Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 8

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pants monters

Completely uninformative. Green caterpillar 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. So tagged. Fan-1967 22:43, 8 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

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

Pure Pwnage Clan

Pure Pwnage Clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

Why did this get deleted? the information is somewhat useful and is definately verifiable. It does not violate a copyright because the clan is approved by Kyle himself. I was going to add more information, but the article got deleted.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of automobiles that were commercial failures

This is basically the result of the deletion of the List of successful automobiles - see nomination/Afd page here. The reasoning/rationale is the same (see the above AfD), as those are corresponding articles, and I believe since the last decision was unusually unanimous and widely-supported, I think this should go smoothly too, so that everything remains logical and just. Bravada, talk - 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was previously nominated for deletion as List of automotive flops - the result of the previous discussion was "keep". I invite all interested users to acquaint themselves with it here. Please note that the mentioned reasons for keeping do not contradict the valid reasons for deletion raised here, and the reasons for deletion listed the last time have not been addressed by the edits made since that time (chiefly because they can't). The procedure is quite similar as with the corresponding List of successful automobiles, which was also deleted following the second nomination, when the discussion became more focused on specific deletion reasons. Bravada, talk - 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. list inherently subject and difficult to maintain. Ohconfucius 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is still not MotorWeek, and the list is mostly unsourced (WP:V, WP:OR). The only sourced items don't seem to fall under the reliable sources guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per sucessful automobiles...Mdcollins1984 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "comercial failures" is a very subjective term. Viridae^Talk 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although to my own surprise I found myself initially leaning to "Keep", at least in theory. As long as the criteria for inclusion are as strict as the title suggests (i.e., if it ended up losing money), then it's as deserving of survival as its polar opposite, which I managed to turn into an encyclopedic entry by tracking down verifiable sources. However, the problem is that in the real world, manufacturers' reticence to publicise their cock-ups will render this article inherently unverifiable, which obviously will violate WP:VERIFY. If someone wants to tackle this page, providing a reliable source for each so-called failure ~ and a reliable source means providing numbers, not a link to an automotive journalist using the word "flop" in his weekly column ~ then I'll reconsider my vote, but only if I can see evidence that verifiable info exists. --DeLarge 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are books on "the world's worst cars", though. [1] [2] [3] WP 11:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They are unfortunately as inherently POV as magazine columns, so they wouldn't serve too well as references. Bravada, talk - 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's becuase the words: "failure" and "worst" are pretty much by definition POV. That is why I would like to raise the possibility of a name change for this article-to something that can be referenced. Signature^brendel 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the style of the introduction sets a poor tone which continues through all the entries. As just a bland list I would have let it be.GraemeLeggett 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn. It is POV in most cases to say something is a failure, even if sourced. It would not be true to say that all the cars are failures, just seen by a specific person, group etc... as a failure. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Indeed it is non-neutral to say that some car is a failure, but it is perfectly neutral to say that a certain car has been called a failure. We can and should have "facts about opinions." But we need to indicate who, exactly, called them failures. And of course the editors would need to hash out which sources fairly represent a substantial body of opinion. Surely we would all agree that, whether or not the Edsel "was" a failure, many people certainly called it a failure... and it shouldn't be hard to cite someone who has called it that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - i still think it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - and this just falls short of any encyclopedic value as well as being very hard to keep NPOV.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, 'commercial failure' is hard to define precisely and enters into dangerous terriotirty. Many cars should have sold better than they did but were still commerically somewhat successful. To ambigious for me, I'm happy to see it gone. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating Comment Thank you for informing of the previous AfD results. Having read and considered them I still feel the article is ambigious (e.g. what qualifies a car as a commerical success?) and therefore leading onto dangerous territory. It is not for wikipedia to inform consumers as to what cars not to buy. Whilst that isn't the aim of the article it is a byproduct. Sorry, I still need a very good reason to change my vote. But thanks for brining that to my attention, I'm slightly worried I didn't notice it had an earlier AfD nomination... Must be tired. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Again to clarify my vote per the talk page: Firstly my basis for deletion is as follows: There are no set criteria that qualify a car as a commerical failure. It is an ambigious description to give a car. Some vehicles have terrible safety records, sold less than expected but still made profit...are they commerical failures? Is it sales profit alone that qualifies a car as a commercial failure? is it the safety record? is it how well it sold in the USA or how well it did globally? is it how the first models sold, how well subsequent designs sold or how the entire design as a whole sold. For example, some cars like the ford fiesta have gone through nearly 20 years of development, to the extent that the current fiestas are totally different (and incompatable) with the original design. Is it the technical performance specifications i.e how fast it can go?...the list is absolutely endless. Well, the answer is its probably all or most of those above things that qualify a car as a commercial failure. But where we draw the line is a totally subjective choice made by the editor, it can never be anything but that. Therefore the article is inherantly a POV farm. So in accordance with my above explanation it qualifies for deletion by breaching:

• WP:NOT Because wikipedia "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" As described above classifying a car as a commercial failure is inhertantly the editors own POV and so this article is effectively a list of bad car reviews. WP is NOT an online vehicular review database. If you want a car review - go to autotrader.com. The thing which really kills this article is - who would find it useful? Well its of no encyclpopedic use to anybody because its entirely subjective. I'm getting somewhat offput now of the jumping through hoops for this AfD. It seems pretty clear the consensus is for a delete. Please, there is no more need to change the voting criteria. (and I say that totally unbiased by that being my vote.)WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles. --Gray Porpoise 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles (second nomination). --Gray Porpoise 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the arguments from the article's previous AfD. I'm not changing my vote to delete, but another alternative would be to move the page to a title that states more specific guidelines (e.g. "List of automobiles that caused their manufacturer to lose money", "List of automobiles that sold less than x units", etc.).
    • Comment - it would require much more than moving, it would require effectively recreating the article according to a newly-set standard. As concerns your first proposition, it was already mentioned that it is very hard to establish what financial result the production of a given model had for the manufacturer. Even assuming we would in some mysterious way get hold of such information, a financial result of such a project can be presented differently depending on the accounting procedure employed (e.g. Chrysler in the 1970s did not account for development costs when appraising individual models' profitability)
      As concerns your other proposition, the list would be unbelievably long and very hard to keep completed, as an inexplicable number of automobiles were and are manufactured as one-offs or in short-series. Besides, it does not always equal a failure, many successful exclusive models are sold in small quantities, which are on the other hand sometimes even exceeding manufacturers' expectations. Bravada, talk - 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cassavau 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because of lack of any sources at all. Alternatively, move the unsourced entries to Talk—that is, all of them—effectively blanking the article, and require that new entries cite a source that describes the automobile using the word "failure." We could have a neutral, verifiable list of "automobiles that have been called failures," but due to failure to cite sources this isn't a useful beginning to such an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article has no coherent thesis. It contains only abstruse and arbitrary POV selections of undefinedly "unsuccessful" automobiles, consisting of one individual's subjective opinions, guesses and preferences—straight POV, as it seems. It might be marginally appropriate as a "top ten" blog même, but it is most unencyclopædic. As has been agreed, Wikipedia is not Motorweek. --Scheinwerfermann 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep From what I can see, this article presents a NPOV list of cars which could be considered unsuccessful, and the reason as to why that is. Note that all brands are represented, as per all brands having had flops. Someone above has said that 'commercial failures' is a subjective term. I would disagree with this. Something is a commercial failure if it has not made enough money - this seems like a simple enough thing to determine. Nevertheless, I would suggest that this article be changed to something like, "List of automobiles which are considered unsuccessful" or something along those lines. The article has also been described as difficult to maintain - I would disagree with that also. It seems to have a fairly comprehensive list of flops already, and they are not that common an occurence that more would need to be added on a regular basis. This sort of unusual article is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia great, but it needs to have sources added to it, rather than being deleted wholesale. Drett 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I wholeheartedly disagree. First of all, not all brands are represented, only a small fraction of them, and this list is perhaps "fairly comprehensive" only with regard to some automobiles sold in the United States in recent years. It is a "list of automobiles considered unsuccessful by somebody that the editors could think of" and it will inherently be one. Almost any vehicle can be considered unsuccessful in some aspect, and you would find the strangest arguments for that. For example, the original Ford Mustang could be labelled a success, but then some subsequent versions can be argued "not to have lived to expectations" and there you go, Ford Mustang is an unsuccessful vehicle. We do not (at least I hope) maintain a List of politicians described as fraud or stupid, which could be similarly pointless and infinite by definition. Such expressions of somebody else's POV do not belong in an encyclopedia either. Bravada, talk - 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Although I voted delete on the similar list of successful automobiles a day or two ago, I think this list has some potential. It looks like WP:OR right now; but if sources could be added, I would be willing to change to keep. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely POV article with original research. dposse 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This list has already survived AFD, why do another? Many people clearly like and support this page, and it harms no one. Many articles have been given sourced refernces by myself an others, but I have abanonded it for fear of deltetion by authors such the nominator here, who has not made it to my good guy list. Deletion guidelines don't even support any of the delete votes above, administrators please take note. --matador300 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - for the deletion guideline applicable, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed - the first bullet, WP:NOT. Apart from the fact that the article is inherently POV in this form and would have to be rebuilt from the ground up not to be, which is equal with it being deleted. It also serves as a bad precedent an example for other potential WP:NOT and WP:NPOV violating articles. Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unlike the former list this one is verifiable and NPOV if we stick to widely publicized failures, e.g. the Edsel, the Tucker. Gazpacho 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  To make the point, I went in and removed everything except the entries that have some significance outside the hobby (e.g. led to a publicized lawsuit, caused a whole company to fail, butt of comedy jokes) Gazpacho 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, the name should then be changed to "List of automobiles that had a publicized lawsuit, caused a whole company to fail, or became the butt of comedy jokes." Signature^brendel 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing that in such an illustrative way :D Is there anything more left to say? Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• "List of famous automobile failures" is a bit more manageable, don't you think? Gazpacho 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. Give a good, objective and indisputable definition of "famous" and "failure". Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although somewhat illustrative I agree with brendels assessment. One wouldn't for example write an essay about the domestic cat and call it "An essay on mammals", although that title is not essentially wrong as domestic cats are mammals, it is equally not correct as the essay is only about cats, not directly about mammals. 'A list of automotive commercial failures' isn't what the list shows. It cannot show a list of automotive commercial failures because there are no set criteria that qualify a car as a commerical failure. Therefore what it shows is "A list of cars deemed by various random sources to be considered commercial failures". Consider as well some cars are hugely successful in the States but utter failures in Europe and vise versa. This is way too ambigious for me, it represents a level of information wikipedia shouldn't be hosting as wikipedia is not a vehicular review website. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'm sorry-event though this article was created by respectable editors, the article currently does not cite sources and fails to deliver an at least somewhat objective definition of what a "commerical failure" is. This could hurt WP's credibility and I have put in too much effort into my article's here to let that happen. While, yes, for some cars such as the Yugo or Edsel it is clear that they were failures. It is not nearly as clear with others such as the Toyota T100 (which I think was a failure, but...). The name, "failure" also provides a problem as there is no definition for "failure." If, however, the article starts featuring sources and perhaps a name change would be initiated, I will change my vote to keep. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Quick question? What do you define as a failed automobile? I'm sorry, what? You don't have one? Goodbye.  Cdcon  19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, how cute. Do people just come to AfD to flame and score internet points now? Gazpacho 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but seriously, what's the objective criterion?  Cdcon  20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a notable failure if some impact outside the automotive hobby can be shown. Nader's activism with respect to the Corvair made his career. The Edsel has been mocked in television and film. The Tucker failure is the subject of a feature film. The Dymaxion is of interest not just to auto hobbyists, but to Fuller fans as well. Gazpacho 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said above how do you define a "notable impact oustide the automotive hobby?" Would need to find an objective criteria and rename the article correspondignly. Signature^brendel 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't say "notable impact", I said "can be shown." Gazpacho 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Gazpacho, you have shot yourself in the foot actually - don't you see how laughable your argument for the Dymaxion looks like compared to the others? I, for one, never heard of the Dymaxion or Mr. Fuller (though I will gladly read about them when I finish writing this), so it is by no means famous by my standards. On the other hand, you probably never heard of the Talbot Tagora or Autobianchi Stellina, did you? This is all too subjective. Bravada, talk - 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I deliberately write comments that I know to be "laughable" all the time. Thanks for noticing. I looked through the Tagora and Stellina articles and didn't see any claim of significance outside the hobby. Gazpacho 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's quite obvious that the Dymaxion would attract interest of Mr. Fuller's fans. If Paris Hilton somehow made a car and tried to sell it unsuccessfully, it would obviously be of notice to her fans, even if it wouldn't attract too much attention anyhow else. The Dymaxion just had the luck of being promoted by a person known for something else, but this is a rather poor claim to failure fame. And if you'd ask ME, I'd say that the Tagora was a much more spectacular and important fialure, and I believe we will never be able to convince each other on that. Which is why the article is incurable. Bravada, talk - 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ~ rather ironically, now that I know the Corvair's production numbers, its 1.8 million sales qualifies it for a place on the List of bestselling vehicle nameplates. Quite the failure it must have been to have sold so many... --DeLarge 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's unusual that a line that sold so well for many years would suddenly tank, but it did and there are bodies to prove it. Gazpacho 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Too subjective, and apparently success in one market but failure in another still counts. Worst of all, the article doesn't even define what a "commercial failure" is, exactly. "Flop" doesn't cut it. Leave the successes/failures to the individual car articles. Come to think of it, some of the other articles in the "Commercial failures" category could stand to be removed for the same reasons. --Vossanova ^o< 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gazpacho makes some good points. And it certainly is less inherently POV than the other article (mentioned above). But to take the Yugo as an example, and as Vossanova says, was it a commercial failure in all of it's markets? (For all I know it was a big seller in Yugoslavia - where I assume it was made). If the article is market specific to the USA, then at the very least it needs to be renamed as such. Marcus22 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and for consistency between two correlating articles. I am also concerned with the issues regarding verification and POV noted above. Agent 86 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Significant changes have been made to this article since it was listed (i.e. a massive chunk has been gouged out of it) Please take another look at it and reconsider your vote. Drett 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that significant, just a huge chunk was thrown away. This doesn't pertain to the fundamental issues which are being discussed here, if it was that easy, there would be no reason for an AfD nomination in the first place, just for an extensive edit. Reasons for AfD in general cannot be remedied by simply editing the article. Bravada, talk - 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete This is a very biased article and only based on one persons point of view.Vr55

• NB: This user has 4 edits including 3 to the article in question and 1 to this AfD. Drett 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and did not even bother to sign. Suspicious, ain't it? Bravada, talk - 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, they're probably just a new user. Drett 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I battled extensively to have this article kept in its last AfD, and it's very disheartening to see that the nominator did not mention it was nominated less than a month ago under the name "List of Automotive flops". But, without full disclosure the masses have voted delete, and this article shall perish. However if there were ever a time for a mistrial on Wikipedia, this is it. AdamBiswanger1 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: There is a process whereby deleted articles can be brought back, isn't there? Drett 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once gone, it's nearly impossible to get back, but these guys dont' care, they want it all erased, forever and ever, no matter who they hurt. This delete business sucks big time, and there are plenty of WP who will second deleting articles they don't care about while the other people who care can't drum up support. Also a great way to torpedo editors they don't like as another wikipedia tactic. --matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment matador, please take a look at WP:OWN. You will see that no-one owns the article and as such people cannot be hurt by its deletion. You should not take the deletion or proposed deletion of an article personally.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment By the way, there is a lot of good information here that was never put on the main car articles, I would recommend going into the history and moving over everthing into the main articles before these good people succeed in erasing all the useful information in here so no one else will be able to enjoy it again. This may have started with an editor who found TWO entries I wrote in a "worst of list" of airplanes among other things. and suceeded in deleting the whole kit and kaboodle just to hurt me. I tried to document this on the main WP article, but got knocked out, likewise leave a comment on the process, also kicked out by someone that also does a lot of deletion. I found it almost impossible to stop an AfD once started because it's appears on a list that thousands of users look at and routinely add delete votes to. Most articles do not have enough users to counter these people who vote delete who have never even looked at the article before, but very popular similar list that can survive are all over WP, and there is no rule against such lists. It depends completely on the people who want to kick down such sandcastles, and there are lots of them on the automobile project.

