results appears in google, no sources were listed in the article, etc. -- all very good reasons to list as afd). Now that creditibility has been established, the afd tag can probably be removed -- now that verifiable sources have been added to the article (a critical gap in the original writing IMHO). --CPAScott 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakstone, White-Lief & Gluck, P.C.[edit]

Delete an extremely NN law firm. There are thousands of law firms in this country. A tremendous number are bigger than this one. On WP we have articles only for a couple dozen biggest ones. This has to fail WP:CORP. Finally, it's promotional. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reasons above. CPAScott 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Avi 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a fairly standard torts firm. Notability not shown. Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a specialist law firm and one with some high-profile members. That is an assertion of notability. I agree that the majority of law firms are non-notable, but often a law firm's involvement in a high-profile case or "hot" area of the law makes it notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. --Metropolitan90 02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looking at articles online, it seems to be a small firm of ambulance chasers (literally - one of their biggest malpractice cases involved an ambulance firm). They have had a few large settlements, but it doesn't look like they have gotten much notice outside of the Massachusetts bar. Their practice appears to be solely in Massachusetts. --Brianyoumans 04:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul mendez[edit]

This may be a bio; or may be from another language. I'm questioning whether Mr. Mendez is significant enough to warrant and entry. If so, the article is in need of wikification, and cleanup for style, grammar, and format. CPAScott 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:V . I think it's a joke, down to the broken English and the highly improbable multilingual full name. Google fails to find any notable guitarist or cellist of that name. Fan-1967 18:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967. Unverifiable and I suspect a WP:HOAX. Scorpiondollprincess 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, article content is not verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdraw of nom. SynergeticMaggot 05:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


At The Zoo[edit]

Copyvio, so I listed with prod, was removed without explanation i kan reed 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Simon and Garfunkel are popular enough that I don't see a problem with having an article on one of their songs; there are many songs with their own Wikipedia page. Someone should remove most of the lyrics - in fact, I think I will do that myself in just a minute - and try to persuade the author not to put them back. I don't think the problem is the existence of the article, I think the problem is the copyvio. --Brianyoumans 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since the copyvio, which was the main portion of the article before, has been removed, I'd like to writhdraw my nomination. I beleive that since all votes are now keep, and i've withdrawn, that makes this a potential Speedy Keep. --i kan reed 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speddy Keep Nominator has withdrawn nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgelord (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. The copyvio has been removed. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet FA[edit]

An as-yet-unreleased film (supposedly set to be released in late 2006 or in early 2007, depending on which of the author's pages you're reading; Mullet Apocalypse and Awesomely Awesome Productions are the other pages) by a non-noteworthy production company established by a group of recent film school graduates. At best crystal-ballism. Probably also a vanity article, as the author's user ID bears a strong resemblance to the name of a co-director and star. The prod was contested, so I'm listing it here. Shimeru 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation ManPower[edit]

Ad for non-notable job directory site, no claim per WP:WEB, Alexa rank 2,325,247, has a total of seven jobs listed at this time. Deprodded. Weregerbil 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Reference Guide[edit]

NN website fails WP:WEB, similar in nature to a recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doctor Who Ratings Guide. Tim! 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of the Punisher[edit]

Not notable, in-universe, uncited fancruft. My request for citations on the talk page has gone unanswered for months. I have a sneaking suspicion that much of this information may come from one source (like the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, or a one-shot comic) and may be copyright infringement. --Newt ΨΦ 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed loop relationship[edit]

Neologism, between 14 - 30 relevant Google hits. Deprodded. Accurizer 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neo/protologism, and smacks of original research. I was initial prodder. -- Merope 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yup, WP:OR and neo indeed. Themindset 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources. The only sources that I can find are the web site mentioned in the article and a New York Times article published on 2006-08-03, i.e. the day before yesterday. The NYT article only discusses the concept in relation to comments made by the author of the web site. There's an occurrence of "closed loop" in Michael Gallardo (2005-10-17). "When the Head Is Separated from the Body". Journal of Bisexuality. 5 (2/3): 131–138. ISSN 1529-9716., but the abstract doesn't tell us whether this is relevant or not. There is one other source that describes a closed-loop relationship as simply synonymous with polyfidelity, not as this article describes it, but that source includes a lot of slang.

    This is a concept that has apparently, from what I can find, not yet gained traction in the rest of the world outside of its creator and promoter. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article needs to be expanded and made more meaty. If something is mentioned and discussed in an academic journal, we cannot classify it a neologism. The article in question goes into more detail about the relationships and their impact. We should not use google as a tool for deciding whether or not knowledge is encyclopaedic, and those who would delete this page should at least go through the trouble of reading the issue of the journal in question. CaveatLectorTalk 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What academic journal is it mentioned and discussed in? Neither you nor the article have cited one. Are you being confused by the fact that I found a mere occurrence of the phrase "closed loop" in a journal article? That doesn't mean that the article is even about this subject. Uncle G 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Forgive me, but I felt I had seen the citation from the Journal of Bisexuality in the article itself. However, its in your comments. It's rather interesting, because the paragraph that consists of the article here is actually directly lifted from the article. We should insert the citation note accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaveatLector (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05 21:21:46
        • Actually, the text is directly lifted from the description of the Yahoo! Groups group, that appears to be directly associated with the web site mentioned above, rather than independent of it. Uncle G 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the Yahoo! Groups text would therefore be lifted from the article from the Journal of Bisexuality, considering that I actually took the time to go and read the article. Perhaps you should do that as well before continuing this discussion. CaveatLectorTalk 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable bio by William M. Connolley. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hillier[edit]