This suspiciously was followed by a very similar assasination attempt on this article, and the companion successful automobile article which also suffered an undeserved death when a similar editor nominated his own edits for execution just to get at mine. He withdrew his nomination, but was renominated by another one of the auto project gang, and it's dead too. They also want to remove every toy, every car review, every mention of any TV show or movie appearance of car and anything else they can figure out how to delete within the WP rules, not to mentionally massively uncivil behavior to enforce these rules. But I'm the bad guy. --matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments Whilst I concur there is additional information here to other car articles. I do not feel that it is encyclopedic. This article fails because it is impossible to make an unambigious version of it. What qualifies a car as a commercial failure or success?, can a car fall into neither category? Is it's failure or sucess based on sales? safety? politics (i.e. where it was manufactured)? or a combination of these things? As a result this article is dangerous, it seeks to inform readers (themselves potential consumers) of cars which might/may have been worth avoiding. Wikipedia is not a vehicular review site. For car reviews try Autotrader.com. This article by nature is too biased and ambigious to possibly ever be of any encyclopedic value to anyone. Finally I want to say I really am sorry to those who have put a lot of effort into it, but I think looking over the AfD's the reoccuring nomination isn't a sinister attempt to destroy your efforts, but rather a genuine concern over the underlying nature of this article. Thanks for reading my 2 pence. ta. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• And a comment Here is the AfD from less than a month ago: [4] Drett 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it was remade as "automobiles that made less than 'x'", i'd be ok with that, but "commercial failures" seems rather subjective. Attic Owl 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And thus the degree to which the automobile is to be considered a failure is described beside each entry. Very subjective =bad. A bit subjective = OK AdamBiswanger1 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As requested I have looked at the previous AfD and again at the article. I can see no reason to change my vote. Sorry. (And I am neither one of the 'masses' nor part of some obscure plot!) So it's still 'Delete'. Marcus22 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This will need to be maintained, and has not been; but the examples given are notorious commercial failures - so it doesn;t seem to be that difficult. Septentrionalis 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredsat. Angus McLellan 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a valid reason for a {{unreferenced}} tag, but not for deletion. AdamBiswanger1 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but original research is a valid reason for deletion. dposse 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Horrible car sales is original research? Has no one else laughed at the demise of the Delorean or reported terrible sales figures for other cars? Is anything on the page not true, or not able to be referenced? I'm not sure what you mean by that. AdamBiswanger1 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have also just added an OR tag. I must most emphatically disagree. AdamBiswanger1 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "This Yugoslavian car was sold in the United States from 1986 to 1990, and quickly gained a reputation for being as unreliable as it was cheap" That's a "unverified claim". dposse 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• That just seems like stylistic writing gone wrong. I changed it to say that it was unreliable and cheap, and added a ref to indicate the "cheap" part of it. When I get more time I'll find more. See how finding sources and editing is better than deleting? AdamBiswanger1 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Man, have you ever heard of NPOV? Your concept for this article is a huge POV-fest. No wonder, actually, because this is more or less the only thing this article may become and ever was. Citing somebody else's POV is still POV. Saying that a vehicle is "cheap and unreliable" bacause somebody somewhere said it is not the same as saying that it has a wheelbase of 2100 mm. This is an encyclopedia! Bravada, talk - 19:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, I know what you are saying, but it is not POV to say that the Yugo is unreliable and cheap. It's true! Who would disagree? Are we to take all of the flavor out of the language and say "the Yugo experienced 8.2 times more structural damage per square foot than every other car in its class", or can we be so audacious as to say things like "unreliable"? I dislike value judgments, too, but only when they are likely to be contested by a reasonable person. AdamBiswanger1 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) It's not about being true or not true. It's about creating a page where a group of subject would be deliberately bashed and labelled with judgements, using best possible resources. This IS wrong and does NOT belong in an encyclopedia, however true and fair you see it. One could probably find a rather large number of resources that say that the current US President is a moron or that a certain New York Senator is a fraud. I wouldn't like to see a listing of "stupid" or "fraud" politicans on Wikipedia though. Bravada, talk - 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Disclaimer - the above are not my views, and I do not intend to express my views of that kind in WP at all. Just giving examples to show how dramatically against the encyclopedic character of WP such listings are.

Oh come on. Do you not see the difference between saying that the Yugo is unreliable and saying Bush is a moron? Is it opinion that the Yugo is unreliable, or is it true? There is such thing as a gray area, and bringing an extreme example does nothing to argue my point. AdamBiswanger1 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also One would not find any reliable sources calling Bush a "moron", or anything of the like. AdamBiswanger1 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So list Yugo under "automobiles that were unreliable", previously setting indisputable, tangible and objective criteria for inclusion. You are trying to successfully agree that Yugos were cheap and unreliable, but you forget to notice how this does not automatically label them as flops. Think it over.

Also Find some reliable sources calling Yugo a flop indisputably. Bravada, talk - 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be quite right that being unreliable and cheap does not label a car as a flop, but that does not concern me. Strike it from the list.I'm arguing a much broader point. Simply because "flop" holds no specific definition does not mean that there should be no list at all-- the collective common sense of the editors supercedes the need for mathematical criteria. AdamBiswanger1 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a place where it doesn't. It is where we worship specific definitions and "mathematical criteria" ad absurdum. That's the quirky charm and indespensable characteristic of an encyclopedia. Sorry to disappoint you. Bravada, talk - 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Define Peninsula. Florida is a peninsula, Denmark is a peninsula, and India is a peninsula, right? What about the little strip of land in my creek surrounded by water on 3 sides? Is that a peninsula? Certainly not. Or is it? In that it's too ambiguous, maybe we should not have a list of Peninsulas? Or maybe the collective common sense of the editors will overpower my decision to put my creek in the article. AdamBiswanger1 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous tangential discussion. It doesn't matter how many bad reviews the Yugo received, or how many times it broke down. If it made more money than it cost to design and build, it wasn't a commercial failure. The ONLY information to be verified is cumulative revenues and development/manufacturing costs. --DeLarge 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, DeLarge. Adam, for the definition of a peninsula, see peninsula. A list of peninsulas would be fairly redundant, a category serves the purpose just as well. Besides, peninsula is not a judgemental term. Calling a strip of land a peninsula does not contain any positive or negative charge in general. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you try to make me look like an idiot, tell me where in the "peninsula" article it clears up any ambiguity. It does not, and my point remains. Also, calling Mussolini a dictator may have a negative charge amongst supporters, but that does not mean it is not true. Saying the Delorean is a flop will not have such a "charge" in anyone with common sense, and if it does, the controversy is to be explained next to the entry. Your reply is negated. AdamBiswanger1 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to do anything personal, don't ake my replies as such. I am only trying to fend off your arguments. Again, applying the quality of being a peninsula to a strip of land is quite NPOV, so that's not that much of a problem. As concerns dictators, if there is a list of them, I hope the criteria are well-defined. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while the article is POV-ish at the moment, failure is far more easy to quantify than success (I voted to delete the successful cars article). To some success is breaking even, to others, making a million. The article could be re-written to be quantifiable and is therefore worthy of survival in my opinion. Mallanox 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh is it? Please quantify failure. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Pick a benchmark: Failure to sell projected number of units, failure to recoup research and development costs, failure to attatin X amount of profit. Success depends on how greedy you are, failure is much more cut and dried. Mallanox 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria you mentioned are practically impossible to test against, as they are based on data manufacturers do not publish. Bravada, talk - 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the UK every public limited company is obliged to provide its accounting information for scrutiny by anyone willing to pay Companies House for the priviledge. I would imagine that at least the US, Japan and most EU countries would have similar legislation to be compliant with FATF. Research is the key, I just think that this article deserves to be given the chance to be improved. Mallanox 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can make out the profitability of a product or project with absolute certainty from publicized accounting statements, I congratulate you. This is actually more or less my specializatio nand I assure you it's somewhere between extremely hard to impossible, and I would rate individual automobile models closer to the latter end of that scale. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You will not convince me to change my stance on this article without coming up with a new argument. I realise that must be annoying, especially as you invited me to participate in the first place. I believe this to be worthy subject matter and I stand by my claim that profitability can be proved. Mallanox 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I won't, it is the inherent flaw in this whole AfD thing. I am waiting for an explanation how are you going to prove individual model profitability based on company accounting statements (excuse me for being impudent here). Responding to your arguments, I do not say that the subject isn't "worthy" - but do consider whether it is a good thing to start a list on that, or rather an article discussing it? What is annoying is only the girth of this discussion and how responding to comments became a nightmare - can't we have sections or something? Bravada, talk - 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Any car that can be verified to be called a failure by a notable source. Simple as that. Wall Street Journal. Motor Trend. Business Week. Ralph Nader. Now withdraw this silly, destructive AFD, or I'll keep you on my has-not-been-nice to me list.. --matador300 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep just like the first time --rogerd 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment can any of those voting keep address the utterly subjective nature of calling a car or manufacturer a failure? Viridae^Talk 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to sound blunt, but I've gone over it 1000 times here and here. AdamBiswanger1 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't believe it has actually been addressed. For a small car company making half a dozen might be ok, the same for GM would be diastrous. Consensus among wikipedians doesn't really get around the POV problem either, it is always going to be POV as to wether a car is a failure. Similarly you can't really rely on the manufacturer to be honest about something like this. Viridae^Talk 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Look at it this way: is "Automobile that was a commercial failure" a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia article? Of course not. I think that a list of them is, likewise, not a legitimate encyclopedia article. The Literate Engineer 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about "Commercial failures in the auto industry"? See the second note at WP:LGR, which deals with this type of subject to list relationship. AdamBiswanger1 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just that it would be clear - Adam is actually the author of the essay he linked to. Bravada, talk - 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You can be assured that I was not trying to hide that--even though the authorship irrelevant. The cited section of that essay explains a logical connection between "List of automobiles that were commercial failures" and "Commercial failures in the auto industry. It was far from an attempt at imposing the proposal on anyone else, or presenting it as authoritative. But The Literate Engineer presented the same exact idea which is the centerpiece of my essay, so I see no reason for conflict. AdamBiswanger1 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I don't think "obviously and self-evidently related" cuts it. When dealing with a list, I see it as a double question: 1, Does the topic merit a regular article to begin with? 2, Does the topic merit a list in addition to a regular article? And in the case of "Commercial failures in the auto industry", I answer question 1 with "no", which makes question 2 irrelevant. However, just because a topic merits an article, it does not necessarily follow that the identical topic merits a list. A mere "logical connection", then, is far from sufficient. My opinion regarding the final disposition of the entry remains unchanged. The Literate Engineer 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Many of these failures are notable and encylopedic. The fact that a list is not being maintained is not listed as a reason to delete anything. Also, I'm not sure that there have been that many notable failures of late. We as a community have decided that we support lists like this with Category:Commercial failure lists. Vegaswikian 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - of course some failures were notable and encyclopedic, but how do you define notability, not to mention failure (which we already discussed above)? If an automobile is said to have failed in the marketplace for this reason or another, and it is notable, it should go into its article with appropriate references. A list should have very specific criteria for inclusion, otherwise it is going to be unstable. Moreover, including an item in such a list applies a negative quality to it, which is a fantastic decoy for all POV-lovers. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (User apparently believes he's entitled to multiple votes) Hey, Bravada, there's another wikipage for you to delete! It's all my fault, I admit it. I wrote an entry on the F-111 tha Mmx1 didn't like and a mirror page of successful scientific projects, and he found out how easy it is to delete these things unless you have a base large enough to beat the traffic of people more than happy to 2nd a nomination for deletion, the contribution history of many of these people consists largely of deletions, instead of editors like myself that contribute heavily, despite the heavy efforts of delete-happy editors who I shall not name here, but many of them have signed here. It seems suspicious that so many copycat deletions have since taken place. The ONLY valid reason for deletion is if NOTHING can be salvaged, no matter how many so-called votes have been cast. You cannot vote on the value of PI, as my math teacher said, and it only takes one person to be right (I just made that up) The good guys need to fight exclusionists like Bravada that currently dominate and bully other editors in the Automobile project. Just try to put upa picture or mere mention a model of a car or say that it was on Adam-12 and try to make it stick without gettting disembowled, tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered. I did (and actualy suceeded in getting pictures of model cars and mentions of cars on Adam-12, and lived to tell about it) Wikipeople should concentrate on building this baby up instead of tearing down each other's work! (patriotic music playing in the background) Remember, the good guys always win in the end. See my talk page for my dream speech. --matador300 21:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though you believe the world revolves around you, this AfD has nothing to do with you or any other specific editors. By definition, it should be and is impersonal. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Answer me this. Were you or were you not inspired by the AfD described by Mmx's dossier on our interactions, since you seem to have famiarised yourself with this history? I would certainly describe your tactics as very similar to those employed by that editor.--matador300 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The only thing I know about Mmx is that this is some user you have clashes with regarding some aircraft. I don't know of any dossier and I am not interested with your aircraft business at all. This AfD was inspired by a parallel AfD regarding a parallel list, as said in the introduction - if we deleted one, it would be totally inconsistent if we didn't delete the other. Itnerestingly, some people voted differently in the two AfDs! Bravada, talk - 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and POV article aim. What a bloody mess of comments. A list of problems warranting deletion is not exclusionary - it does not mean there are no other criteria for deletion. --Mmx1 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, trivial and a waste of time. I strongly object to the user's attempt to make it too much effort for people to participate and suggest that all his complaints are completely invalid and should be totally ignored. Piccadilly 22:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep conditional on an objective definition of commercial failure. The deLorean and Edsel were unquestionably failures, by common ocnsent. The subject of cars which failed commercially is encyclopaedic. As long as the judgment of commercial failure can be attributed to named and authoritative sources, there should be no problem. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? Please see the above discussion - all objective definitions of commercial failure proposed proved either impossible to apply or not applicable (did not equal commercial failure). How in the world are you going to OBJECTIVELY name "authoritative" sources? Again, if there is "common consent" that something was a failure, it's a reason to mention that in the article, but one cannot start a list based on that! Bravada, talk - 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Listed in a book of automotive failures, for one thing. Like I said, the underlying topic is encyclopaedic, and with care and sourcing the list can be too. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can write a book of automotive failures and argue that DeLorean was a great success that was ahead of its time and moved the automotive industry forward by aeons, while at the same time arguing why the Toyota Corolla is an utter failure. And if you think this is irrelevant, I assure you people write such things. So, does every car mentioned as a failure in a source have a place here? Bravada, talk - 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a publisher. People will laugh in your face, of course... To describe the deLorean and Edsel as failures is entirely uncontroversial, there is broad agreement in a large number of sources. We can debate the appropriateness of individual models one by one, but the subject is encyclopaedic and the list is capable of being referenced to reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Go and browse some stuff that gets published. Start with reading what Jerry Flint writes, he sometimes even claims an existing model does not exist, not to mention that you can reference contradictory statements from his different "works", as he changes his mind quite often. Anyway, do you realize you have just expressed POV? Referencing to POV is still POV, it is just finding somebody's POV good, and thus it is POV :D What are your precise criteria for "broad agreement in a large number of sources"? Bravada, talk - 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read the policies and guidelines. As long as we can attribute to a known identified authority such as a motoring journalist or team of journalist (as would be the case with a book published by a car magazine) then it's not POV and it's not OR. If there is significant informed dissent, or the issue is complex (as with the Corvair and Nader) we can cover it by reference to both sides. But there are cars which are identified by multiple sources as duds, and there ios nothing wrong with listing them - either as a separate article or if there are only a few after the fact-checking then in an article on automotive duds. Sure, some people love their Edsels, but in the end there is no significant informed dissent from "the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time" analysis. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

POV aside for 5 seconds, It still qualifies for deletion as it violates the WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information such as reviews. Because this is so subjective its basically a list of bad car reviews. If you want to read car review go to autotrader.com, Wikipedia is not the correct place for this information. It should be removed as quickly as possible, I'm amazed the article has made it this far. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) OK, we can argue about that forever, but tell me why do you want to keep a "List of automobiles some sources users considered 'identfied authorities' declared to be 'duds' (even though it does not equal being a commercial failure, as a commercial failure is a product that did to live up to sales/financial projections)" in an encyclopedia, especially that the corresponding list of successful automobiles (for which all the raised arguments apply) was unanimously deleted? I believe a list should be an expection in WP, used in cases when it can add valuable information that cannot be presented in any other form - like List of largest suspension bridges. Please do not reply at once, think it over and perhaps reply tommorrow. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely unencyclopedic, biased, vanal and totally clueless regarding the Yugo. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete concur with DeLarge. —ptk✰fgs 12:30, 12 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. Sango123 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Paint

This page has been proded twice by two independent editors; the webpage described doesn't come close to reaching WP:WEB and is completely non-notable. Prosfilaes 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - given that it's not by google, the use of the trademarked name is inappropriate. The subject of the article itself is almost useless. - Richardcavell 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just someones toy code. Artw 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Kchase T 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; full disclosure: I'm the original {{prod}}der. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trademark violation of google. Non notable website anyway. --Ageo020 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The bulk of this article is about how Google Paint doesn't work very well. Non notable anyway. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom, Danielrocks123, and Richardcavell. --S-man 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable website and a trademark infringement of Google. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Completely non-notable. Trademark misuse Localzuk ^(talk) 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article pretty much admits it's not notable. JIP | Talk 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--DINOMAN 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or redirect to Google Page Creator. --Gray Porpoise 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need for it since it's not even Google's. --Nishkid64 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and what's more its not part of Google. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or Redirect to Google or a related page. — Wackymacs 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly no reason for a speedy delete as it harms no one. A google search turns up quite a few hits, that makes it notable if somebody else is talking about it --matador300 21:22, 11 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 all. Sango123 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Asad TV

Delete as a hoax. This is a disputed prod; removed by an anon user. There are no relevant Google hits [5] so even if this is not fake, there are no reliable sources provided. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Agree with the addition of the 6 people listed below.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:V and there is nothing on google. If an Urdu speaking editor can confirm this is legit, I would reconsider.--Kchase T 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the additional articles as well. Created by the same bad actor.--Kchase T 01:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It certainly looks like a hoax. Jim Jones, cult leader who died 30 years ago, was an actor on the channel? --Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per all of the above --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete obvious hoax: 1. the contributor's name, 2. "There's an Asad TV in every country", 3. contributor's editing history. Nuke it and ban the perpetrator. Danny Lilithborne 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete Asad Tv looks like a hoax to me.No google hits to validate it. No mention of it in Pakistani media. Only mention of it in google is in wikipedia. I would also like to nominate asad tv actors for deletion
  • Jack Popat - claims to be the son of Martha Jones and Simon Jones (actor)
  • Edwin Popat- as above.
  • Harsh Khanna- Non existent actor.
  • Ahmed Khanna- claims to be a famous hunter and hunted in Delhi. Hunting is illegal in India and there are no forests in Delhi.
  • Mohammad Qasim Tariq and Qasim Tariq- 12 years old and he is a retired wrestler already.
  • Asad TV Kushti Maza (AKM) No existent Tv show of a non existent channel.

--Ageo020 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per all above. Kalani ^[talk] 01:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for apparent hoaxery. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all comments above. Unverifiable, possible hoax Localzuk ^(talk) 13:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Evidence strongly supports this is a hoax. It presently seems more verifiable as a hoax than as a real thing. Hence I support rapid deletion of all of the above. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - All of the above, as they are apparently all part of the same hoax. Badbilltucker 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, a bunch of 12-year-olds. Apparently Mohammad Qasim Tariq was in a video game two years before he was born. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Themindset 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified, and though a Google search returns many pages relating to "Asad" and "TV," it does not return anything about the channel. --Gray Porpoise 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator as an unverifiable topic and probable hoax. Yamaguchi先生 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Asad Aleem is creator of article on AsadTV, and scored precisely 118 Ghits, majority of which are for a development banker. Hit it with WP:AUTO, WP:NN, WP:NOT (soapbox) or WP:HOAX, and it falls without question. Delete all the others per Ageo020, WP:NN, WP:NOT (soapbox) or WP:HOAX as Writer of article has no credibility. Ohconfucius 05:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Asad Aleem got speedied when it showed up as new; but a bunch of others apparently got through. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 9 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 Speedily kept, bad-faith nomination. --Golbez 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shutokou Battle

Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i think it should be deleted as this article is actually part of a multiple article deletion action against a permanent banned editor and his multiple sockpuppets EnthusiastFRANCE/EnthusiastFR). you can follow the discussion here (Kinkeshi). JP Belmondo 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep typical game article, unless there's reason to think this is a hoax or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Tokyo Xtreme Racer (American title of the game). Seems like a perfectly good article to me, so don't delete. -- Koffieyahoo 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppets are not welcome here and the article is not that good.Magic PablofromMexico 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete why keeping some banned articles and removing others? personally i would keep 'em all or remove them all. As some articles are already deleted, i think the whole batch (Enthuthing) shoudd be deleted. SuzyQQ 03:10, 8 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 All are being speedily kept, and all pro voters are being for being meatpuppets and disrupting WP to make a point. --Golbez 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sega Touring Car Championship

Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted as remaining article created by a permanent banned editor sockpuppetmaster (see discussion here (deletion has already started with Kinkeshi). JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All as WP:V and the fact that an editor working on this article is permanently banned in not a valid reason for deletion. Even CSD:G5 seems a bit draconian since these are actually fully formed articles that others worked on...--Isotope23 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin Pschemp as already deleted very long and supported Kinkeshi article created by this editor by herself (supporters being abusively charged of being sockpuppets) and she has also reverted this editor's work on Man Bites Dog (film). It seems like being abusive is not a matter on this site. JP Belmondo 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, this multiple nom is rather hosed up? Assuming nominator is unfamilar with formatting...--Isotope23 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per Isotope23. It is a legitmate article and I believe this was not what CSD:G5 was meant to deal with. Too much work has been put into the article to delete it now. Also can someone please format the related articles into one. It would be a lot easier for comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgelord (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Keep per above. Eventhough this was apparently created by a now banned user the actual nominator (not TruthbringerToronto) seems to assume bad faith here. Even now banned users can have created reasonable articles in the past. -- Koffieyahoo 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that a banned user made the page, does not signify a reason for deletion. Furthermore the entire page will just have to be recreated as its a popular notable title that deserves a mention. Completely bad faith. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keshi

Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Berserk Forces (single)

Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppets are not welcome here and the article is not that good. (theory:over supporting Koffieyahoo is maybe an EnthusiastFRANCE sockpuppet?) Magic PablofromMexico 03:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Berserk anime soundtrack

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppets are not welcome here and the article is not that good. (theory:over supporting Koffieyahoo is maybe an EnthusiastFRANCE sockpuppet?) Magic PablofromMexico 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sword of the Berserk (soundtrack)

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Berserk PS2 Soundtrack

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tourist Trophy (video game)

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Game is WP:V and the fact that an editor working on this article is permanently banned in not a valid reason for deletion.--Isotope23 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Close this whole set down and ban both the sockpuppets involved. Fan-1967 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:56, 8 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. Keep arguments, in the main, focus on the fact that this fetish exists, so we should have a page on it even though the page can't contain an article verified by reliable sources. Please remember the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written). The fact that it exists to some extent isn't the question; its verifiability or lack of it is the key to whether we can write an article on it. Some also point out that we have other unsourcable articles on fetishes, to which WP:POKEMON has a very good response - as did your mother when she told you that "two wrongs don't make a right". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bellypunching

Note: have made some significant changes to try and justify the article further. They are basic but hopefully satisfy enough to let the article continue existing, while being improved.--Brokethebank 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your changes added a bunch of links, but they consist of yahoo groups, personal websites, and a couple porn sites which themselves are non-notable. None of these are reliable sources, none of them help with the fact that this article still violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unverifiable content can't stay on wikipedia, no matter how much some people might like said content. --Xyzzyplugh 15:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Points to consider - It's not about liking (or in your case, disliking) this entry, but about showing dilligence in mapping out within Wikipedia all these various concepts that exist in the world.

1. Some concepts are better cited than others, it's true.

2. However that doesn't mean that some things, which are perhaps more ephemeral, or which came into their own with the rise of the internet, can't be listed.

3. Granted one can't list everything, but I suggest that if one can prove that a lot of people are involved in a concept, and that this concept exists as such, then the concept must surely merit some inclusion, even if that inclusion is limited only to what one can source.

4. As for your grandmother throwing spoons at cats (I haven't met her but I'm sure she's a nice lady), I would think that her eccentricity is too isolated to be reasonably compared with this fetish at hand. I have shown that thousands of people have taken it upon themselves to join public groups around this fetish; and found any number of websites, most which have been around for years, creating a sort of community.

5. It would be a mistake to make an article called bellypunching videos on the basis of the fact of such videos existing, because that would ignore the evident existence of the concept of the fetish.

6. Granted that if one starts a blog on any obscure fetish, it can't be included here; but if 30 or 40 different organizations and people start websites, both personal websites and business websites, combined with free public groups that require membership (membership to which groups as I've stated reaches the thousands) I suggest that a certain minimum has been reached to make it a bonafide concept that some people hold.

7. If you really believe that only things that show up in journals are worthy of existence in WIkipedia, I think Wikipedia will be much the poorer for it. It seems unreasonable to ignore the existence of something that is obvious and evident, from the links I've found (which were incidentally only a small percentage). To wit:

[W]here an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge,

[as the existence of a fetish called "bellypunching" may be deduced]

and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims,

[as this article does not,]

a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources [...] [from WP:NOR]--Brokethebank 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your item 7, I think you are not in tune with the spirit of WP:NOR there. The idea is that we can write (eg) "an apple pie is a pastry crust with an apple filling"; finding a reliable source for that sentence might not be easy, but no-one would try to strike out (as OR) what a huge number of people already know. As it says, such examples are exceptional; extending that principle to an activity like bellypunching is not on. Mr Stephen 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is original research, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this. Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment gastergastrizophilia gets no non-Wikipedia hits. -- Scientizzle 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While links may prove this fetish exists, they do not serve as reliable sources with which to verify the factual claims of the article. That something is a sexual fetish does not indicate an inherent notability that would supercede inadequate sourcing. -- Scientizzle 04:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article title gets 864 G-hits. Hoax and neologism. Morgan Wick 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm still concenred about reliable sources, but 864 only fails my personal thresh-hold, not Wikipedia's. Morgan Wick 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. References are cited, and the references cited are evidence that a market exists for this type of pornography, which in turn is evidence for the existence of the fetish. On that basis, the article is not a WP:HOAX. I have not been able to find the term gastergastrizophilia used outside Wikipedia. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  The references cited are a personal web page and a website that sells porn movies. The porn site does not discuss the issue at all, but simply has some movies for sale. Neither of these are even remotely reliable sources. Do you believe we should keep articles which don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, or do you have some reliable sources you haven't mentioned? --Xyzzyplugh 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- obscure and weird, but real. It's been mentioned on alt.sex.stories, so someone must have this fetish. Haikupoet 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  alt.sex.stories is not a reliable source. Please explain how this article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Xyzzyplugh 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ. If it's on alt.sex.stories, someone got off on it enough to write about it. And there does appear to be a market for bellypunching porn as well. God only knows why, but if people are producing it someone's probably buying it. Haikupoet 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think you may have a misunderstanding as to what reliable sources are. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". And the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If something exists, but it has never been covered in any reliable sources, then we can't have an article on it, because we can neither rely on unreliable sources, nor use original research. --Xyzzyplugh 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    • • comment while you are correct about alt.sex.stories, your understanding of policy toward primary sources seems to be off. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia...In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. A porn site selling 'bellypunching' videos is "easily verifiable without specialist knowledge." We do not need a credible third party to tell us such exists when we see it with our own eyes.
        • Yes, we could consider these porn sites, or the videos themselves, as primary sources, verifying the existence of videos of women being punched in the stomach. However, where does that get us in relation to this article? That leaves an article called Bellypunching, consisting entirely of "Videos of women being punched in the stomach exist", which would mean we'd need to rename the article "bellypunching videos" or something similar, which would violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and need to be deleted, as the article would simply be a rephrasing/definition of the title. And, look, you can't water down WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to the point where ANYTHING becomes reliable. Suppose my grandmother enjoys throwing spoons at her cat, and writes about it on her myspace account and makes a video of it which she posts online. Can we have a wikipedia article called Cat spooning or Grandmother spoon throwing or Spoon thrown at cat hobby? No. Attempting to grab bits from parts of policies and put them together to suggest that everything in the world is a primary source and therefore we can have an article about everything, simply won't work. --Xyzzyplugh 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR... not verifiable and apparent original research.--Isotope23 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It definitely does exist, I remember a whole website of anime pictures of various video game females getting socked in the gut, often puking as a result. I think it was a SomethingAwful Awful Link of the Day a couple years back. That said, damn near everything is some kind of fetish to someone out there (window cleaning fetish! omelette-making fetish! hard-drive-defragmenting fetish!) and that doesn't mean we need an article for everything that gives folks their jollies. I think this one in particular is probably hard to back up with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom: though this fetish may exist, and may be documented on a website selling pornography and may be document on alt.sex.stories, those are not reliable sources, and thus it is unverified by any reliable sources. --Iamunknown 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral What - no pointlessly gratuitous obscure Simpsons reference? Bwithh 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to domestic violence (f*&%ing sickos) --Xrblsnggt 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep even though there's no way I could source it myself while at work. MLA 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  What's your reason for choosing Keep? --Xyzzyplugh 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment my reason for recommending keep is that I believe it's a notable practice and I know that it is not a hoax and that it does exist. MLA 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we don't need an article on every obscure sexual fetish. (I have no doubt that if you can think up something really obscure someone will practice it) Viridae^Talk 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Although it currently has no reliable sources, it should be kept and improved. Reliable sources need to be found. If we deleted all unreferenced information from wikipedia we wouldn't have that much left... Localzuk ^(talk) 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment but what we would have left would be a quality site that could be counted on for accuracy. Wikipedia would be alot more like an encyclopedia.--Isotope23 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I'm concerned about this article. Whilst it seems hard to verify and highly unusual bordering on unlikely, that doesn't nessessarily warrant its deletion or label it a hoax. I'd say as Andrew Lenahan has heard of this fetish before that warrants a weak keep. Although it needs considerable improvement. Many of the sexual articles are like this though, I don't think deletion is the answer to it. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Neither the author of the piece, nor any of us in this discussion, know of any proper sources to verify the information in the piece, though all of it seems plausible, even likely. I think thats an indication that the piece needs fixing, not elimination. Our inability to find gastergastrizophilia on the net neither proves nor disproves anything -- detailed texts on sexual paraphilia aren't left around laying open on the net, and a mild amount of googling for "erotic punching," "belly punishment" or "rough body play" (thats what they call the workshops where they teach you how to take an 'erotic punch') will show that the practice is meither "unlikely" nor even uncommon. Some of it is obviously sex play with a consenting partner; some is not so consensual, and there is a shaded continuum -- but, even in this supposedly liberated age, nobody has any real nummbers -- in part because the participants themselves don't know where the line actually divides consent and abuse. I think it's an important topic, and a research failure isn't a good reason to have no article in this instance. Mark it up for needed citations, and leave it be. Bustter 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Marcus22 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, existence is not notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question For those voting keep while ackowledging that this fails WP:V, a question: why is this worth keeping if no proper sources can be found? Sure, it likely exists and some have heard of the practice, but why should a sexual fetish with a small audience have an article when, say, a webcomic with a small, but clearly existent, following and no relaible third-party media coverage is readily deleted? Why should an article about a sexual fetish garner apparent AfD bonus points?-- Scientizzle 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is this fake? If so, to what extent? Who cares? If Dr. Credible comes along and vets it, fine. If noone does, that's fine too, because you can't expect any better from a poorly known and defined subject. It's still interesting enough to exist.  Cdcon  19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "interesting enough to exist" isn't policy... WP:V is. If nobody comes along to vet this, it is not "fine". Any article that is not verifiable should go. If you can't expect better sources to be produced, then we shouldn't be writing articles about the subject. Not that it necessarily matters, but at least on this topic, it appears that Jimbo agrees with me: "We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality." As a community, condoning poorly or unsourced articles runs counter to that goal.--Isotope23 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're right in the broader sense of making Wikipedia a quality, fully verifiable site. But if you think AfD is going to solve that problem, dream on. For the time being, until we develop a robust system to filter out the unverifiable material, I believe it is more important to maintain consistency in what we accept and what we don't. You can argue there are rules in place for that, but how appropriate are they and how well are they enforced? I believe that articles like this tend to be mostly harmless to Wikipedia.  Cdcon  20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I guess harmless is a matter of opinion. This is a much wider discussion that goes well beyond this topic, so to be brief, consistency is a problem and we should consistently be removing anything that isn't verifiable. Leaving it here just creates the perception that unsourced and poorly sourced articles are acceptible fare on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• That perception already exists, but I see your point.  Cdcon  20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• AfD, and Prod, ARE part of our robust system of filtering out unverifiable material. This, right here, is how we delete articles on unverifiable topics. We're doing it right now. Welcome to the system. --Xyzzyplugh 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I take it you've never seen a robust system before?  Cdcon  20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Something like 250 articles a day are being currently deleted through Prod and AfD. That's 7500 a month, 90,000 a year. Seems robust to me. --Xyzzyplugh 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to re-creating if verifiable sources can be found. AFAICT, unverifiable by any reliable source. TheronJ 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: Since this page has gone through a bunch of edits, let me reaffirm my delete. No offense, but the existence of videos and webpages doesn't establish that the alleged fetish is notable. I'm also very doubtful that using exclusively online sources can meet the reliable source criteria. TheronJ 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No journals or articles mention this, using LexisNexis as a search tool. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete strongly suspected hoax. If it ain't on L& O Svu, it ain't real!205.157.110.11 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per 205.157.110.11, the best deletion reason I've seen for any of these fetish articles that have gotten AFDed lately. (Seriously, for lack of sources.)--Kchase T 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Those voting keep may be best to actually read the WP:V policy once again (please delete - to be honest I'm still shocked that Donkey punch remains) - Glen 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, unreferenced, never heard of such a term, very likely to be a hoax. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- while it is a weird business, it is something that exists, and while it may not be well known I don't think it's so wildly obscure that it falls into NOR. As said above, references should be found. A lot of internet things are uncited in journals, and most of them should be ignored, but sometimes I think a compendium of citations is enough to warrant a keep: google brings back 900 hits for bellypunching, and over 20,000 for "belly punching". (Also, I understand that for instance this forms a sizeable part of Japanese sexual culture; but my japanese isn't too great) --Brokethebank 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment BTW, I made up the word gastergastrizophilia, since I've studied classical languages a lot (in this case Greek) and it seemed like the appropriate move to put this article in the list of sexual paraphilias on such a page. Maybe I should have not done that; in any case bellypunching still is a known term. --Brokethebank 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Maybe I should have not done that"; you are right, read WP:NOR Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment You also introduced "abspunching" as a term for 'the male to male' form, yet the only reasonable ghit for this is a female 'catfight' site in russia. Seems the bulk of the info here is you 'winging it.'