Non-notable bio. Creator of article is Benhi uk, whose other contributions include creating an article about the magazine of which Mr Hillier is the editor and thus possibly a vanity article. Speedy delete and prod tags removed by users who contributed only to remove said tags. -- Merope 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Mr Hillier I don't think hits the bar of notability, tho at least one external source refers to his magazine, so that may be notable. Maybe redirect him to it. Syrthiss 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not believe this to be a vanity article. Collecticus is a UK magazine with a national circulation, and hundreds of thousands of copies have been sold since it began. This is simply a brief overview of who Ben Hillier is, so anyone interested in the magazine can find out a little more about the editor, and obviously this page is likely to grow over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.247.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:BIO WP:VAIN WP:NOT - I have restored the Speedy tags - its for an admin to remove them. --Spartaz 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Syrthiss with the reason "csd g1 nonsense". - Bobet 21:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotfoo[edit]

Prod removed with no explanation, non-notable neologism. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Rklawton 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know...it's not really nonsense, and it does seem to have a (very small) cult following. Nonetheless, it's still not notable. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think having a (very) small following disqualifies something from being utter nonsense. Try this: copy and paste your next typographical error into Google and see if it, too, has a small "flollowing." (mine had 577 Google hits). Rklawton 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Jansen[edit]

Not noteworthy per WP:BIO. Also WP:VAIN. Prod was deleted by original author without comment. Shimeru 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Spam, spam and more spam. 216 Ghits for a direct marketer, how much more non-notable can you get. And no, I don't like this article in case you're wondering. Dlyons493 Talk 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. --JoanneB 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per nominator. WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox. WP:AUTO note that her article is created under her pseudonym of Sistergoldenhair, and is her only contribution. Ohconfucius 08:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio by William M. Connolley. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circlism[edit]

Not for things made up in school one day, or alternatively WP:NOR i kan reed 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Powder[edit]

Potentially insignificant. Neither the film nor any of the participants appear on such catalogs as IMDB. Perhaps a student film? CPAScott 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V. Either student film or totally off-the-map indy. Only relevant weblink I can find is this myspace page. -- Fan-1967 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - part of a walled garden related to David Sowden and Pie Productions. Non-notable per CPAScott and Fan-1967. — ERcheck (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic stereotypes in American media[edit]

This page has been made obsolete by the existence of Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Jews, Stereotypes of Native Americans and Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs. That said, all of the reasons stated in the previous nomination for deletion still apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethnic_stereotypes_in_American_media. It's to be hoped that dividing the article will get to the root of the problem. ShadowyCabal 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep So that means that a person searching for a compilation of stereotypes has to go through all those pages? I believe the main page is still useful. And "Stereotypes of Jews" is redlinked. Also, I'm not sure which policy the deletion is supposed to go under. --ColourBurst 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm concerned about the verifiability of the content and conclusions in this article. For example, it's not difficult to verify that a particular character is Asian, but it is very difficult to verify objectively that they are portraying a stereotype. Indeed, the article just about covers every personality that an Asian woman could be. If this article is permitted to stay, then Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be cited for every claim that a character is portrayed stereotypically. -AED 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per ColourBurst. The article should link to the subsidiary articles using the {{main}} template. FYI, I believe Stereotypes of Jews was deleted. I believe I participated on the losing (Keep) side of that AfD discussion. --Richard 07:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per User:ShadowyCaballero--Dark Tichondrias 12:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because of the creations of those various articles, this particular article should change direction and talk about ethnic stereotypes in American media in general, without going in depth into the stereotypes for each ethnic group, and linking to those other articles that were split off. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We should keep this article to discuss the phenomenon of ethnic stereotyping in American media in general. That intro paragraph doesn't really belong in any of the off-shoot articles, so it needs to stay here. I created the other articles to deal with article length and focus, not to eliminate this main article. At the very very least it'd serve as a useful page to consolidate all the off-shoot links for convenient navigation (also because the off-shoot articles don't come up in search for some reason). Furthermore, as others have pointed out, stereotypes of Jews was deleted (people took it the wrong way out of context), and there is no page for "Mixed" ethnicity stereotypes; this page would be a good umbrella page to give a good overview and cover any and all groups that don't have enough content to warrant their own pages yet. --Drenched 03:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AED, it's obsolete at the very least. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep blackdragon6
  • Strong keep per ColourBurst -- [[User:Selmo]] 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is very informative and i don't think it should be deleted. I haven't heard one worthwile justification for it's deletion. - Majik43
It's mostly that the artcle is based on loose impressions of stereotypes, and lends itself to bias. There have been THOUSANDS of destinct representations of African Americans. Who can decide which of them are stereotypes? There is no authority on this matter. It's purely subjective. Yes, there has been plenty of scholarly work on the subject, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective. This article will never be definitive enough for wikipedia. A stereotype is an oversimplified representation, this article is filled with contributors that claim to know the difference between a representation thats "overly simple" and one thats "realistic". I'm saying its impossible to distinguish those two objectively. Its a matter of taste. ShadowyCabal 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is not obsolete, Stewie Griffin still links to it to talk about stereotypes of the British. Even if there were subpages for every race imaginable, I see no reason why this can't stay as the master article. I also see this has a few references and other verifiable material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NPOV, is a soapbox, and advocacy. The article is still filled with sweeping generalizations which appear entirely to be original research. Despite sweeping claims the article is "needed", "useful", and "not obsolete", none of these noms address questions of WP policy and guidelines. Tychocat 08:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NPOV by itself is not a reason to delete. There is a lot of material on stereotyping in the media out there. Unfortunately for such a large (and probably neglected as people keep adding in their own opinions of stereotypes) article it'll take quite a bit of time to fix (Drenched's splitting of the articles is just a start). If you believe the articles are NPOV, tag them with NPOV and steps should be taken to start fixing. (For example, the Stereotypes of Asians section above is very well-sourced.) ColourBurst 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though this article does contain original research and unverified claims that need to be addressed, it also contains a lot of published legitimate research too. Even if you choose to disregard arguments that this article is "needed", "useful" and "not obsolete," it still stands that it contains published, statistical, factual information regarding media trends in America in addition to academically acknowledged ideas and theories regarding ethnic stereotyping. Therefore, weeding is needed, not indescriminate deletion of all contents. --Drenched 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. The article can't give examples of stereotypes, but it can list research and scholarly work. - ShadowyCabal 06:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Motors (Taxi) Company Limited[edit]

Non-notable. Zero independent Google hits here. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. TerriersFan 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Hiranandani[edit]

This article is completely plagiarized/directly copied from his hospital biography. Also, the doctor does not seem distinguished enough to warrent a wikipedia article. Regardless, the article needs to be completely rewritten. St.isaac 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - I respectfully disagree. There are numerous sources, including his biography from various sources and numerous media reports which cite him as a prominent surgeon. His name is well known and reputed among the otolaryngology community certainly in India, and globally. His passing was reported for days and carried on the cover of every Indian Newspaper published in every language, and made the top headline on all TV and Radio news reports in Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, and other Indian metropolis'.--Johngalt1234 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His murder was covered in the Indian media. He was not a famous doctor but after his murder was well known. Also he is related to the Hirannadani Family which is involved in Real estate. The article does need to be cleaned up though.--Ageo020 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I beleve that the media reported it as a suicide, not a murder, but in any case, the rest of the above two comments make sense. He does seem to have prominence in Mumbai social circles, seems to be well known in academic medical circles prior to this incident, but the prominence comes from being part of a well known construction family, being the son of another prominent surgeon and politically connected individual, and from the circumstances of his death. I agree, the article should be reorganized and cleaned up a bit.--72.225.10.219 03:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a copyvio, tag it as a copyvio and rewrite it. I think he's notable enough to pass. --ColourBurst 03:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered World[edit]

Contested prod. Collection of self-published stories that started as Usenet news postings and have since migrated to a website. A Google search finds no indication of any reliable sources to meet verifiability requirements.[60] --Allen3 talk 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google groups search on soc.history.what-if shattered world returns the posts from 1999 that were referred to in the article. soc.history.what-if shattered world search results. The web page and online communities referred to are linked in the article. --CypherLH 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, those aren't reliable sources. Where are the magazine and newspaper articles? The (published) books written about them? There aren't any. you say? Hmm... Recury 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with verified sources, I don't think these stories reach encyclopedic notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A search for shattered world in google returns the current version of the shattered world website as well as a link to a previous verison of the site. Also, Shattered World is referenced in Wikipedia's article on online alternate histories and a search of the history on this article will verify that Shattered World has been a significant part of the online alternate history community for years. Perhaps I am failing to understand what part of the article is being challenged. The usenet posts referred to do exist and were posted in 1999, as the google groups search above verifies. Shattered World is ranked #1 and #2 when searched for on google. With regards to notability, perhaps I am unclear on what rises to the level of notability to warrant an article. Shattered World is already referenced in the online alternate histories article so it was my assumption that a more detailed entry was warranted, perhaps I was mistaken — Preceding unsigned comment added by CypherLH (talk • contribs)

The part of the article being challenged by the nomination is the article's ability to be verified by reliable sources. Bulletin boards, Usenet, wikis, or messages left on blogs are generally not accepted as reliable as there is usually no editorial control and accurate determination of a posting's true author is often not possible. Lack of reliable sources may also suggest the article is being used to promote the article's subject in an effort to achieve notability. --Allen3 talk 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Shattered World is certainly not "mainstream" in any sense but it does have an active community of 100+ fans and the website does exist and it does show up as #1 and #2 on a google search for 'shattered world'. I thought the point of this whole thing is that even obscure topics can be documented, though I am new to this and admit that my understanding may simply be flawed. In regards to the issue of the usenet posts, I see your point that there is no independent way to verify the direct relationship between them and the website. I will remove that sentence from the article.--CypherLH 22:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just read Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Shattered World does not appear to meet the criteria described in there. I believe the criteria are a bit too stringent and kill some of the spirit of Wiki in my opinion but I assume they were arrived at only after a consensus was reached so I'm certainly in no position to argue the point.--CypherLH 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet generation[edit]