• Delete -- twisted, perverted, unsourced, original research. Also WP:BEANS and WP:BALLS. Goodbye cruft! Morton devonshire 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete However, *not* based on subject matter, simply for failing policy. Any one editors/collective editors' tastes don't account for anything... just V, RS, and notability (since so many are making jokes and judgement calls above). There's some nasty, nasty stuff detailed in some articles here that I think are just... well, wrong, but that obviously shall never nor should be grounds for deletion. Closing admin: base merit solely based on policy, nothing else, and discount all the humor/judgemental stuff please. rootology (T) 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Scientizzle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Rootology and [[[User:Isotope23]]. No cited, verifiable sources. I see none such in "keep" arguments. I "saw in in a newsgroup" or "heard about it somewhere" don't count. Might I add that the external link to sex videos causes me to question the purpose of the article. Contains word someone made up? Good grief and WP:NOT. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fairly extensive fetish it seems like. There aren't many scholory articles on furries but that seems to be able to be sourced, I imagine anyone putting some work into it can find sources for this. -M^ask 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  We put work into it, we found no sources. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is extensive intrest in this phenomena. It's a well-followed fetish (as evidenced by it's popularity at FetishCon). It's part of our realilty, why deny it by deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.247.75 (talk • contribs)

  Because of Wikipedia:Verifiablity. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Has anyone visited an academic library to see what might be written about this in a scholarly book or journal? Sometimes information that's not readily available on the net can be found in traditional print sources. In fact, this point may be worth raising whenever it's suggested that a point in an article is unverifiable. Books are good. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  I think you just volunteered for the job. Let us know what you find. --Xyzzyplugh 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hits for "bellypunching" (or "gastergastrizophilia") in: Journal of Sexual Aggression - none; Archives of sexual behaviour - none; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment - none. Not a major grant-farming subject, it seems. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Google will confirm for you that "erotic punching," "belly punishment" and "rough body play" all exist, at least enouh that some are trying to make money with them. primary sources are permitted, see WP: NOR, In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources... Few here seem to have read this. The article, however, is stinky, and needs to be fixed. Bustter 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're suggesting that we make an article called Google hits on "belly punishment", consisting of the results of a google search, I have to say I'm rather sure it would violate WP:NOT. Seriously, though, you're looking for a loophole in WP:V and WP:NOR which doesn't exist. The fact that a phrase can be found in a google search on a number of webpages, combined with the fact that this phrase is used in the title of some porn videos, does not justify a wikipedia article. You just can't make a wikipedia article by combining "some webpages have the term 'bellypunching' in them" and "Some videos of women being punched in the stomach exist, and some of these videos have the term 'bellypunching' in the title". This does not equal an article, this yields a dictionary definition, and a questionable one at best. It's not an accident or a coincidence that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT when combined disallow wikipedia articles based on nothing but message board postings and porn videos, this was done on purpose and there is no loophole. --Xyzzyplugh 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable information that is worth including in an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, this type of porn does appear to exist. (But then, what type of porn does not? The Internet is to porn what the proverbial typewriter monkeys are to literature.) What matters here is that there are no reliable sources for any of the statements the article makes about bellypunching - as Xyzzyplugh said above, we'd have to stub it to "Bellypunching porn exists". And that's even assuming every flavour of Internet porn is also notable, which I submit is not the case. Sandstein 19:35, 16 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. Sango123 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lazy Acres

Non-notable grocery store, with only one location and doesn't need a page. --Caldorwards4 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lazy Acres is a grocery store chain with one store is a contradiction in terms. Prod was a possibility. Nominator's previous attempt involved making it into a redirect to Albertsons, which isn't the company that, according to the article, owns this; it was promptly reverted, so doing so further would be pointless, but a talk page discussion could have been quicker unless User:Micheal21 stonewalled. I would vote delete, but I'm not sure whether to do that or redirect, and if the latter, to where. Morgan Wick 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Xyzzyplugh 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — to parent company, Supervalu (United States) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The store may be notable because it is trying to occupy a market niche separate from that of traditional supermarkets: "wholesome, natural, and organic foods and products" (which presumably means more expensive). The company most successful in this niche is Whole Foods Market, which holds position 479 in the [{Fortune 500]]. So Lazy Acres may have some notability as a trendsetter. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - One store is an experiment, not a chain. Merits at the most a footnote in the parent company's article. There are a lot of companies trying to get into the organic foods market. --Brianyoumans 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Xyzzyplugh. No one here seems to have heard of it and it seems unnoteable judging by the articles depth. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete currently insignificant store. article will be recreated if Lazy Acres becomes better known. Marcus22 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - one store without any references to assert what distinguishes it from other chains that occupy the organic sector. - Whpq 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brian and Marcus. Joe 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -M^ask 00:40, 10 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 keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nourhanne

This article manages to simultaneously violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V in nearly every sentence. As was written on the talk page, it has not a single saving grace sans that the topic is, in principle, notable. Nysin 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. This is an unencyclopaedic, fawning essay. Nysin 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per hilarity of the entry. Bibigon 05:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose pending verification of claim of artist's significance, then needs removal of POV and wikification.Richardjames444 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there does not appear to be any salvageable content after removal of all the POV content. If somebody can rewrite and cite sources, I'd change to a keep. -- Whpq 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Subject seems notable, but article needs massive cleanup and wikification. Serious WP:NPOV problems and better verifiable sources need to be addressed. In principle, subject is notable though. But article needs a complete rewrite. Scorpiondollprincess 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although there may not be much more than the birth date left after the POV content has been removed. --DrTorstenHenning 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless NPOV'd Dlyons493 Talk 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Lack of neutrallity in the article, not wikipedia wurthy to say the least Nourhanne 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke it per my comment on the talk page.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I would say "Keep", but I personally attempted to encourage someone, anyone, from Lebanese music, Lebanese culture and Lebanon to take an interest in improving and saving this article, and no one did. If even the Lebanese on Wikipedia don't care about Nourhanne, then I guess no one does. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless excised of the neutrality issues mentioned above. --TheParanoidOne 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have severely stubbed the article. I am relisting it solely on the underdiscussed issue of notability. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the prior content was a copyvio from [6], which comes up on the first page of Google hits and shows what a poor job of looking into this y'all did. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - In applying WP:MUSIC, the only one she seems to come close to is the "Has won a major music award" depending on the predominance of the "2005...Oscar video clip festival" win. As it stands there are no sources and the history above shows little interest in the article to get a reliable source. Willing to re-consider if advised of a change.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem that I see if that we're searching in English, and should be searching in Arabic. Here's a scan of an article (?) from Al-balad magazine (however reputable that is) [7]. Any arabic speakers here? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There not much text in that scan. If the article is to operate as a useful source, it should have more than that (unless Arabic is remarkably denser than English). Nysin 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Right. I thought it was a front page, given the size of the picture, though of course I do not know. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (and quick before she escapes from those beads) - if nobody can provide reliable sources then it fails WP:OR so we don't have to worry about whether she meets WP:MUSIC. I have no problem with it being recreated with proper references once CrazyRussian has learnt Arabic. Yomangani 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just needs some references Localzuk ^(talk) 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Her notability is better researched by using her Arabic name, نورهان (which I've just added to the entry). About 90k ghits, and I doubt her Lebanese fans are all that active on the web. I found a report in the "al bawaba" online newspaper confirming that she won an Oscar for ‘best young Arab female artist’s voice’ at the ‘Oscar Video Clip Festival’ in Cairo for her song "men zaman" (Long Ago). I'll add the reference. I'm a bit disappointed that, in this extended AfD, nobody bothered with a lil bit of very easy research. Bustter 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version, it's now a legitimate singer article. JIP | Talk 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article as it now exists does seem to indicate significance. Badbilltucker 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's gratifying, guys, but now I have to write an entry for Nadia Lutfi :( ... Anyway, I jus would like to recommend to those who found the original "hilarious"...I'd like to see what you've written for the Arab Wiki.

• Keep. It's fine as it is now. Maybe it was worse at the time of nomination?  Cdcon  19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. See this version, the last before I added the AfD notice. Nysin 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The only statements that I see that are remotely POV are referring to one song as her best known, and the mention of pan-Arab stardom. I think that if some sources can be brought in, this article could be greatly improved. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment Stubbly, I've been up all night, first getting Nourhanne in decent shape, and now working on a Nadia Lutfi entry so as not to leave a stub...Nourhonne is in much better shape than when I found it. If you think it needs improvement, though, you are welcome to start grinding Arabic text through Google Language Tools, as I've been doing all night. Bustter 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• See my response to Cdcon. Nysin 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just did, and now that I've seen the walking, breathing, living, tapdancing, craps-playing, snorkeling version I no longer feel like I did all the work.:) Bustter 21:15, 8 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 no consensus on whether these clearly public figures are sufficiently notable for their own articles. Some may choose to pursue a merge, which doesn't require AfD. Copyvio should be removed on sight without waiting for AfDs to close, incidentally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dawn Angelique Richard

Also: Wanita "D. Woods" Woodgette, Shannon Bex, Wanita Woodgett, Dawn Angelique Richard, Aubrey O'Day, Aundrea Fimbres... did I miss any? Not much to suggest these are anything other than nn vanity articles. Googling "Dawn Richards"+ "Danity Kane" returns 42 hits. As for Woodgette, half the article is copyvio, the rest says that the band's first album won't be released for two months. There is a claim of notoriety notability, however, with the P.Diddy connection. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge what seems useful and not a copyvio in the Danity Kane article, delete all the rest. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Each member of the group has a history and each member of the group will do things outside of the group in the future. Just because some of the articles are short now doesn't mean they won't expand in the upcoming weeks/months; most of them were just recently created because the group has just began to gain notoriety.
• Keep per above post. She is part of a group that was famous for months on television and is about to release it's first album in late August. This article and the other members will subsequently expand. Squadoosh 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom WP:BIO not notable, or mergeto 'Making the band3'. In defense of deletion, their past seems not so notable. 68.84.243.47 states they may go on and do other notable things. With respect, most of the Wanita Woodgett and Aundrea Fimbres articles appear to be about 'making the band', with personal details are stubs about non-notables, so it would make sense to merge into Danity Kane or Making The Band or "list of people in making the band". WP:NOT wiki is not a crystal ball, and individual articles can be created as and when/if these people DO become notable in their own right. Ohconfucius 08:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability slowly being established, they even get a mention on Fox FM (United Kingdom). Article could be expanded. --TheM62Manchester 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the band article. If more information about individuals comes about in future, I have nothing against recreation of the articles Localzuk ^(talk) 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appears to me to be a set of vanity articles. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as not (yet) notable Marcus22 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The only people who would ever stumble upon these articles would have a rather different opinion on their notability. That's right, notability is an opinion, despite whatever arbitrary NN rules are in place.  Cdcon  19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: notability is not "an opinion". It is, by definition, an objective matter and - in cases such as this - it is a thing to be established by reference to reputable sources. Those sources are insufficient in this case at this point in time. Marcus22 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Generally, I don't think winning a reality show makes someone notable unless they become notable on their own. If the album makes it big, then we need an article on the BAND, and that is it. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - what else is there? WilyD 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Danity Kane article. No need for individual articles on each band member at this time; perhaps with greater notability later in their careers. Fairsing 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as there have been two seasons of a television show, a making the video, and now an album released by these artists, there are enough resources available to be collated and archived here. If one disagrees that there is enough notaraity now, what is the point in deleting if there is great likelihood that notaraity will be achieved at a later date? Pvodenski 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. They are now a part of America Pop Culture and media. They are musicians with TV time, video time and concert time. They have an album arriving in a week. Expansion will most definitely occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.220.5 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 August 2006
• Keep. The article may require cleanup, but each member of the group has been involved in other endeavors before the creation of the band. Also, the group is gaining more and more notoriety as of late, and people will want to read about the members of the band as well as the band itself. CTVampSlayer August 12, 2006. (UTC)
• Keep It gives a look into the fans favorite member of the group like Destiny's Child and TLC's pages even if they're not that popular yet. AJ Blakeney
• Keep If individual members of the Pussycat Dolls and Eden's Crush get their own wikipedia pages, I don't see why these girls can't. They all seem to somewhat fall in the same category. Plus, the girls of Danity Kane are slowly gaining even more notability as their album release draws nearer (Aug 22) and they are appearing in more magazines. Their individual official web sites are also getting more hits and becoming more fleshed out, so there should be more information available for use by the wikipedia community (in terms of WP:V and giving each girl their own individual entry). logsmein 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This group is becoming very popular, being constantly featured on Yahoo Buzz, being the Number 1 Music Artist on Myspace, and being on the top of MTV Artist pages. Their album will be released Aug 22, and the girls are starting to get a lot of publicity. Therefore, it would be unfair to close this page down strictly for the reason that this band is not popular. Also, if other bands have sites for their individual artists, it makes sense to allow these individual members to have their own parts as well. each girl will have their own fanbases who will want to read about the particular members. Jennayy 23:37, 14 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 all, hoaxes, WP:SNOW.  RasputinAXP  c 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

4 Comics

Part of a rather elaborate hoax perpetrated by User:Bret John, among other user accounts. The article claims that 4 Comics is a popular Pakistani comic publisher that uses characters from Marvel Comics and Art of Fighting, among other places. This AfD covers all articles associated with 4 Comics.

Also covered in this AfD:

• 4 Comics Swordsman
• The New Swordsmen (comics)
• The Swordsmen
• A Man Named Hest (comics)
• Super Planet (comics)
• The 4 Comics Adventures (2006 video game)
• Toby Serpent (added 23:11, 8 August 2006)

Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all as hoax unless shown to be otherwise. Seems unlikely, as "4 Comics" +Pakistan brings nothing relevant. It seems to me that a major comic company anywhere in the world (which is partnered with both Marvel and DC comics!) would score at least a hit or two on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete User:[email protected] is the creator of this article who has done nothing but create nonsense article.--Ageo020 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Chris Griswold 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Affirm author of these articles has created numerous nonsense articles. FelineAvenger 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Michael 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --Bigtop 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AfD notices are being removed by anon. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment New related article Toby Serpent was created on 20:35, 8 August 2006, added above. Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nominator, authored by someone known to be churning out nonsense articles. Yamaguchi先生 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per above. You might also be interested to know that 4 Gamers has just been created. sigh... Pascal.Tesson 22:20, 11 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 we have consensus to keep this article, I reckon. Further, there is not nor ever was a valid claim for speedying this article — from the re-creation, we can just consider that PROD contested ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bernardo Sorj

This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article re-created by the original author and subject of the article. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)*Comment — Just to note: 778 google hits, and 785 Yahoo hits. Article is well written. I leave it to others to detirmine the state of this in Wikipedia policy. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • How is the article well-written? It looks very ugly. Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on what speedy critera are we deleting by? I don't see one. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. The previous deletion[8] was from an uncontested prod rather than an AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the claim of having written 20 books is accurate, I'd say he's easily worth an article. Amazon seems to back up his claim of having published several books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Possible copyright violation, appears to be copied directly from the bio on his website. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Recreated Previously Deleted Material --Xrblsnggt 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he's published 20 books (21 are listed in the references) and more than 100 articles on a legitimate area of academic research, and he's been a professor. Pass. - Richardcavell 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable scholar and author. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems kosher and notable enough. 10 published books on Amazon Ohconfucius 06:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) delete per Mallanox. violates WP:BIO unsourced and WP:AUTO. I have preempted the deletion and moved the contents to User:Bernardo Sorj. Ohconfucius 08:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - is no one worried that an article written by the subject is going to be biased? Objectivity is the key to wikipedia. I don't question the notability, it's the subjectivity. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recognize the possibility for bias, but the article is essentially the recitation of a professor's CV. I don't see any evidence of opinion creeping in there that might distort the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can find several of his books in Swedish libraries. Seems perfectly legitimate. WP:AUTO is not an absolute policy that requires deletion (and it can never be policed in any case, as people can take usernames different from their real names). up+l+and 10:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan with the added comment that someone has moved this article into userspace while this deletion discussion was taking place, which is not helpful to do until this debate closes. Yamaguchi先生 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he really did write all those books, just check Amazon.com. Notable.--Aguerriero (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:AUTO violation is a contributing factor, not an automatic deletion. Oh confucius, you've been too bold. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

slap-wrist noted Ohconfucius 06:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per most of the above comment concerning keep. --HResearcher 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2003-04 NHL transactions

Fails WP:NOT, namely its policy against Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the transactions are non-notable and share no characteristics besides taking place during the same NHL season. Also violates WP:FUP with the inclusion of team logos for each player.

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the violation described above:

• 2005-06 NHL transactions
• 2006-07 NHL transactions

Madchester 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Frankly, I don't think this nomination has a good grounding in either section of the policy, since the loosely associated topics doesn't list similar examples and the indicsriminate collections of information lists seven things that consensus has established qualifies as such, and this is none of these. I'm not a sportsperson, so if arguments sway me, I may change my vote. Do people think this is useful information? I hear my friends commenting on player trades all the time...--Kchase T 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all. Factual, verifiable, and not indiscriminate as it pertains to important events during the course of each season. Logos can and should be edited out to satisfy FUP. (WP:HOCKEY caught most of the logo-ed up pages but there are still probably a few out there.) BoojiBoy 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is the trade of Tom Koivisto for future considerations notable? Important trades should be included in the respective NHL season articles instead. The trades are factual and verifiable but they fail WP:NOT. --Madchester 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is, as he is obviously notable enough to warrant an article. And the reason they're not in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I personally disagree with the nom. This article does not fail WP:NOT in my opinion. Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder -- despite what some may think. DMighton 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The transactions are neither loosely associated nor indiscriminate. There was a bit of discussion on WP:HOCKEY when these pages were created. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive3#NHL Transactions. -- JamesTeterenko 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful information for fans of the game. As a long time veteran of message boards, you would be surprised how much the topic of "when was player x traded, and for whom?" comes up. Articles like these can answer that question. The list is verifiable, factually accurate and it serves a purpose. Resolute 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

CommentThough I do agree with the argument of a violation of WP:FUP. However, the logos can very easily be removed. Resolute 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Don't bring up the messageboards bit per WP:NOT - not a discussion forum. I'm on many sports forums at Fanhome, RFD, etc. and understand how trade rumours are always discussed, but the articles still fail WP:NOT for the reasons given. The articles are no different than similarly deleted tennis articles recently. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass) Actually, I'm curiously to see the opinion of editors who are not affiliated with WikiProject Ice Hockey. --Madchester 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As BoojiBoy stated, you are misreading what WP:NOT is. I mentioned message boards to show that hockey fans find this information useful. As it is, it does not appear to me that you have justified that these lists violate WP:NOT. Given how broad your argument appears, I could use your logic to justify the deletion of every single list on Wikipedia. This clearly is not a list of loosely based topics, nor is it indiscriminant information. It is a list of one single topic: Players that have moved from one team to another. Resolute 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are completely misreading WP:NOT. It says that wikipedia is not a message board and it says that message boards are not relevant sources, but you can't use that to argue about the usefulness of an article, just because some people on a board find that article useful. I am sure that people on a Jessica Simpson message board find Jessica Simpson useful; that doesn't mean we should delete that article. BoojiBoy 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Along that line of logic, Roger Federer messageboard users will find his article useful; however, the list Roger Federer's winning streak on grass is not, since it contains a series of indiscrminate information; voted for deletion for that reason here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass. A list of trades that took place during an NHL season is no more distinguishable than the 30+ victories on Federer's recent grass winning streak. --Madchester 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it's much more akin to this. And as mentioned, the reason these deals aren't in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable league, information is very useful and presented in a good way. Does not seem to fail WP:NOT--Coasttocoast 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Masterhatch 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hockey fans would find this useful and interesting.  Cdcon  20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The FUP violation is simple, albeit time-consuming, to fix, and it's no less notable a list of transactions as you'll find anywhere else on WP. Doogie2K (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Sports history has a rightful place here. Additionally, per WP:LOGOS this does not seem to be a violation of fair use. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:39, 8 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. Sango123 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pabble

Year-old unsourced neologism with one relevant Google hit: [9] to, as usual, the supposed inventor's blog. Opabinia regalis 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NN. Michael 06:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -M^ask 00:43, 10 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 all. Sango123 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Popat

I am nominating all these article for deletion for the following given reasons.