Internet created long before this generation, thus not Internet generation, not factual, already covered by Generation Y (more reasons). Also, prod removed without explanation by someone using an IP address (70.124.132.176) with many complaints of vandalism on his/her talk page. That person has also been temporarily blocked before. The user that removed the prod notice also tried to remove the information on Generation Y that showed how this age group was already covered by another generation (see revisions). -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, article cites sources for the use of this term. I don't think the article is claiming that the Internet didn't exist until then, just that Internet use hadn't entered the mainstream until then. Recury 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It "refers to a group of people who spent their formative years in an age of the birth and rise of the Internet." The media isn't restricted to one silly, arbitrary grouping of people as a "generation." They can do as many as they want. Recury 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know that it doesn't have to be limited ot one, but it doesn't seem like this is very much in use, especially since there is already the Generation Y. Could you explain why, other than one article using the phrase "Internet generation" in its title 1 this is at all noteable? There's also the question of the titles that don't have sources (such as the "MyPod Generation". It seems as though this article is just a sterotype made by a few media outlets about the fact that children grew up with the Internet at this period in time. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the generation described is in fact the first one to have the internet as a common experience. When the internet was created physically is not relevant. Also, the article's cited. Gazpacho 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Computerjoe's talk 21:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am writing an article on Internet generational differences and found the references in this article very useful. I would not have thought to search under 'generation Y' for my purposes, but this article exactly fit the bill. Generation Y does not have the same connotations of Internet use. My general view is that if there is a cultural concept that some people (media, others) refer to as the 'Internet Generation', there should be definitions of it available. The term exists; it is used. If it shouldn't be defined on Wikipedia, where should it be defined? A Google search on 'Internet generation' turns up many business sites--there needs to be a broader perspective on the concept than this, and Wikipedia seems like the place for it. I'm glad I found this entry, and I hope it is not deleted. -- Susan Herring, 1:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If it isn't going to be deleted could we at least remove the information about the "MySpace" generation and other "alternative" generations? They seem pretty unnecessary and sterotypical of children from "the Internet generation" (thus not NPOV). If we were to remove all of that I would be fine with keeping it I guess. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Based on alex's last comment, I suggest that he merge useful material to Generation Y and then redirect. Gazpacho 01:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I didn't write the "Load of Crap" thing incase you thought I did without noticing that Boochan wrote it. It's hard for me to tell if you're being sarcastic about merging it, especially since I'm really tired right now. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 03:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sarcasm. Sorry about the misreading. Gazpacho 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An illigitimate demographic term promoted by the use of trademarked products --Mincetro 06:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment None fo the references on the article pages are actual publications, just sparing website articles. This is completely original research --Mincetro 06:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No basis for anything that is written there...who exactly adopted that this time period is the "Internet Generation", I hadn't even heard of it untill now and I was born in 88. Delete it enough said! Insaneassassin247 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this should be kept seperate from Generation Y, they are not one in the same..as the Internet Generation only includes a segment of the Generation Y inclusion (those in their early and mid-20s, and teens as of 2006). I don't think there's any such thing as an "illigitimate" demographic term, If the term is being used and is even worth discussing, then it is worth keeping especially for research.
  • Keep I admit this article needs some work doing to it, but it's definitely worth keeping. Korinkami 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons as proposal creator. Julz
  • Strong Keep it is a sub-generation worthy of its own article. There is still so much to add to this article if given the chance. Piecraft 23:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene R. Taylor[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; crystal ball, possibly WP:VAIN. Speedy delete and prod removed by author. -- Merope 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcher[edit]

Dictionary definition. Prod was deleted without comment. Shimeru 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this entry. A welcher, or a Freddy Shoop, is a person who makes a bet without the intentions of paying. Why not keep this entry?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoopaholic (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, because it is just a dictionary definition and this is an encyclopedia. If you can rewrite it into an encyclopedia article, that might help. It would be tough on a topic like this though. Recury 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. Will re-write it right now. Encyclopedia style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoopaholic (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as dicdef. Wiktionary already covers this word. Whatever anyone was planning to rewrite, send it to Wiktionary instead (and include how this word is considered offensive to the Welsh, which Wiktionary doesn't adequately explain yet). --Metropolitan90 02:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THIS ENTRY. It makes perfect sense. now you know this! viva la fiesta. Welchers are bad, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.255.228 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete definitions. including etymology, belong in dictionaries, not encyclopedias.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gongchop[edit]

Protologism that fails WP:V with no WP:RS. Article was {{prod}}ded [61] and removed w/o comment or explanation [62]. Full disclosure: I am the contributor who originally {{prod}}ded article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeesh. Delete. -- Kicking222 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a strategically-placed blow to the neck thus incapacitating the article. fuzzy510 07:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete # g-hits, including this article. :) Dlohcierekim 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isla del Caño[edit]

Vandalism/hoax. Shimeru 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withdrawn, I jumped the gun. Shimeru 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What in this looks like a hoax to you? Michael 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giant child-eating beetles the size of a school bus. Shimeru 20:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. If the nom would have bothered to check, he would see that this article about a real island was vandalised last week. Instead of nominating for CSD (which he originally did) and now for AfD, you can just clean up the vandalism (which I just did). We are not going to delete every article that has been vandalised, Shimeru. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. What remains looks reasonable, and matches what I found at this travel site. -- Fan-1967 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Michael 21:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Boone[edit]

Page history reveals that a db-bio was removed, then was prod with prod2 so now afd, nn notable, fails google hits, fails WP:MUSIC, no releases no Alexa traffic on linked website [63]-- Dakota 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator.--Dakota 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails every part of WP:MUSIC, no releases on any labels indie or otherwise, no national tour, and no mention of the artist or reviews of her work that I can find. Presently not a notable artist. DrunkenSmurf 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without checking further, I suspect fails WP:MUSIC based on she recorded, "her forth-coming album in the back of her van, which will be a self-release in August, 2006." Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer pranks[edit]

Oh my. Probably the most uncited list on Wikipedia; replete with everybody's favourite funny thing which by some stretch of the word prank and by virtue of being accessible by computer might be described as a computer prank. Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been attempts tidy up the article [64] that seem be reverted constantly by varying IPs, but nonetheless it does appear to be just an uncyclopedic list of links. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, so I say delete. Cowman109Talk 21:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:NOT a link repository and WP:NFT. Gazpacho 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have reverted back to the cleanedup version. This has fewer links and better categorisation. BlueValour 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While the cleaned up version is indeed part of an effort to make the page more usable and less cluttered with external links, it does still appear to be a respository of links while WP:NOT states that is exactly what Wikipedia is not. It should probably be noted that this page is also a fork from Computer prank as the list there was cluttering the page too much (possibly a reason for inclusion). This could be a borderline case, though, as by its very nature a page such as this would end up being a repository of links. Cowman109Talk 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My biggest problem here is the lack of any cited sources explicitly describing these as computer pranks. I think we should have a few of the most prominent and well-defined examples in the article on computer prank and leave it at that. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably be best, assuming that the information about the pranks was published by an external source somewhere to confirm its notability. Cowman109Talk 06:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What external source? Who would go to the trouble of publishing anything on computer pranks, except for an encyclopedia like us? The only decent guideline for notablility is the ABS collection. Λυδαcιτγ 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's just it - there would need to be some sort of way to determine which pranks were notable and which werent. If there isn't one, then perhaps many of these are not well known and are simply non notable, as Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. There wouldn't be a good way to keep people from simply advertising pranks they made. Cowman109Talk 04:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: contents seems entirely WP:OR - the judgement about what should be included is not backed by published sources. Stephen B Streater 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: List is fundamentally WP:OR. No content meets WP:V. For that matter, the parent article is unsourced as well, containing only one external link that does not appear to be a reliable source. Serpent's Choice 09:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looks like a good article to me and isnt as sloppy as before. Johhny-turbo 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: as glad as I am to have this complete list all in one place (and I was wondering whose face that was in the "Say it" prank, so it's Linda Blair), I must admit that it does appear to be a repository of links, and as has been said before, that's not what Wikipedia is for. However, there are many other such lists on Wikipedia of examples pertaining to a specific article, and I'm not sure how different from those this can be considered, even given that it's a bunch of links. This was first put on a separate page from the main article on "computer pranks" because the complete list was cluttering up the page too much, and by its very nature, a page such as this is fundamentally supposed to be a repository of links anyway. Oh, and I'm not sure how much good it would do to have a section describing why these are classified as pranks, given that the original parent article on computer pranks explains that already. Are we supposed to copy even more material from the parent article and paste it into here, just to keep this page from being classified as WP:OR? I'm not sure what the point of that would be. Of course, on the other side, what else would citations be for on this page? What exactly are we supposed to cite? I don't know if it should be deleted or if it just needs work, but I can't deny that it is a list of examples of something with it's own page, and that has been done before. For instance, if this page is deleted, then why not go back further delete the entire page on Internet Memes, and all the articles that it is parent too? Maybe I'm just not savvy enough to understand the difference, but I don't see how that page is much further away from WP:OR than this is. --Sylocat 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Sylocat
    The issue appears to be that people at any time can simply add a simple prank that was made up someday, so the list inevitably grows larger and larger. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a repository of links, however, and if anything, perhaps only a few examples of notable pranks could be mentioned on the parent article. Cowman109Talk 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been checking additions to the list for notability and removing obviously non-notable ones such as you describe (example). I can promise you that the list will not become bloated like it was before. Λυδαcιτγ 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting to read, and useful as a counterpart to Computer prank. Whereas some readers may want to get a general overview from the main article, others are interested in delving deeper into these pranks, and will find a table-formatted list an excellent way to do so. I plead WP:IAR: this article serves a good purpose, and cannot possibly be created according to policy (WP:OR and WP:V) since to my knowledge there are no secondary sources related to computer pranks. In this case, the policies hinder us from developing an encyclopedia, so from a utilitarian point of view the maximally productive option is to ignore them. Here's a quote from an earlier version of WP:IAR which I found helpful: "Ignoring all rules is about cutting through red tape to construct an encyclopedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Some actions may be reasonable, even if they might be against a strict interpretation of a certain rule." Λυδαcιτγ 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two separate arguments are going on here. First, does the need for an article on this subject trump the lack of secondary sources? If not, both articles must go - neither has any real secondary sources, and the main article suffers from the same verifiability problems as this fork. The second argument, and the one that I think should be addressed by this AfD is whether this article is useful as a fork of Computer prank. I'm arguing that if Computer prank stays, this should too. Λυδαcιτγ
  • Keep as a valid fork of the computer pranks article. We need forks to help keep main articles from being unwieldly and unfocused. The curious reader can then move to a list to see the breadth of the subject matter. It is in this precise manner that this list has value and without it the computer pranks article is weaker.Agne 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not - it's largely a collection of things which are not verifiably significant so got kicked out of that article. If WP:NOT a web directory, how is it a directory of (often harmful) prank websites? Just zis Guy you know? 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 04:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TorahLab[edit]