• • Jack Popat - claims to be the son of Martha Jones and Simon Jones (actor)
  • Edwin Popat- as above.
  • Harsh Khanna- Non existent actor.
  • Ahmed Khanna- claims to be a famous hunter and hunted in Delhi. Hunting is illegal in India and there are no forests in Delhi.
  • Mohammad Qasim Tariq and Qasim Tariq- 12 years old and he is a retired wrestler already.
  • Asad TV Kushti Maza (AKM) No existent Tv show of a non existent channel. Ageo020 01:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well-researched nom. Some might even be speediable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I also voted to delete these in the Asad TV AfD above, but whatever. They're clearly going to go.--Kchase T 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I pickled the figs, I mean prod'ded all these myself :) Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Based on the username for the editor of Asad TV Kushti Maza (AKM), it appears to also be a vanity article. On top of the nominator's reasonings, I see no reason at all for these articles to stay. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Michael 06:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as either non-notable per WP:BIO, unverifiable, or hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, WP:AGF, but all evidence points to a hoax being perpetrated.--Isotope23 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• DElete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 9 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. nn hoax/nonsense. --Madchester 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Grizzlardolphoctopus

Joke article, only source is one Slashdot post. —Keenan Pepper 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense, so tagged. NawlinWiki 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke it from orbit The stupid is strong with this one. Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but just for completeness sake I added an elephant ref. Gazpacho 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Xoloz removed the speedy tag. This is a neologism, an obvious joke and doesn't belong here. - Richardcavell 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "huh huh huh, I think I'll put a joke article up on wikipedia. No one has ever thought of that." --Xrblsnggt 03:50, 8 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. Sango123 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Severed Hand

Nonnotable heavy metal band. NawlinWiki 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Update adding Keep Your Wives Inside (band's only album) to listing. NawlinWiki 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• What do you want to do with the song? Kappa 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is rumored that the song will be released as the third single from the album." -- delete the song too without anything more concrete. NawlinWiki 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "They obviously influenced Seattle Rockers Pearl Jam to add to their extensive library of music.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.241.30 (talk • contribs)
• delete per nom. fails WP:MUS not notable. one self-released album. 145,000 ghits, most of which for Pearl Jam song Ohconfucius 06:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn - non-notable Localzuk ^(talk) 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• The band was featured on a VH1 show. I Married...Sebastian Bach. That should imply some notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severedhand (talk • contribs) (article author)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUS. Fairsing 16:06, 10 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 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sex_changer

There are no pages that link to this disambiguation page except for the page that links to disambiguation pages. It's also not a term I think comes up very often or needs to be disambiguated. "Sex Changer" also sounds like a derogatory term for transgendered people. kian 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to gender changer, the second definition doesn't appear to be verifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete, as it has no value. That term isn't used, gender changer is Localzuk ^(talk) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -NinjaCharlie 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. --Celithemis 07:20, 9 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 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Euclidean natural units

original research. i never heard of "Euclidian natural units". article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions about it on the Talk:Natural units page. r b-j 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. When Googled with quotes, 352/354 results are all links to the same article on a math&science forum under two filenames. The original research seems to make sense (though it is without any sources), but it is original research, and, as per WP:OR, should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

i dunno what sense you can make of it. it cannot be a complete set of Natural units unless it normalizes or fixes 3 universal physical constants (to get natural units for length, time, and mass). or 4 if you include a natural unit of charge or 5 if you include temperature. r b-j 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I should have clarified what I made of the .pdf file. I briefly scanned over the .pdf and thought it did not look like patent nonsense. I am unqualified to determine if it makes sense mathematically or physically, however, as I am ignorant of natural units and much of the math used in the .pdf file. --Iamunknown 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

it's okay. patent nonesense is unreadable gobbledegook that is pretty obvious to anyone. i could find no hits whatsoever when i Google either "Euclidean natural units" or "Euclidian natural units" with quotes. but the page, along with two others (that i listed below), are nonsense from a science or physics POV. r b-j 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; uncited, and as a mathematician, it strikes me as nonsense. There is no such thing as time or light in Euclidean geometery.--Prosfilaes 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; patent or not, this is utter nonsense, and OR. --Lambiam^Talk 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsensical original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps salt. The link is this, and it is even more nonsensical (although not patent nonsense) than the article. Septentrionalis 01:37, 9 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 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Generic wavelength

"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions on Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. The following sentence in the article gives it away: "Generic wavelength has minimal use in technical literature and is not used consistently." -- Koffieyahoo 04:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Michael 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, and unsalvageable gibberish. --Lambiam^Talk 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:01, 8 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 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Generic frequency

"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions at Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my suggestion on the generic wavelength AfD and the dependence of generic frequency on generic wavelength. -- Koffieyahoo 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, and unsalvageable gibberish. --Lambiam^Talk 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet more original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:01, 8 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 NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Freecycle (software)

Page is a software ad, and software is of no special interest RainbowCrane 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spammity spam... --Xrblsnggt 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SPAM Localzuk ^(talk) 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs cleanup, but this is Linux GPL freeware, and an application genre that's notable for it's rarity on that platform. Ace of Risk 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is borderline (lots of Google hits but no media coverage that I could find); on the other hand, it does have a niche audience. It is free software and the site it is hosted at has no ads. I don't know of any other free software that does what it does. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:28, 12 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 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Inertia (laziness)

Hardly a potential article. Currently presents just a single quotation. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it is a potential article... on wiktionary. - Richardcavell 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT. Michael 06:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richardcavell. Viridae^Talk 08:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Do not transwiki, as this definition is already on Wiktionary. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richardcavell and Cordesat above. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without transwikiing per User:Coredesat. JIP | Talk 15:18, 8 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. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Full magazine

Non-notable online magazine. Zero Google hits. Vanity article (created by magazine's creator). It's not clear what an "underground" website is. eaolson 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. nn-advertisement. --Madchester 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless substantial content and evidence of notability is forthcoming. Richardjames444 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly a vanity article. --Edgelord 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• dont delete give a boy a chance he clearly loves this website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicklink (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 August 2006.

Comment Sorry, but you are going to need a better reason than that for this article to be kept. --Edgelord 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Michael 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an "online magazine" should have some Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Localzuk ^(talk) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• A MANS VALIDITY CANNOT BE MEASURED WITH GOOGLE HITS PLEASE RECONSIDER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicklink (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 August 2006.

• A man's validity cannot be measured with a Wikipedia article. nn, vanity. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and removal of the AFD from the article. Ryūlóng 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This should remain, I found it to be interesting... and no one should be deprived of an opportunity to see this on wikipedia, the Free encyclopedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.255.88 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 August 2006.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthony (Nickel Creek song)

Prodded as a non-notable song and recreated, which equates to a contested prod. Song is still non-notable: no chart appearance, not even released as a single, and no other assertion of notability in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:49, 8 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 KEEP. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science

Not encyclopedic. This article has a long and sad history of trying to be cleaned up, and I think the reason they have all failed is that it just isn't a good candidate for an encyclopedia entry. It reads more like a review or critical analysis essay. There is only one reference, and that reference really has little to do with the subject of the article itself. Nearly every sentence is marked with {{fact}}, but I don't see how there could even be a source that validates any of these statements. Let us end the madness and delete this article, merging any meager scraps of verfiable fact (if there are any to be found) into E. W. Dijkstra. -- Rangek 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the ideas discussed in this article appear in numerous Dijkstra papers and could even be considered his life's work. They should be covered at his article or a spinoff thereof. Gazpacho 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject of the article is notable. It's a bit of an orphan but that's not enough reason to delete. - Richardcavell 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete academic snobbery soapbox --Xrblsnggt 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  The "academic snobbery" merely reflects the style of Dijkstra, whose significance is not in doubt. Gazpacho

  No, the "academic snobbery" in this case belongs strictly to the article. Articles about "academic snobbery" don't have to be so.... snobby. Rangek 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an essay. Probably merge the observation in first paragraph into E. W. Dijkstra, if it isn't already there. -- Koffieyahoo 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Michael 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dijkstra is important and the article of his that this WP article is about is important. I agree in part with Gazpacho that it could be described in E. W. Dijkstra but I would have thought that this is already a spin-off of that so I do not understand that alternative. It also looks to me as if the {{fact}} tags are not correct because the point they address appears to be covered in the Dijkstra article that is the subject of this WP article. --Bduke 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dijkstra's views are notable even if controversial. The article started off as a rant, but that has largely been cleaned up. Leibniz 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article has obviously been significantly cleaned up since the above author's argued for deletion. It's now actually pretty decent and is a subject of extreme encyclopaedic importance written with good style. WilyD 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you figure that? The article hasn't been touched since I nominated it. Rangek 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, it was the only way I could account for the discrepency between the comments above and the appearence of the article. WilyD 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs sources and tidying but it should be of value when this is done Localzuk ^(talk) 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My question is, "How?". I believe verifiable sources do not exist for any of the statements in the article. Rangek 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like a valid article. JIP | Talk 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Localzuk's comments. Most of the statements flagged {{fact}} are verifiable -- they should lack sources. Article is clearly in need of improvement, but I fail to see how it is non-encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, "should" lack sources? JIP | Talk 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well-known essay by a very notable (in his field) individual. Should be possible to verify enough information from reliable sources (just delete any that can't be). Article lacking in sources but seems OK otherwise. - makomk 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  I agree it is a well known essay by a very well known person. But what does the article SAY about the essay? What (useful things) CAN it say? Rangek 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  Roughly what it says now (only properly referenced). The article seems to be an accurate summary of the essay and its actual impact, it's severely just lacking in sources. (Unfortunately, I have no idea where to look for them...) - makomk 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, quite notable. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - an article paraphrasing a single paper is hardly encyclopaedic. If it summarised and referenced critiques then fine. But it doesn't. BlueValour 03:53, 13 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 no consensus. Both sides make good points ... and ties go to the runner. If anyone feels particularly strongly about this fellow not getting an article, they can feel free to merge him at their leisure. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Izhar Hunzai

Fails WP:BIO - no evidence of notable achievement presented - Delete. BlueValour 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As an official of the Aga Khan Development Network, he seems to be doing particularly useful things. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 479 exact name matches on Google. Michael 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability test. Eusebeus 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for his involvement with Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (cultural services side). Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deleted Non-Notable and Fails WP:BIO. I suggest people look at those 479 exact name matches on Google and reconcider their notability claims. --Bschott 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in the field, plenty of exact name matches in google Localzuk ^(talk) 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Barely 35 Google hits here and many do not refer to him. No tangible achievements - General manager of such a programme is a most worthwhile job but no different from very, many other people doing such responsible functions. BlueValour 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment probably better to search on Izhar Ali Hunzai Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment and why would anyone have used the middle name 'Ali' when searching? Nothing is said about it in the article nor is it part of the title. --Bschott 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Using the middle name brings it down to 23 hits here. Face it; this guy ain't notable. BlueValour 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment He's general manager of a humanitarian organisation that has doubled the income of the rural poor in their area of interest. Has a 6m$ annual budget. Ghits isn't the best criterion here. Dlyons493 Talk 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have managed a £3 million UKP budget in a human resources field but I am not notable :-) I have no doubt that this is a remarkable achievement but for encyclopaedic purposes we need to meet WP:CITE and WP:LIVING. BlueValour 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further comment - For determination of notability or including in the encyclopaedia what is needed is independent sourcing for example as to what (and how it) was achieved, some figures as to the numbers benefitting, the other influences etc BlueValour 07:59, 9 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. Looks like the Emmy nomination argument was pretty well refuted; you're free to disagree, though: DRV is that way ----->. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hely

Delete: Non-notable television writer. Not every television staff writer is notable This is it, make no mistake anymore 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Reasonably important writer according to the credentials listed in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominated for an Emmy for Letterman. Sounds notable to me. Rangek 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  Delete. This is it, make no mistake anymore has convinced me of the error of my previosu opinion. Rangek 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Michael 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Emmy nominated = notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this really so clear cut? Large shows like Letterman will have quite large staffs of writers. When the show is nominated, the entire staff gets nominated. Making emmy nomination the bar, then, could lead to articles about thousands of minor television writers. I say we draw the line of notability at lead writers (or somewhere like that) to prevent this onslought of borderline-vanity articles. This is it, make no mistake anymore 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. It's pretty well established that a major award, or nomination thereof, in any field (Emmys, Oscars, Pulitzar, Nobel Prizes, etc) are reason for inclusion. As for whether this leads to inclusion of "minor" people, I would say that those winning or nominated for such an award can no longer be considered "minor" in their field. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • • It's pretty well established that a major award, or nomination thereof, in any field (Emmys, Oscars, Pulitzar, Nobel Prizes, etc) are reason for inclusion. Except for the inconvenient fact that he WASN'T nominated -- a group of 15 staff writers was nominated. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. I just followed the link provided on Hely's article and found that approximately 95 people were nominated for Emmys in 2003 for writing alone. I imagine, according to your logic, I am justified in going ahead and creating 95 stubs stating that these folks won emmys? maybe then I should proceed to other emmy categories, then to daytime emmys, then to other years, etc? Just want to make sure I have your go-ahead to create thousands of stubs about otherwise non-notable individuals. This is it, make no mistake anymore 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're willing to do the work, go for it. As far as Emmy noms are concerned, I'd imagine our coverage of actors is far more comprehensive than our coverage of writers, so effort in closing the gap would be appreciated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Very well then. I have already started. See Steve Bodow, Tamara Koubov and Frederica Iacoponi. This should be fun; thank you for giving me something to do for the next year. I trust that, should any of these be suggested for deletion you will intervene on their behalf. This is it, make no mistake anymore 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • While you're at it, also check out Sandra Masone, a boom oprator for General Hospital whois notable according to your standards.This is it, make no mistake anymore 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • In keeping with your notability guidelines, I also created Philip Teodorski who was nominated for the fine work he did creating the opeing credits for a local newscast. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per emmy nomination Localzuk ^(talk) 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. I remain unconvinced that an Emmy nomination confers automatic notability. Where's the articles for people who have been Emmy-nominated for lighting? editing? casting? gaffer? single-camera picture editing? multi-camera picture editing? key grip? and how about the Emmy nominees for hairstyling? Aside from actors, most people who have been Emmy-nominated are people that no one has ever heard of and no one ever will. wikipediatrix 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Emmy nomination for major role on very famous show. Drett 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, being Emmy-nominated suggests serious notability. Yamaguchi先生 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being Emmy-nominated here suggests nothing, since he's one of a group of 15 writers being nominated for one show. It's not a nomination for his work, it's for being part of a group of 15. And, more to the point, that group didn't even win. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think merely being nominated is a guarentee of nobility at all, such people can still be quite easily "minor" in a field, especially if 95 people are nominated. I mean look at the articles someone created here, a Boom Operator nominated for an emmy guarentees they are no longer minor? I just don't buy it. Homestarmy 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could the nominator of this article please explain why they have nominated something for deletion which they have edited quite a bit - it seems like there has been quite a revert war between This is it, make no mistake anymore and This is it, make no mistake anymore. Have a look at the history. Drett 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am a relatively new user. As I have learned more about wikipedia guidelines, I have come to realize more that this article is about a non-notable topic. I feel that I have provided legitimate wikipedia arguments for this position (eg large teams of people nominated, the boom operator example,etc.). However, I have noted that according to the majority here(consensus) so far, the standard for notability is mere nomination and, as such, I have contributed to the wikipedia according to these notability guidelines. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not creator, director or main actor, just a staff writer. There's usually dozens of these guys and they get hired and fired every week. This guy just happened to be on the staf when the large writing team at one show he worked for was nominated for an Emmy. Unless it can be shown that he is a significant and important figure in the show he's non-notable. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• strong delete Assertion of notability is grossly exaggerated or has been falsified. article implies Hely was personally nominated for Emmy for Letterman. Seems not to be the case, as per above, so the subject's most serious claim to notability is scratch for WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius 04:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair, Hely was mentioned by name in the nomination. This is it, make no mistake anymore 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - notability should hinge on demonstrable achievement not just an Emmy nom that can be something or nothing. BlueValour 04:00, 13 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 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Salsafication

Nonnotable excerpt from one restaurant chain's training materials. NawlinWiki 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Daniel Case 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Holy crap, no wonder the one near me went out of business. --Xrblsnggt 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carson 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chi-Chi's. -- Gogo Dodo 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, extremely unlikely search term. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, quite spectacularly non-notable. JIP | Talk 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb and slightly offensive, but not dumb enough or offensive enough to be interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — to Chi-Chi's as this is relevent only to the restraunt chain. Move relevent content to Chi-Chi's as well. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:15, 8 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 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Naked Robber

Party game that was partly developed by "Pantsless Mike" and is only claimed to exist at one school.

• Delete, something made up in school one day. A cartoon show is not a reliable source. Gazpacho 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no references, definite NFT. Daniel Case 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, something made up in school one day, certainly a non notable game.--Joe Jklin (T C) 03:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Hey everybody, we're streaking the quad." --Xrblsnggt 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)It's like any other college game and college tradition, non verifiable and only briefly mentioned in media. No harm.