Spam, tagged as advert for over two weeks and no effort made to clean up Nuttah68 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Farrar (blogger)[edit]

David Farrar is well known among the political community in New Zealand, largely as a result of his popular Kiwiblog. Yet there's nothing in this article that indicates that he's actually notable by wikipedia biographical standards. Tell me to get back to work! 22:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Tell me to get back to work! 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , previous an article about his blog Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwiblog was deleted. His blog is fairly popular but not in the top few hundred in the world. Other activities don't really merit an article. If article is kept I sugget a name change to David Farrar (New Zealand) - SimonLyall 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. DPF may run one of the top blogs in NZ, but he himself is not notable. Any relevant material should be moved to New Zealand blogosphere. Furthermore, reads like a bit of a hagiography at the moment, with no mention of controversies etc that he has been involved in. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above.-gadfium 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite I don't mind expanding this article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I admit it is something of a hagiography at the moment. --Lholden 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep if LHolden is prepared to expand/ edit. Brian | (Talk) 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal entry is not necessary, agree that relevant information can be moved to New Zealand blogosphere. Non-blog actvities do not justify entry. -- InSpace 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Farrar's blog is extremely popular in New Zealand, and he is frequently interviewed in the media for his NZ Internet-related activities. There are a LOT of entries that should be removed before this one, and I suspect those calling for his removal are more politically motivated than anything else. Maybe the entry should be expanded to include more of his Internet management activities, but either way, there's absolutely no way it should be removed. --203.109.242.148 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment see http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/08/notable_or_not.html. May attract trolling. --222.153.188.85 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google has 81,600 results for "David Farrar" + kiwiblog, surely enough to justify notability. Farrar is frequently quoted or interviewed in the media and he runs a very successful and popular blog - there are many less notable people with Wikipedia articles about them. Amygdala 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Name Change One of the most notable bloggers in New Zealand, has been nominated for various blogging awards, has one of the largest local readerships in New Zealand. To reiterate comments above, if Farrar isn't notable, neither are many other NZ based bio entries. As per Simon Lyall's suggestion perhaps a change to David Farrar (New Zealand) might be in order, so some of his other activities might be included --noizyboy 02:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBut it would be good if someone could establish criteria for notability as a blog host - like number of hits maybe, or TTLB ranking as was suggested on NZ Blogosphere talk [66] User:A.J.Chesswas
  • Delete David is a nice and knowledgable guy, but he is not notable. He runs a very popular blog, and that is the extent of his notability. Indeed I would go so far as to say that few outside blog/media circles (including a few names above) would have heard of him Ham21 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kiwiblog is a very popular blog. Mero99 04:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this guy is notable and verifiable. --Myles Long 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a result of the rewrite by LHolden, the person seems sufficiently notable. RFerreira 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Kaye Tardif[edit]

Vanity article and non-notable subject matter ←ΣcoPhreek→ 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holdon I am willing to hold off until the article can be reviewed and the arthor worked with to improve more if needed.
Keep The author has addressed my concerns, the article is now a decent article I believe.←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic entry for non-notable consisting of little more than copy-and-paste from the author's personal website. Books issued by vanity publisher.--Victoriagirl 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No longer in violation of NPOV. Recommend a clean-up following WP:MOS (in particular WP:MOSBIO and WP:MOS-T).Victoriagirl 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete books with Trafford on-demand publishing service Dlyons493 Talk 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT DELETE. This page has been edited and amended, compared with other author pages on Wiki and anything that could be construed as advertising has been removed. All quotes have been sourced. Removing references to books published by Trafford or ANY company, whether self-published or not, is completely biased and unreasonable. This author's books are available in bookstores and online through Amazon, B&N etc, and she is traditionally published as well in book form and in newspapers and magazines. (Cherylktardif 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete or serious re-write Noted that deletion is opposed by subject/author. Article asserts notability enough, but Written by the subject and her #1 fan, falls foul of WP:AUTO. Written in a style and containing speculative (future) events, Definitely WP:VAIN.Her job/company is to publicise authors. Wiki is not a vehicle for marketing publicty. Ohconfucius 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was written by the author and someone who offered to help on Wikipedia. Her #1 fan did not have anything to do with writing or editing it and has never appeared on Wikipedia in any way. Please give examples of 'speculative future events', Ohconfucious. If you are referring to the screenplay; it is well-documented on outside sources that a screenplay went to a leading film producer for consideration as a possible movie. If you're referring to unpublished or upcoming releases, they were referenced from the author's site and books, Stephen King's page has a lengthy list of unpublished work referenced from a book. And thank you for noting that I oppose the deletion. I've worked very hard on cleaning up this article, and yes, I do promote other authors on 2 websites, not on Wiki.(Cherylktardif 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
maintain delete It's not personal. most of the effort has clearly come from you by your own admission, I suggest you moved it to your own talk page Ohconfucius 02:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed it's copyvio from [67] Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, Ms. Tardif should be advised that Wikipedia's neutrality policy forbids writing about yourself on here, except to correct factual errors. But at the same time, she's certainly notable enough, IMO; I don't even read mystery novels and I've heard of her. Cleanup anything that's too much of a POV and/or copyvio issue, but keep. Bearcat 09:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, Dlyons493, I don't think CP is a great issue here. You can't plagiarise yourself. Ohconfucius
The article has again been re-edited, citations have been added and upcoming releases have been deleted. (Cherylktardif 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I've twice changed my opinion as to whether there should be an article on Ms Tardif. Those who care to visit my talk page will see that I was initially in favour, but then changed my mind. The good work of a variety of people has led me to believe that an article on Ms Tardif is indeed warranted. That said, my vote to delete still stands as I find this particular article continues to include elements of self-promotion. For example, her 2004 nomination for the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award sounds impressive, but a visit to the website tells us that "Any Albertan or Alberta-based organization may nominate a person for a Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award". [68] I very much doubt an impartial observer would have thought such a nomination worthy of mention. Had she made the short-list, as had Douglas Cardinal and John Murrell, among others, I would think differently. Furthermore, several claims made in the article, as it stands, are unverifiable. That Ms Tardif "graduated with Highest Honors" from a correspondence school is just one example. I must add that I assume good faith, and see these two examples as nothing more than typical problems associated with autobiographical entries as discussed in WP:AUTO. Again, I recognize that a great effort has been made to bring the article into line with Wikipedia policies, but I can't in good conscience say that it is there (yet). Victoriagirl 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any award or nomination for award is worthy of mentioning. That's why authors mention shortlisted titles and nominations. There are many that are open to nominations from their province. How do you think people GET nominated? Also, shortlisted and nominated is the basically the same thing in the writing field and holds the same status--every professional writer knows that. And in both cases, someone (other than the writer) has to believe that person is worthy of being nominated. I was nominated by a fan of my first novel. She emailed me AFTER she nominated me. This nomination is for excellence in the arts in my province and is highly respected; it is better than being shortlisted for almost any contest, which only judges 1 work. Victoriagirl, you cannot possibly expect every statement to be backed up by a citation. That is impossible, for any writer. And it would mean that a large % of the content here on Wikipedia is unverified. I DID graduate with Highest Honors. Call ICS. That is how it can be verified. They do not release that information in a book or on the internet. Victoriagirl's requests for changes have gone from warranted (which I've addressed) to picky and on to ridiculous. And initially VG was not in favor of my article because it was far different than it is now and she flagged it as advertising.(Cherylktardif 23:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Risking further accusations that I am being picky or ridiculous, I offer following. A nomination is not the same as being short-listed, though the two terms are often used interchangeably (and I will admit my own guilt in this matter). To use one example, nominating a book for the Giller requires nothing more than submitting the book along with a cheque to the organization - a process covered in Stephen Henighan's When Words Deny the World (Erin, Ont.: Porcupine's Quill, 2002). Thus, it is the short-list that receives attention, not the rather long list of nominees. So, I must disagree that each and every award nomination is worthy of mention. In the specific case of the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award, the bar is so low as to make the mere nomination not worthy of note. As I stated previously, a nomination may be placed by any Albertan or Alberta-based organization. [69] The criteria the nominee must meet is also quite loose in that he or she must be “a Canadian citizen; a person whose achievement or contribution has benefited the arts in Alberta; A resident of Alberta or, if not now a resident, someone who has had a significant connection to the province over time; be willing to accept the award.” [70] While I won’t speculate as to the number of nominees generated by such a process, I can’t help but note that the awards website doesn’t provide a list.
Concerning verifiability, while I don’t expect every statement to be backed up by a citation, I do believe that “Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.” These are not my words – these are Wikipedia’s policies as laid out in WP:VERIFY. Assuming good will, I don’t doubt for a moment that Ms Tardif graduated with Highest Honors from the correspondence school. I was using this claim as typical of the problems associated with autobiographical entries. It is an assertion that simply cannot be verified.
One final point, it is stated above that I was initially not in favour of an entry dealing with Ms Tardif. Anyone who cares to investigate will see that this isn’t true. My first - and only - edit to the article was the placement of an advert tag; quite obviously I was asking tat the article be cleaned up, rather than deleted. A visitor to my talk page will see that in my first discussion on the issue I was in favour of a Wikipedia article on Ms Tardif. In fact, I am still in favour, but cannot vote for this particular article.Victoriagirl 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: rather ho-hum - not quite encyclopaedia-worthy. Please note that claiming 'highest honors' (whatever they may be) from a correspondence school is only liable to render you subject to discreet sniggering from readers.