Note, this comment has in fact been altered (from delete to keep and had the final sentence appended) by the article's creator. The real poster has informed me of that, since I didn't even think of checking the edit history. BigHaz 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The original author of the article altered my vote. [10]. See original vote [11]. -- Gogo Dodo 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sounds like a drunken game which was later rationalised, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure about what Gogo Dodo means by citing the reasons to delete as being reasons to keep... BigHaz 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply not notable. Viridae^Talk 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While wasted, we all do stupid stuff. Besides being a complete made-up-in-a-school-day(or night for that matter), delete it to save them the anguish of an article about what they did to get arrested one night, naked, in the street. Kevin_b_er 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up after a few drinks with your friends one night. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per gazpacho Localzuk ^(talk) 14:18, 8 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 keep. Argument about verifiability has been refuted; argument about health hazard has been binned; argument about being silly has been taken under advisement and should undoubtedly be kept in mind next time someone invents a drinking game. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bouncing coins

Bouncing coins was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing coins (relist nomination).

This needs to be referenced and verified and, if it is legit, probably merged with Quarters as the lede suggests. If not, delete as nn. Has been AFD'ed previously in bulk, nomination was withdrawn due to difficulty gaining consensus. Daniel Case 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Public health hazard. I am all for the sport of drinking, but while they were inventing this game, did the thought occur that drinking out of a community glass and tossing filthy coins into it that have bounced off an equally filthy bar table could spread some diseases? --Xrblsnggt 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a silly idea to have thought it was notable enough for wikipedia in the first place Viridae^Talk 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a silly renomination. It was consensus keep, it was verifiable before (s "bounce 'em") and still is. The AfDs were done individiually, and nearly all kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three, the blame for this remonimation lies squarely with the editor who not only didn't cite the source in the article the last time this came to AFD, hasn't done so this time either. The prior AFD discussion wasn't in the usual place, and wasn't linked to from the notice on the article's talk page. Please learn to cite sources. Citing sources is the way to avoid AFD, and a complaint that articles come to AFD when one has failed to cite any sources and no sources can be found (without knowing a different name for the subject that isn't even mentioned in the article) doesn't really have much foundation, especially when it has happened once already. Uncle G 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Usually it happens. Considering that I spent two hours voting in 30-something drinking game AfDs the last time it came around, I'm not shocked that a few missed the boat. While articles should be cited if need be, the large amount of nominations also asks the question as to whether any effort to verify was made by the nominee, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • ("Nominator", not "nominee".) There have only been four nominations of drinking games in this group, and Daniel Case has made it clear that xe has tried to find sources on these games under the (only) names given in their articles. Uncle G 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Only four this time, yes, thankfully. I'll keep my mouth shut concerning the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Because you dislike something, or consider it dangerous, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. --Gau 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While pertinent, that comment is not a reason to keep. Do you have one? Daniel Case 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What possible relevance is there to a discussion of whether to delete an article that someone thinks it is a public health hazard? Isn't that opinion itself OR? Is that a basis for having no mention in Wikipedia of say promiscuity or the eating of raw fish in Sushi, since those might also spread disease? You should only post Keep or Delete based on valid criteria. Is the article OR? POV? about something Notable? Does it have Verifiable Sources? Edison 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced and it is the editor's responsibility to source. I gather there is a book reference - has the text been checked against the book for possible copyvio? As it stands it is OR. BlueValour 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As the book doesn't list it under this name - and the article should be moved there - it doesn't appear to, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BlueValour, not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--There is absolutely nothing wrong with this page, though it might make sense to merge it with Quarters -- Trnj2000 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - what is absolutely wrong with this page is that it breaches WP policy by being totally unsourced. BlueValour 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}}. Sources have been presented. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The sources need to be included in the article so any reader can verify the contents. If, you have been presented with the sources, why not include them? BlueValour 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was planning to after the AfD concluded. If it's bothering you right now, it can't hurt to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 14 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. Sango123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bottle polka

Another unverified drinking game, thanks to the supporters of Rod Allen Drinking Game pointing to other similarcruft (?) articles as a reason to keep. 763 Google hits, only a few seem relevant and they're all either us or our mirrors. HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME. Daniel Case 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Heresy. I object to the passing around of my drink to others at the table. Also the risk of spilling valuable alcohol is just too great. --Xrblsnggt 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - drinking games don't belong on wikipedia unless they're well known - Richardcavell 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a listing of people's favorite drinking games. Michael 06:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete untill wikipedia changes into the ultimate bar guide, delete. Viridae^Talk 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a waste of beer. Oh, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopaedia of drinking games. The problem with the article is its verifiability, not any violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V --Wafulz 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We've already lost the Rod Allen Drinking Game; we cannot lose another because of some over-zealous deletionists :( X96lee15 12:46, 12 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross the River

Cross the River was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross the River (relist nomination).

The current drinking game purge continues. I can find one independent reference to this game at gameosis.com. I cannot find these rules anywhere. NN in my book. Daniel Case 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT - we are not a listing of drinking games. Michael 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopaedia of drinking games. The problem with the article, both here and in the prior AFD discussion, is its verifiability, not any violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 14:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced it is OR. BlueValour 04:10, 13 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 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nikki Park

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Nikki to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is also some junk in there too, like, "Looks like the site hasn't been updated in several years... however to fool people they are just changing the dates to make it appear like the pictures are real." Rangek 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. also unsourced bio and arguably WP:NPOV Ohconfucius 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete DVD-R = NN. ~ trialsanderrors 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not even close to WP:PORN BIO or WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, as far as I can tell this fails WP:PORN BIO and other biographical guidelines for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 23:36, 8 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. Sango123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jug Game

All significant Google hits are here, mirrors and a blog that links here. Daniel Case 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete If you add the word "beer" to your Google search, hits go from over 400 to 39 - including wiki mirrors. If beer isn't mentioned, it's not this game. Bustter 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a list of drinking games unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopaedia of drinking games. The problem with the article is its verifiability, not any violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 14:19, 8 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 Not for AfD, redirected.. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Garage parking

It is a double of the article Parking Garage. There isn't even enough there to merge anything into Parking Garage.

• Delete as nominator. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parking garage to avoid this duplication in future. - Richardcavell 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Michael 06:13, 8 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 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of H manga

List better served as a cat. All blue links have been added to List of manga (except one that doesn't appear to be a manga. SeizureDog 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it duplicates a category. Perhaps there could be a subcategory of hentai manga, but until then the list serves no purpose. - Richardcavell 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to category, and the category is more comprehensive at this time. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if there are red entries, it doesn't duplicate a category, especially if you don't want an article for every H-manga. 132.205.93.19 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a catalogue. There is no reason to list things we do not have articles about, and particularly not in a contextless list like this one that provides no information whatsoever about the redlinked manga. — Haeleth Talk 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment First, it should be renamed to List of hentai manga, but just how do you differentiate between hentai manga and hentai dōjinshi? --TheFarix (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With all the doujinshi manga of varying levels of notability, there are way too many of these to list and maintain, so what's the criterion for inclusion? I say forget red links and let each article be subject to AfD. Merging should take place on other factors, by series, by artist, by publisher, etc. - Wickning1 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; useless as it stands, and not particularly useful as a starting-point for anything else. — Haeleth Talk 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neier 22:20, 10 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 keep, although I suggest Jeff pull his finger out on these articles. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Three

Mr. Three was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three (relist nomination).

I didn't know we had so many mirrors. But no independent source. Daniel Case 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't find this to be worthy of deletion at all. --Yath 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot find this information on any page that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. We don't keep that sort of thing. Daniel Case 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn;t appear to be at all notable (and it has too much maths to be a good drinking game :)) Viridae^Talk 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another unverifiable drinking game. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please note the prior AFD discussion, where the game was found documented under another name. (This renomination is an example of why it is always best to add sources to the article in AFD discussions.) Uncle G 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In that case, I would readily change my argument to keep if sources are added. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then here you are, it was listed as Three Man in The Best Drinking Games Book. I thought we had moved it to its verifiable title, but apparently not. Also, keep, bad renomination considering the evidence cited at the last AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Considering that the prior AFD discussion was not in the usual place or linked to from the notice on the article's talk page, and that even the second time around you haven't actually cited the source in the article, it's somewhat unfair to characterize the renomination as bad. The root cause of the problem here is failure to cite sources in the article. You're not citing sources in the article, either. Please learn to cite sources in articles. Articles that cite sources are rarely brought to AFD in the first place, let alone deleted. This one certainly wouldn't have be renominated if you had actually added to the article the source that you found when the article came to AFD before. Uncle G 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Easily verifiable articles brought to AfD are bad nominations. I stand by that. As I said in the other discussion, when 30+ articles are brought up last time around, and you spend hours doing research to find the verifiability for them, you're gonna miss a couple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • This was not an easily verifiable article, as explained above. And the last time around this article was nominated individually, not as part of a collective nomination of 30 articles. In the prior AFD discussion, you failed to cite the source that you found, in the article. The cited source was hidden away on a hard-to-find AFD page, rather than in the article. As I said before, the blame here does not lie with the nominator, but with the editor who found a non-obvious source last time around, but didn't cite it in the article. Accusing the nominator of making bad nominations is poor form, given the circumstances. Uncle G 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Then we disagree. It's not hard to look up drinking games at Amazon or Google Books, and if a source is missed here and there when you're trying to save 30 articles from deletion, it happens. The blame, by design, cannot lie with the nominator, as there's no requirement for the nominator to do anything other than spend the time doing the AfD. Considering the situation, we disagree on what's poor form here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V. Sandstein 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Article meets WP:V. Please explain further? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, yes, glad to: There are as of this moment zero sources of any kind in this article, let alone reliable published ones. It even has a tag that says so. As such, it appears to me that the article does not meet WP:V in a rather textbook manner. Sandstein 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Update: Ah, I get it now, you mean to refer to the sources cited in this and in the previous AfD. Well, the article itself still fails WP:V. And, sorry, it supposedly being mentioned under another name in a book of drinking games could meet WP:V, but I don't see any indication of even minimal notability. Sandstein 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So your position is, in fact, that it's not notable, not that it's not verifiable. Given that the game is detailed in a published book, could you explain how it's non-notable? I, for the record, have no problem moving the article to the proper name, but to say it's not notable seems weird. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm in the telephone book. I even wrote a (non-self-published) book and co-authored another. I'm still not notable. Put differently, not everything that's in a book is necessarily notable just for being in a book. It might well be, but if it were, shouldn't we have, say, some media mentions or some Google hits? Come to think of it ... it does have many Google hits. So a case for verifiability and notability can probably (barely) be made, and it appears that more than five people in the world play this game, although you still wouldn't know this from the article itself (as per Uncle G above). Switching to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, the article being poor at the moment (and I'll do some work on it again later tonihgt) isn't an automatic reason, but I'm glad you changed your mind. For the record, I think that if you've written a non-vanity press book, you *are* notable enough, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredsat; two AFDs to focus the attention of those who want it kept and all we have in the way of verifiabiliy is The Best Drinking Games Book Ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What else are you looking for? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What else ? I'd like the article deleted, thanks very much, as it should have been the first time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Why should it be deleted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Because the only source you can find is a published list of drinking games of uncertain provenance (how do you know the compilers didn't add some to make up the numbers ?). Do you think there was any sort of editorial oversight, or a review committee, that scrutinised the contents ? There's a reason why WP:RS and WP:V are joined at the hip, and this is it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
          • How do we know some weren't added? Because we can do a search for the games and see if they're discussed elsewhere, which this one is. I see nothing to suggest that this isn't reliable, and it's absolutely verifiable, so i'm not sure what your protest is at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 13 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Craig (reality television contestant)

delete per WP:BIO. Subject not notable. TV contestant who was 2nd to be evicted. no other claim to fame.

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (USA season 4). --Satori Son 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Satori Son. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect. Xoloz 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Amy Crews

delete per WP:BIO non notable subject. evicted game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Redirect as per following is OK too. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB3 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per The JPS. Plausible search term, but no real need for an article. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per The JPS. --Wingsandsword 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Geoking66 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Redirects and Merges can be undone by any editor the next day. BlueValour 04:11, 13 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Howard (American webcomic artist)

Delete this article on a living person which is unverifiable by reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "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." Searching through my library, I find no such reliable third party sources for any information in this article. As such, the article can't help but run counter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well, where our official verifiability policies must be strictly enforced. Dragonfiend 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BIO trumps previous discussion; NPOV articles cannot be written without good sources, and good sources are in short supply here. Nifboy 05:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple interviews from online publications and the artist's own site are sufficient to support the content of the article. If the standard for Wikipedia is to wait for information on a topic to show up in a library it will make it much more difficult to build up and revise content on a topic. If the consensus is to delete, the middle section describing the end of the comics should be merged with the article on A Modest Destiny. For comparison, the article on Dan Piraro offers up his personal website as a source, and a brief bio from the national cartoonists society.--BigCow 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• But I have already voiced my dislike for Wikipedia, so anything under which I am the sole documentation could not be taken seriously. It can be assumed that I can, have, and will again pass off lies as the truth just to see it documented here in the very real hopes that I can one day make a public fool of Wikipedia and it's practices. Any page you quote as a reference here on Wikipedia could easily be changed into something wildly different. My website could only be considered a source if I weren't willing to modify it just to manipulate and mock Wikipedia. See, I told you my dislike of Wikipedia was relevant to the article...--SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• While that may be true, you're really just attacking Wikipedia, not this article. Just because you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that you're allowed to falsify articles on yourself. If you do anyway, than you should be treated the same as any other vandal and denied the ability to edit or create articles. If you have a problem with Wikipedia, there are many, many outlets that you can use to express that- deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia for others serves no purpose but to be petty.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think you understand. I wouldn't have to touch Wikipedia. About 90% of that article is quoted directly from me or consists of information only I could verify. You'd have a hard time finding enough reliable third party sources to say anything significant about me, and I'm telling you right now - I'm not just an unreliable source, I'm down right hostile. --SeanHoward 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• If you are indeed as much of a source on this article as you claim to be, then I suggest you remove your contributions and let the rest of us, with our NPOV and third-party sources fill in the gaps. I'm sure that it's very possible for us to find the information without your help, regardless of whether or not you want this article to exist.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article doesn't give any information not found in the comic's pages, and Sean Howard himself has expressed a disire to take the article down. No reason for it to be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbow.

The section on the end of the comics collects information from a few sources not easily available in one place, and the opinions of the subject of the article do not determine its inclusion.--BigCow 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Without me as a compliant and willful resource, the contents of this article would be undocumentable and inaccurate. I am anything but compliant and willful. My accomplishments have their own articles. There is no need for there to be one on my person as well. --SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The previous deletion nominations were pre-WP:BLP, so the arguments for keeping from those discussions don't carry much weight. The article doesn't meet WP:BIO, so just delete it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. No truly reliable sources, and the official site has Alexa ranking 283,594 currently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is more or less a biography and biography of important people should not be deleted. And biograhpy in nation does not have many citations or sources. {{subst:Zhanster|zhanster}} 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It should be noted that the subject's desire to not have an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant as are his views on the project and his willingness to be a resource for an article (his own statements would constitute original research). The sources provided in the article don't qualify as reliable sources, but I imagine one could find verifiable information to base an article on. It's not there right now, so this probably be deleted under WP:BIO, but with no predjudice against recreation at a later date if sources are found.--Isotope23 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has value as a reference for the multiple viewpoints, and public exploits of a major internet celebrity. Vash293 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I loathe Sean's apparent personal vendetta against Wikipedia, this does fail BIO and WEB, not to speak of V. —Nightstallion (?) 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personally, I'm not sure Sean Howard would be considered major enough to warrent a biographical article, especially if he doesn't want one. The only reason Mr. Howard even has his own article is because of the flame war that he accidently prompted, and a couple of (very amusing) web-comics. There are a variety of equally prominant web artists with no mention whatsoever on wikipedia, such as AIMO, Crimson Jassic or Nemain Ravenwood. Also, the only source of information available on this guy is what you can pull out of various forums, many of which seem to have a tendancy to bash him, and are therefore not reliable. To sum it up, what we have is a minor contemporary cartoonist, on whom we can get little to no reliable information.--Ostermana 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, not verifiable = delete. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep complete article, not in violation, clear sources Zaver
• Delete. Rebecca 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh boy, this man is sometimes more trouble then he's worth. The thing with Sean Howard's problem with Wikipedia is that it criticizes him. Well DUH! He's a jerk. I know it, you know, heck, even HE knows it! He's admitted it. He likes to cause trouble and call people incompetent, but he can't stand it when there is even a LITTLE bit of bad things said to him! If people who alter this article can't find sorces, then the reason is because there are no sources to find. Howard deleates anything that gets pissed on by other people and show him as being wrong (he's even deleated comics because people threw them back in his face). The thing is, pretty much all this information is true, and I'm sure some searching through the webarchives will prove that. KevinTRod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinTRod (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC.