  • Keep the exciting new novel published by --Cloveious 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Note that CKT seems to be making a serious effort in tidying up her bio. Sorry to learn about her brother, but that fact does not increase notability one jot (unless she was somehow involved- I jest). The existence of her books can be verified easily enough, and I'm on the cusp of reconsidering my vote based on the rewrites. However, those quotes from reviewers and the planned future events still bug me. They remind me of one-line quotes you see on back covers to entice would-be readers, so not entirely NPOV yet. Ohconfucius 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote from The Edmonton Examiner irritates in that it does nothing to inform the work - unlike, say, that from Robert Thacker in the Alice Munro entry. What's more the sentence it is found in ("Whale Song is "A wise, enchanting story..." said The Edmonton Examiner, and it explores topics such as amnesia and suicide.") is badly coonstructed and confusing. Is it The Edmonton Examiner that says the novel explores topics such as amnesia and suicide, or is this a description provided by the entry writer? That said, I'm not so convinced that it goes against NPOV. I must disagree on the issue of future events. A visit to the Kunati website indicates that the book is indeed plannned for publication. Though this event is roughly half a year away, it is not that different than mentioning the forthcoming September publication of Alice Munro's new book.Victoriagirl 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see, all Ms Tardif's books are self published. Also as far as I can see, Kunati Book Publishers have not published any books [71] - they are a startup who hope to publish some next January. So until they publish her book this is crystal ball. Dlyons493 Talk
    • Comment: I'm ashamed to realize that Kunati have yet to publish their first book - I'd thought that their Spring catalogue dealt with last season. No wonder I'd never heard of them! Until they are on their feet and have proven themselves it would probably be best to delete references to the 2007 edition of Whale Song. At this point, they are untested and their reliability is unknown - stark contrast with Munro's publisher, which celebrates its centennary this year.Victoriagirl 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Sowden[edit]

Non-notable. One of a series of articles created relating to the subject and Pie Productions. — ERcheck (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Ransom[edit]

Non-notable. Part of a series of articles created related to Pie Productions and David Sowden. — ERcheck (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A 3 minute long indie production should probably win something before being Wikipedia worthy. "Best of the Rest" in the festival isn't enough. - Richfife 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not-notable. Hasn't been a movie that short worth remembering since Bambi Meets Godzilla. Fan-1967 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~200 g hits.  :) Dlohcierekim 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — ERcheck (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Malin[edit]

This page should be deleted as everything on it is nonsense. The first part reads: "Since Mike owns a bar you can bet the man is drinking heavily every night as his 15 minutes have come and gone. Mike was not well liked in the house and as a part of Chill town couldn't get the HOH to save his eviction. But don't fret little Mike grabbed seconds of air time to say goodbye to Krista. Why we don't know as I am sure Krista is back home with child far away from the Boogie man." The second part says: "Boogie got his nick-name from picking his nose all the time and what happened in the house, he picked and picked and picked that Boogie was once again revived. So if you live in the L.A. area you can always stop by the Belly Tapas Lounge and you may see the man in action. Mike Malin and Lonnie Moore are Co-owners of the bar and are ready for you to visit him. Mike has a long career as a misfit, making his way onto the Warner Brother lot to get pictures of Arnold as Mr. Freeze was his last such act. He ended up getting caught on private property, camera in sock, holding fake ID, and in possession of WB property. In the end he greed on a settlement and is never to near any WB property again. In otherwords he got off easy, and is glad those days are over. " The final part has incorrect info. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as what looks like an attack page. It's not nonsense in the sense that we use it here, but it's not an article which should be encouraged, either. BigHaz 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as attack page. Tagged as such. --DarkAudit 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Root[edit]

Article is about a professor involved in a controversy at Patrick Henry College earlier this year. I've met the guy myself and while he's a good guy, I don't see how he is notable enough for an article. I pointed this out on the article's talk page about a month ago, but I haven't seen anyone assert notability since then. Aplomado talk 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do these and similar news reports http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12034 http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12034] andhttp://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/patrickhenry.html establish notability? If not delete, fails WP:BIO Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 04:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per below then'  :) Dlohcierekim 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's safe to say that the college is notable, and possibly even that the debate is notable - both of which are what the above URLs are about. However, I fail to see any evidence why Dr. Root is significantly more notable than any other college professor. --Tim4christ17 04:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Medicine Club[edit]

Non-notable university club. — ERcheck (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Michiganfootball created the article. :) Dlohcierekim 15:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I'm sure it's important within the confines of the university, but not outside it as currently written. BigHaz 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails CSD:A7, non-notable club in any case. — NMChico24 02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May not even be that notable within the University. -AED 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have heard of the club. Its pretty big on campus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.182.159 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Pretty big......on campus. There's no evidence of notability here beyond the Ann Arbor campus. fuzzy510 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with all opposed delete above..  :) Dlohcierekim 15:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alianza Leadership Institute[edit]

non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG & WP:V. Ghits: [72]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chicago LinaMishima 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Largely a cut and paste job from http://www.alianza.ws/, the group's web page. Not Notable with 8 ghits. Looks like an attempt at self promotion. WP is not free advertising. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Dlohcierekim. Merging a minor civic organization into Chicago doesn't make much sense as there are probably thousands in a city its size.--Kchase T 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal fake day[edit]

Completely non-notable term. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day, or on livejournal one day. A grand total of 21 unique google hits [73] which was invented a whopping 3 days ago [74]. Crossmr 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Mdwh 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Interesting idea, but not interesting enough to be news-worthy. LinaMishima 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 12:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This phrase seems to be something made up by the creator of a not notable web page. The whole purpose of the article seems to be to direct traffic to that web page. Wikipedia is not free advertising.  :) Dlohcierekim 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, this can be mentioned in the Livejournal article if the subject gains any importance. Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense. Naconkantari 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meyuga Koji[edit]

Entirely fancruft, fan-created character The Splendiferous Gegiford 00:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_4&oldid=1081094531"