• He may or may not be a jerk, but he's also a logged-in user, so NPA, fool! --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are not enough sources except what he says of himself, which is strictly against NPOV. Lack of information coupled with a lack of importance makes this article something unneeded.--Hawkaris 10:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient reliable sources for verifiably neutral coverage, significant evidence that past coverage has been anything but neutral as a result. WP:BLP says we must take a conservative approach, in this case the prudent thing to do is give up and wait until he is more famous. The more articles like this I see the more persuaded I am by the "no first biographies" proposal. That proposal is not yet policy, but this article goes a good way to arguing why it should be. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ora 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I know anonymous opinions aren't worth much, but delete anyways, for the above reasons. --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm reversing my original opinion from the last time this was brought up for deletion, given the things I've since learned about WP notability, et cetera. Sean's only really known for getting in an argument with actually notable people; he should probably just be referenced in his comics' articles, though I wonder if they're even notable enough.--Spinn 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteTheres no real information here. Just people on both sides using Wikipedia for a vendetta. I say delete and let's move on with our lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.177.29 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. Let the baby have its bottle. If nothing else, it will cease his whining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doenherleven (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep but allow sean to add his disclaimer. if not then delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.25.53 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Remove this page and keep the page for his sprite comics to reference his site and other works in passing. Delusional != notable. --Leth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leth (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep- Sean Howard has created more of a stir on the internet community (through incidents with Penny Arcade, his blog, his rampages, his tantrums, and his attacks on people) than his comic ever did. If AMD necessitates an article, then the author himself does, too. Sean Howard, though I may not like him that much, is an internet figure and a webcomic author of note- if not, then why else would he have been called to participate in a panel discussion? However, information should be updated to talk more about the person and not just the comics. --Wtstar 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This person does not want to be on Wikipedia and you are infringing on his rights by forcefuly putting him on it. If he says he dosn't want it, delte it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.100.112 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep If you were to delete the article it would undermine many of the principles that make wikipedia what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.212.98 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep There are no rules being breached, just a webcomic artist who is again trying to gain infamy through yet another controversial action. Leave it with no disclaimer as well, succumbing to his petty desires goes against the principle of objectivity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.68.224 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

• Man, is it me or do a lot of these 'keep' blurbs take time out to personally attack me? If this is the quality of person who wants an article about me on Wikipedia, what does that say about how the article will be used? So far, the article has been real short on facts and real big on slander, insinuation, vandalism, gossip, and a few guys who want to use me to advertise their forum to my fans, even though it has nothing to do with me (you may recognize them above with the 'keep' votes - wonder why?). What I find amazing is that some of the people most responsible for using Wikipedia as a personal weapon of attack against me have all chimed in to 'keep' the article. Seriously... WTF? --SeanHoward 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep, Squidi comics are online once again, therefore people will want to know who Sean is and Wikipedia should be able to provide them with the information, if biographys of TV stars are to be kept, so should biographies of "internet stars" Demonblade 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Honestly I think a major difference thats going unconsidered here is that Squidi isn't exactly rich and famous. He's an internet personality to be sure, but I imagine he doesn't want to be swamped by people, or having his name, location, and picture THIS easily available. I know, I know, information is easy to find on the internet, but the point stands. I also agree with the Bio and infamy stuff. I ALSO also agree that Squidi is being childish and trying to use this as a way to get at Wikipedia, but that doesn't stop him from being right in that this article needs to be taken down--Juron Pilo 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete From what I understand of Howard's old website he neglected to post pictures or much amount of personal information about himself. Delete the article if he (the real Sean Howard) wants it so, or at least take out his personal information and picture and simply refer to his comics and works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.213.167 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc., but this AfD is certainly a pain to wade through... — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whatever. If he wants this gone it's [more-or-less] his right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dejavood0o (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Aside from the obvious fact that the subject has no desire to be in Wikipedia, the particular article currently posted is not substantial enough to warrent being in Wikipedia. How much non-AMD work is actually related to Sean Howard (and is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia)? To the extend of my knowlege, AMD, TSD, AAA and other related works all fall under the category of "Squidi.net", do they not? If we really need an article that relates all the information, why not put it under an umbrella. We don't have enough information to really warrent a full article on Sean Howard, do we? I mean, does anyone even have something as simple as his date of birth? That's pretty standard information for a biography, isn't it? Yet, there is almost nothing actually relating to Sean Howard himself in this article. If there was enough material to write a full article, this would be a different subject. (George W. Bush, for instance, is well known enough that it would be wrong not to have an article for him.) I'm not saying DOB should be a qualifier, but look at the article in its current state. Judging by the content there alone, I would say Sean Howard is not noteworthy enough to have an article of his own. A few mentions in other articles, possibly, but not a full-fledged biographical article under his name. Figs 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The most notable part of the article, and what largely inspired its content in the first place was a section on the 'end of the comics', which detailed some events and controversies about copyright infringement in regards to pixel art, which is a large part of the reason Sean Howard is known outside of his own comic or worth looking up. An older version that has most of that section: [12]. It's been hard to have a stable version with the edit wars lately.--BigCow 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But that section is crap. The first paragraphi is misleading, factually incorrect, speculative, and unverifiable. The second paragraph has NOTHING to do with why the comic ended. The third paragraph is actually decent, but along with the "Return to Comics" section is now moot because the comic is indeed back. It's nothing more than a footnote in the history of squidi.net, and worthless in the grand scheme of a biography of my life. That section you are praising is little more than gossip, and I'm afraid that you're going to try to use it as some sort of justification for starting a new section on squidi.net, which would just circumvent the (poorly enforced) safeguards on verifibility in bios so that gossip and slander would be more easily introduced. --SeanHoward 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in interviews with you, in material on your site available from archive.org, and on other comic related sites discussing your stances on copyright issues. A fair number of people have heard of you because of your stance on copyrights. Whether or not it belongs in the article is another debate, I was just trying to point out that there was more content to the article, even if it currently isn't agreed upon.--BigCow 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - insufficient sourcing to stand up notability. BlueValour 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Even though Sean is being less than polite about it, he has several points. When someone's major claim to fame is a controversy with another web comic (with sources composed entirely, so far as I know, of people who have taken one side or another), you cannot create an article anywhere near a neutral point of view and have verifyable sources. Okay, so if that's left out of the article, what's left? His personal life, his web comic, and his blog. Mr. Howard has made quite an effort to keep as much personal information about himself off of the internet, except for mentions on his own site. His web comics already have their own pages. And his blog? Well, if wikipedia starts making pages for everyone who happens to have a blog, then I guess this page should be kept. But last time I checked, there weren't 8 million articles about emo kids with live journals. Seans blog had a larger audience, but at the end of the day it was a blog (and aside from copies of the blog itself, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it by a news source). It it's a matter of making easy access for his web comics, a portal page would make more sense than a biography. If the individual being written about was willing to cooperate with (or even ignore) his own article, there might be other routes. But someone who is willing to vandalize his own web page to make sure there is no accurate information anywhere about his site (as Mr. Howard proposed above), then there is little cause to keep such an article. Elbow 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect/Merge. While there is clearly a consensus against this person having a standalone article, deletion arguments fail to address whether the content is merge-worthy. Since the show is clearly notable, mention of its winner appears appropriate, in the absense of arguments otherwise. Xoloz 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Drew Daniel

delete per WP:BIO Subject not notable. TV game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He did win and then did some other stuff, but if he really does become notable we can always put it back. Rangek 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Michael 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB5 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I hate to be the devil's advocate, but all the other BB winners have articles. --*kate speak 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Paris 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Smartperson Drew deserves a webpage on wikipedia because all the other BB winners have one. If you want to delete his page because he hasn't done any notable things, except Big Brother, then you would have to delete Eddie McGee's page, Lisa Donahue's page, Jun Song's page and Maggie Ausburn's page too!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.247.219 (talk • contribs)
• The Hummer If all those other people who won BB can have a page I think it's only right that Drew has one too. There will be pages for seasons 1-4 winners and season 6 winner and soon to be season 7 winner, but there will be no page for the season five winner??? Hello people! That's nuts. No one else who won did anything notable, except for mabe Will Kirby (Dr. 90210) but still there are 4 other winners who have a page and have done nothing but be on BB for a summer!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.247.219 (talk • contribs)
• You all are Crazy That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Is it really bothering you people that Drew has a page?? It's not taking up much space and if you don't want to read the article on him, then don't-- But everyone has the right to see the Big Brother season 5 winner's page if they want to, just like they can see any other Big Brother season's winner if they want too. This is an injustice and you all should be ashamed of yourselves. You sicken me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.247.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Please remember to be civil. Srose (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete As another poster stated, all of the other BB contestants have page, why delete a winner's??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldridge86 (talk • contribs)
• Comment For all of you saying that other, less notable contestants have pages-- two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. If these people are truly notable the AFD process will bear that out. If not, they will be deleted. The notability of others should have no bearing on this AFD. Rangek 02:40, 16 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: the question of whether this should be merged with one season or the other is made moot by the fact that the consensus is that being on a game/reality show twice isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia article. A redirect is not sorely needed as the search engine will pick the name up in the main articles anyway, and no merging has been done. Delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Dedmon

db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nominator seems to be unfamiliar with the show and the person (based on "game show" comment). This is a signficant person on a major hit show. This is not a like a typical "game show" contestant on shows like Jeopardy, or The Price Is Right. She appeared in Big Brother 5, and again in Big Brother: All Stars. In BB5 she received more attention than most contestants on the show. Normally, all BB contestants are either kept as a stand-alone article or merged to the relevant season. As this person is in more than one season, a merge is inappropriate. Instead this article should be better developed. --Rob 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She appeared on a hit game show just doesn't cut it. What else could be added to "better develop" it? Rangek 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Her notability is closer to that of an actress then a game show contestant. An actress with a signficant role on a hit show, would almost always get an article. In the typical game show, nobody is concerned with the individual contestant. In the case of BB, there's substantial media coverage of them, and interest in their conduct, on, and off the show, and therefore material for expansion. --Rob 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you take away her involvement in Big Brother, does her other work qualify her for a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)? From a cursory look at her article, I get the impression that Big Brother is her claim to fame. If you can convince me that her work outside of Big Brother is notable, I'd be willing to change my vote to "keep as separate article." Fabricationary 05:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). (Ohconfucius, perhaps you should have nominated all of these articles in a group... ;) ) Fabricationary 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, which of the two seasons would her name redirect to, in that case?
    • Probably All-Stars (Season 7), though in that mention, a link to her name in the other list could be given. Fabricationary 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete your 15 min of fame are over --Doc 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If her 15 minutes was up, how did she win a national viewers poll two years after her first appearance, which let her appear on the "All Stars" season? Apparently, quite a few people did remember her. --Rob 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FireSpike 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose she's notable within the context of Big Brother as one of the more innovative competitors, but it's doubtful that she'll go on to anything of significant note. The obvious course, I think, is a merge with either Big Brother 5 or Big Brother 7. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 'Famous for being famous'. BlueValour 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per JPS. - David Oberst 06:33, 16 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 keep. Never in a million years speediable. I've discounted the vote-only comments, which leaves Bustter's "notable because of x ghits" versus Dlyons's "not notable because of y ghits". I did some Googling myself, and no matter how I narrowed it down, there were always several hundred thousand hits there (the 32m figure is optimistic; while the early results tend to be relevant, not all are). That gets rid of the "only 60 distinct ghits" ... which leaves ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ServiceMagic

advertising, link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages, copyright issue for logo KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete should have speedied. Rangek 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant as it is its industry pioneer and leader, and a part of the internet's largest conglomerate IAC. To delete would create a pointless stub from the IAC page. DanKai 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as the housepaintingestimates.com site, but SM appears to be less of industry leader and more general. No real value other than advertisement Jrozsa 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fyi, Companies are in discussion for speedy, not yet ratified. I see no policy whereby this should be deleted. The text is merely descriptive of the service, no hyperbole or sales talk that I can see, so not a "blatant" ad. The standard "smaall companies are not notable" doesn't apply here -- 32 million ghits. Google search is not itself an accepted measure, but the high numbers are due to this company's many locations. I can imagine someone finding the entry useful. I can't imagine any harm from its presence. so, keep. Bustter 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Logo can be used under fair use. Not valid reason to delete.
• Delete 60 Ghits suggests to me that it must miss WP:CORP. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 62 distinct Ghits does not suggest much in the way of notability. Closing admin might also note limited edit history of some contributors to the discussion. Dlyons493 Talk 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Dlyons493 BlueValour 04:23, 13 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. Sango123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

HousePaintingEstimates.com

Advertising, no links to this page, single link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, logo copyright KenWalker | Talk 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete should have speedied. Rangek 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless shown to meet WP:WEB. Cedars 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete, seems to be a small, non-notable outfit Bustter 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator this looks like an attempt to spam Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 23:34, 8 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 keep. Sango123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alison Hammond

db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability other than her early eviction on the show Ohconfucius 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. She seems to have gone on to do a bunch of other quasi-notable stuff. Rangek 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The person has gone on to do more than just the show. So, the nom's reasons (copy/pasted from other AFDs) is not relevant. --Rob 05:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. she managed to get a presenting job on GMTV... godgoddingham333 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per godgoddingham333. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, she's been a television presenter for four years, appearing regularly on one of ITV1's most-watched morning TV shows, and also appearing on Celebrity Fit Club. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 11:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Rangek. The stuff she's done hasn't been that notable, but the sum means she scrapes through. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the multiple television appearances and role as a presenter meet WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has now become known for more than just her Big Brother appearance, meaning therefore the article should be kept. Atlasvan 19:48 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There would be some argument to say that some of those who watch her on This Morning probably wouldn't even know she was on Big Brother. Darrenhusted 21:00, 11 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 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theftendo

Unreleased fan-clone of GTA III. Should be deleted as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete That looks really really really cool, and I will definitely play it when it arrives. However, as a minor fangame which isn't actually even released yet, it doesn't need a Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Videogame press has been all over this one: Among the 18,800 G-hits and 344 unique hits for "Grand Theftendo", here's a feature from 1UP.com on homemade GTA games, mentioning this one in the first paragraph; here's a mention on Boing Boing that links to an article in Forever Geek (and the same article is linked to by Slashdot); one hit states that the game was mentioned in Edge, but I can't verify this; here's a short mention in Electronic Gaming Monthly. I think there's been enough press (and interest) from reliable gaming sources, in addition to being included in the GTA template and having a "Grand Theftendo" WP article in another language, that the game could have its own article. -- Kicking222 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Being included in the template means nothing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all, that was, like, my seventh point for why I think the article should be kept. Second, I disagree that it means nothing- it may mean very little, but not nothing. It means that there is a consensus among GTA fans that the topic is important enough to be linked to from every other major GTA-related page. -- Kicking222 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it means someone added it and no one else bothered to delete it. Existence of anything on wikipedia is not considered evidence for notability in itself, because anyone can write anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it has been in the template since December [13], so in those eight months, any of the dozen-plus editors who have altered the template could have deleted it if they had chosen to do so. But anyway, this is not the point. The mod/game is notable whether it's in the template or not. -- Kicking222 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Recreate the article if/when the game is actually released and has gotten some press coverage. Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Xyzzyplugh 00:26, 9 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 keep (no consensus). Could perhaps be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Hrejsa

db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" The term "game show contestant" is somewhat misleading. Her notability is comparable to that of an actor on a hit show. --Rob 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are articles of contestants that spent less time in the Big Brother 6 house like Ashlea and Michael. Also Rob is right in his arguments. Comedy240 21:16 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has done something that enough people know of her, so why not just keep it like it is. Danny 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 'Famous for being famous' does not confer notability. BlueValour 04:24, 13 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. Sango123 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Lansky"

Never heard of it. Glans at the Google results; the internet is earily silent on the matter. ...and I can't think of a lame pun for "neologism". Opabinia regalis 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. ... WTF ... Rangek 04:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious neolo-jism. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I knew someone could do it. Opabinia regalis 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — nonsense Betacommand 05:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --FastDbz12 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Why hasn't it been deleted yet? FancyPants 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Think I heard it recently. --Nickjameson35 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — protologism; please ejectulate this --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and pass the Q tips. NawlinWiki 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't help but hope that the above (top) user's usage of the word "glans" (rather than "glance") was unintentional. If so, the pun seems even more delicious. --24.141.162.250 01:37, 9 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 keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamara Paganini

db WP:BIO non-notable porn star who took part in reality contest Ohconfucius 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Not notable. Not really a porn star, just one of those half/naked secretaries jumping around in lame TV-shows. Mariano(t/c) 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Not in the least a porn star, though a former stripper. In passing, have to say I find the use of the word "secretary" as a putdown unpleasant/unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs)

  That is the term used in those shows[14][15][16]. Mariano(t/c) 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep if others are being kept. She has had some TV and threatre work (as a chica "hot", to quote one Web site). Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Dlyons. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's also an actress, which help makes her notable. --Rob 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Rob, Mxcatania 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Rob. Note that these extra acting roles are pivotal to this keep vote. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MaNeMeBasat 14:35, 11 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 keep. Sango123 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Brittany Petros

db WP:BIO early-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep based on involvement on hit show (Big Brother) and other imdb credits. --Rob 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as appears to be notable outside the game show. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep some notability beyond Big Brother, GIS page has entries as well 1001001 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother seasons....

• Keep only because of other roles. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:30, 10 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. Xoloz 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatehistory.com

Non notable forum site fails WP:WEB (alexa of 662,333, if you're interested). Article was de'proded. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Why don't we have a CSD for non-notable websites? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Exceptionally weak keep - hosting a large discussion forum (apparently the largest on the net about the topic, although I'm not volunteering to check that claim) seems relatively notable. BigHaz 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The site may be notable, but this entry is too slight. (even slighter, since I felt obligated to delete the "criticism" which was actually an editor's gripe supported only by links to the message board itself) Bustter 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's all it is, I could have a go at adding some more content later this week. I'd do it earlier, but I've got a busy week. BigHaz 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per BigHaz. 1ne 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa rank too low for me to believe this is a truly major forum for which we must have an article. Also unreferenced, WP:V, WP:WEB, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa rank is way too low, and I don't think you could build a significantly large article on this website anyway. As stated above, not a suitable choice according to WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Largest site on the internet for alternate history, but needs improvement. Those of you wishing to delete it on the grounds of non-notability or because you think you can't write alot about it need to take a look at the Cillit Bang article. Jombo 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete SHWI is verifiable (really !), this isn't and fails WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's at least verifiable BigHaz 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per Starblind. However, it seems a useful external link for Alternative history, which I've added. - David Oberst 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Petros471 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Plencner

db WP:BIO 8th ranked eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is this singled out? There are dozens of articles about these contestants, and this one is more notable and much more flushed out than most. (If every Big Brither contestant was merged into the season they appeared then the nomination would make sense but just picking this one out of the blue doesn't.) 2005 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• no reason for keeping based on existence of other undeserving articles. These all need to be dealt with individually. and they are Ohconfucius 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Michael 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Rangek 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" (current version of article doesn't show this, but such coverage is readily available, to be added). Also, having stand-alone articles, avoids excessively long "List of ..." articles, which have a dozen bios pasted together. --Rob 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial in nature, although sources are less so. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the BB6 USA article. Plausible search term. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same reasons as the other keeps. Comedy240 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB6 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because according to WP:BIGBRO, only people who have done notable things outside the house should have seperate articles. There is nothing new in this article not said on Big Brother (USA season 6) Geoking66 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you opposed to a merge/redirect, when that's normally done when there isn't to be a standalone article? WP:BIGBRO says "While there's great debate about when to merge/redirect, rarely do contestants articles actually get deleted without a merge (in other words the content is retained). By policy, if the content of an article is merged, it can not be deleted, due to restrictions of GFDL.". Please point me to the part that mandates deletion, as you imply by your vote above. --Rob 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per the above rationales for a redirect. Sandstein 19:43, 16 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 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Correct Japanese Names Of Pokémon

This page does not contain information on the names of Pokemon; contains a romanization "created by the author;" has a title which indicates it will contain the information shown at List of Pokémon by name. While my first instinct was to merge the page with the list, this article is not useful for pronouncing the Japanese names listed on List of Pokémon by name correctly. The factual information is covered at Japanese language and Japanese writing system. Dekimasu 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Among the numerous other problems this article has, the author is 100% wrong on Japanese pronunciation. Danny Lilithborne 04:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I find the article inoffensive. The statements about Japanese pronunciation are basically correct, though they could be touched up a little. I don't think that it helps to reinvent romaji, either. Romaji is itself a potential cause of incorrect pronunciation, and romaji has been refined over many decades with that fact in mind. - Richardcavell 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not true that "su" and "shi" are pronounced "s" and "sh". They are pronounced the way they read, just quickly enough for the average person not to notice. The claim that "n" is the only consonant is also false, because Japanese doesn't have consonants; "n" is merely its own syllable. Danny Lilithborne 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being the groundwork for original research (anything "which I have created" automatically sets those sorts of warning bells off). BigHaz 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatantly obvious incorrect original research. -- Koffieyahoo 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Koffieyahoo. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Correct solution would be to export the names from Japanese Wikipedia and then include them in the article that contains the name of the Pok%C3%A9mons. So, Delete this list. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR unless it can be sourced WilyD 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, chop it up into little pieces, and bury the pieces miles apart. Not only is it original research, it's completely false. wikipediatrix 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article is more like someone's soapbox than an encyclopedia article. It isn't at all related to Pokémon, instead it's just a very brief guide to the Japanese language. JIP | Talk 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ...what on Earth is that thing? Once in a while, some people come up with stuff that leave me completely speechless. In a wrong way. Oh yeah, deletion per nom. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR (and of questionable accuracy too). Fairsing 16:11, 10 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 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Arturo Sisniega

db WP:BIO not notable - eliminated game show contestant Ohconfucius 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even a claim to notability Bustter 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect if there's a relevant parent article. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lori Valenti

db WP:BIO early self-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's already one on her season's page. Geoking66 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Lori Valenti has citations, and Big Brother (USA season 5)#Lori Valenti does not (yet), it makes sense to do a merge, which brings in the citations. --Rob 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". --Rob 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, none of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial, as they refer only to the game show and the hype surrounding it, and the souces may show some commercial bias. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Being a 26 year old Yoga instructor just doesn't cut it per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. Most of the article is about Big Brother, and really is just elaborate fancruft. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Scott Weintraub

db WP:BIO subject not notable - game show contestant with STD and being the first person in Big Brother IV Ohconfucius 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (USA season 4). --Satori Son 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge a couple sentences to Big Brother (USA season 4). TheronJ 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• M & R per TheronJ. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:45, 9 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. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate

This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A long time ago we deleted a page on the writer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Che-Tew Eng Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per same logic as earlier. JoshuaZ 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per all above Martinp23 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not convinced that Dna Press is a vanity press though Dlyons493 Talk 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the authors page was deleted, this must be nn, surely? J Milburn 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom will381796 16:51, 16 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.

This page Syed Ahmed has been histmrged with Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), which is a new article about the same man, and I have AfD'ed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

propose speedy delete, for article was deleted in May and has staged a comeback. fails WP:BIO. unsourced articles full of speculation about someone who appears to be a legend in his own mind Ohconfucius 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Michael 07:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I hate game show contestant entries, but if any are to be kept this one is. Check Google news search. It's the tabloids, but notable nonetheless. Bustter 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rangek 13:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, numerous newspaper articles. --Darksun 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I didn't like the guy one bit, but of all the contestants on the show, he's easily among the three most famous (along with winner Michelle and runner-up Ruth Badger). It was a hit series that attracted high ratings - but most importantly, his private life has been featured in various newspapers on a number of occasions since the show ended. He's a known subject of the UK press, and for that reason I think he's notable enough. Seb Patrick 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is newsworthy - it's tabloid but then isn't most press these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulobrad (talk • contribs)
• take to DRV with the old article which was arguarbly a higher quality, and then merge content together Benon 01:08, 11 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 Deleted and redirected to Music of Jamaica.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

baccra

no sources. 1 sentence long. doesnt link. sad excuse for an article Kennykane 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it is unsourced, it needs sources, it certainly looks verifiable after a quick look through Google. If its a stub, tag it or expand it. If it doesn't link, make links. BTW: Music of Jamaica links there. WP:NN is an essay not a guideline or policy. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect Music of Jamaica has the same information and a bit more, and I just added the one link to its refs. I would have no objection to some baccra fan expanding this. But how likely is that? Also, I removed the Baccra link from MoJ -- why cause users to link over to see a rephrase of what they've just read??? Bustter 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is ofcourse a self fulfilling prophecy. Removing the only link to the article, making it an orphan article while the AfD just started, will cause even less people to visit the article and decrease the chance it will ever be expanded. We've got a lot of stubs here on Wikipedia and a stub makes it easier for the casual reader to add suitable information to Wikipedia. For now, I will replace the removed link. If the conclusion of the AfD is to delete, I will be the first to remove it again. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rangek 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Hetar 04:06, 10 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 and redirect. Petros471 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Katrina Campins

delete per WP:BIO -subject not notable. real estate agent who competed in the Apprentice Ohconfucius 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Michael 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and Redirect to The Apprentice 1. --Satori Son 13:29, 17 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 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Calendar Men

• Delete as an unverifiable neogolism/protologism. --Hetar 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom I bet if they listed sources the content would be verifiable. They didn't. Unfortuantely, it reads like orginal research-- somebody's term paper. It feels like they coined the term. (I have some really mediocre essays on my webpage. If anyone wants to be bored. No neologisms, though.)  :) Dlohcierekim 05:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:46, 8 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 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Flock (apparel)

Vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. No doubts at all Ohconfucius 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like an online brochure. At MySpace, they have 114 friends. I hate that @#$in' site and I have more friends there. Bustter 12:02, 8 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 merge. Petros471 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bethenny Frankel

fails WP:BIO, the subject appeared as contestant on reality game show, but is not notable Ohconfucius 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Michael 07:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Apprentice: Martha Stewart Candidates] Might want to lose the catty bi about Koppelman, though Bustter 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge—not enough information for this woman to have her own article, even though I was the one who started this one — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Apprentice: Martha Stewart Candidates. Daniel.Bryant 04:30, 19 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.

this subject can be covered in a short little blurb on the pages of the reality series Apprentice or Real Housewives of NY, it does not require its own page. Also, it appears to be more of a marketing tool rather than an encyclopedic entry as it is written.--67.161.73.96 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 redirect. Petros471 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Josh Shaw

delete per WP:BIO budding entrepreneur not yet notable, 78,000Ghits, the majority of which are for Miami Dolphin footballerOhconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect to The Apprentice 4. --Satori Son 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish. Petros471 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Troy McClain

per WP:BIO. not notable: Mortgage lender from Boise Idaho who was contestant on the ApprenticeOhconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge if possible. Michael 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to where? Viridae^Talk 08:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Apprentice (US Season 1) presumably, although that article is already pretty long. Are we gonna AfD Omarosa too? ~ trialsanderrors 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I had considered Omarosa for deletion too, but then on balance thought perhaps she could stay. If there were to be a merged article, each person would have a section, then only the more notable ones would get listed. I reckon perhaps she has a slightly stronger case for staying than Troy, but would support deletion or ultimate merger. Ohconfucius 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Delete, though I probably remember him from such films as "The Revenge of Abe Lincoln" and "The Wackiest Covered Wagon in the West." Bustter 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the article about the show. --Elonka 23:09, 11 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 speedily deleted by William M. Connolley. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother (Australia series 7)

There's no information on the article, and it treats Wikipedia as an up-to-the-minute news board forum thing of some sort. Plus it violates that WP:NOT a crystal ball thing. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it'll almost certainly get made (sigh), but until then we're crystall balling. The user should perhaps be informed about posting these up-to-the-minute gazes in the crystal ball somewhere other than here. BigHaz 07:54, 8 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 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Flying Under the Influence

Non-notable web comic; prod tag removed without comment OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 240 google hits for "Flying Under the Influence" comic - NN. Viridae^Talk 07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom and Viridae; also, nearly all of the Google results are unrelated. - makomk 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I understand that this is a non-notable webcomic to you so you feel it should immediately be deleted. However upon clicking on the 'Random Article' button I was brought to Gallo-Romance languages, which I have no idea what they are. So much of Wikipedia is unknown to most people, that is why it exists. The point of Wikipedia is to come to find information on little or unknown things. It is where many pieces of information can be brought together. Granted, not every yahoo should create an article, not all articles should be kept. However, I created this article to allow people to find unknown information for those who are unsure what this webcomic is. I did not create it for vanity purposes, only information. I will understand if you do decide to delete it but I felt it necessary to state my case and what I believe the basis of Wikipedia to be. ShadowDion 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a new webcomic... Die IRL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.40 (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 keep. Sango123 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oolong (rabbit)

• Keep; This article talks about an important and well known and loved internet meme. There is a link on the original site of Oolong to a photograph taken of the New York Times, clearly showing a picture of Oolong with a dorayaki. *Link to newspaper

Utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; this article describes one of the more notable internet phenomena, is written in an encyclopedic tone, and is sourced. Ryūlóng 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Well sourced, encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not paper. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a conflict of interest to have Cpt. Morgan vote on Oolong? ;-) --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. Highly notable bunny, highly notable pancake on said bunny's head. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article does not establish notability in any way. Even less notable than Limecat, which was recently deleted. wikipediatrix 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A mistake on Limecat does not mean we need to repeat it here. Besides, Oolong made it into the NYT (I believe it's linked through) , which even Limecat can't attest to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong. Dekimasu 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; a well-known internet phenomena. El Juno 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryūlóng this is a well known phenomena. Yamaguchi先生 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this article isn't encyclopedic. The subject may be academic anathema but it's done quite well. Danny Lilithborne 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong. --ElTchanggo 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cpt. Morgan, Danny Lilithborne and Ryulong. Neier 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We read: "Oolong has been noticed by the media, including the New York Times." Then let's have a link to the specific article. -- Hoary 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ...... Ah, it's linked above. Well then, weak keep. -- Hoary 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Cha-La, Keep Cha-La. Per Reinoutr. Ppk01 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and please explain how your definition of "encyclopedic" fails to cover this. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced, well written, interesting articles are exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to provide.--SB | T 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong and Danny Lilithborne. This is part of what makes WP great. --TurabianNights 20:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Oolong is a beloved internet phenomenon, and I feel this article is well-written. If we got rid of Oolong because he wouldn't be found in a conventional encyclopedia, we would by that token have to get rid of thousands of other non-academic articles. Re: the New York Times article, if you click on Oolong's official photojournal (maintained by the photographer who owned Oolong) the article is mentioned, in English. Kitty 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A modern Bugs Bunny. tmopkisn ^tlka 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although not truely encyclopedia material, there are large entries on other internet curiosities (ASII art for example) and as this is a widely distributed image, I feel it's important to get the story behind it.

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackson-Via

The article is about an elementary school (one among millions in the world) that is undistinguished. Also, the article is based largely on unpublished information. Daphne A 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. wikipediatrix 14:17, 8 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 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Iqlog

Violates WP:WEB; this appears to refer to a single user's nonnotable blog. --Graham 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, blog appears to have started last week. Weregerbil 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising someone's blog. JIP | Talk 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish. Petros471 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Promise the Children

Was tagged for speedy as nn-group, but as there is uncertainty if it qualifies, I am listing it here instead. Discussion on the talk page indicates some (but possibly insufficient) independent coverage. Delete unless better explanation of notability makes it into the article. Kusma (討論) 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NOT -article initiated by User:PromiseTheChildren - wiki is not a soapbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 August 2006
• Should all the other UU orgs be deleted? keep. UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • if not delete, perhaps they should all be merged into Unitarian Universalist. Not every fringe group under an umbrella organisation deserves an entry. WP:NOT wiki is not a directory Ohconfucius 10:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge As I explained on the talk page, unique google hits are very low, even for their old name. They seem to be mentioned in passing in a few places, but no obvious coverage.--Crossmr 14:33, 8 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 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Firth234

Apparently self-promotion for a new non-notable computer language. Prod first, which was removed, but I think it does not qualify for speedy. Delete anyway unless reliable independent sources are found. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nomination. WP:NN 31Ghits, WP:SPAM posted by creator Aristo Tacoma
• Delete per above not notable as of yet anywhere I can see. DrunkenSmurf 18:54, 8 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 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaysexual

Obvious neologism; short stub. Benwing 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NFT Ohconfucius 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. Scorpiondollprincess 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nomination -- M0llusk 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Baleeted is a comic term used to describe deletionist like behavior. Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Gaycruft 205.157.110.11 20:55, 9 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 Keep. ~ c. tales ^*talk* 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

U-Haul (lesbian)

Neologism, not notable. Benwing 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Ohconfucius 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a phenomenon, rather than just jargon. And since the term dates from the 1980s, it's not a neologism. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Iconic Gay term and real life concept. Agne 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's sourced. I'm convinced now that this is not just a neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is well referenced. WilyD 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The term does exist, yes, but is it notable enough for an article?? No way. wikipediatrix 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Comment Extremly notable. It certainly needs to be expanded and I prodded it a little in the right direction with some additions. As I said before, the phrase "U-Haul Lesbian" is iconic in the GLBT term and you could make a solid case regarding systematic bias. The mention "U-haul lesbian" brings instant recognition in the community but due to systematic bias, many people in the straight dominated world may not grasp how iconic and relevant it really is--hence the reason a disussion such as this is even happening. That is a compelling reason to keep this article and flesh it out more because it truly is a notable context in understanding so many facets of Lesbian life. Agne 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto's comments. Well referenced phenomenae. Scorpiondollprincess 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very well sourced now. Drett 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't there a Move to List of gay slang words and phrases. or something like that where this could more appropriately live? -Smahoney 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — to List of gay slang words and phrases -Glen 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article has expanded somewhat - Keep - Glen 05:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification: do you mean to redirect and move the content there? -Smahoney 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - in the same form as current listings (i.e. a brief explanatory line or two) - Glen 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. My lesbian ex-gf told me this story ages ago...the systemic bias argument above probably has a point in this case. -- nae'blis 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a well known concept within Lesbian circles. I agree that WP:BIAS is possibly coming into play here. - The Bethling 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A common term in lesbian community that others may need explaining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.108.141 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.
• Keep. Well-referenced and definitely notable. --Celithemis 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per systematic bias comments above. — OwenBlacker 10:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 9 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaymer

Neologism; seems to have no currency outside the gaming community and not much inside. Benwing 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Google seems to turn up some third-party coverage ([17], [18], [19]), so this article could possibly stay if cleaned up. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Cordesat's comments, but needs tag for cleanup. Has some notability, but needs cleanup and better sources cited. Scorpiondollprincess 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per systematic bias. Relevant and notable term in the GLBT community. Agne 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Query there are two separate issues here. [1] is the term notable? [2] is the concept notable? even the links posted above by Coredesat don't show use of the term other than in a few website names, and WP:NEO has much more stringent requirements for when a neologism should be kept -- although it could be argued that WP:NEO is too strict. Agne, do you have any sources showing that this is a notable term? as for [2], i don't know. however, the article as it currently stands has very little info in it; mostly it just defines the term and links to two sites. in general, i'd assume that for any notable subcultures X and Y there's going to be a smaller subculture X*Y; but it's not clear wikipedia needs an article about all those X*Y's. Benwing 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Kingdante87, as a Gaymer myself I feel that this article should remain up. I do recognize that it needs content including links to and from other pages. The problem is that many heterosexual gamers do not recognize gaymers (or gayming) to be real. All that this article needs to be fixed is a little more content added and maybe bring up the topic of gayming in the gaming article. I am proud to see the gay culture slowly seeping into main stream culture. As an option the gayming article could be deleted if appended to an article about gay culture.
• Keep Seems fine to me Konman72 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Having written a good portion of the article (and bringing it out of stub statis from a single sentence entry) I have to say that I'm glad others have as much of an interest in this topic as I do. It is important for both the gaming and gay community to have articles such as this that promote homosexual terms like gaymer as positive identifiers, rather than insults, and to help spread the word that such a community of people does indeed exist. While it may not be as pertanent of an article as some, it is nonetheless important in garnering a supportive online community for those who classify themselves as homosexual gamers. I would love to see this article grow and prosper, but if it is decided to abandon it, I would heavily suggest that the world at least be alluded to in another article. (Nall 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
• Weak delete pending more evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. And a correction: The term has been used for at least a decade for gay boardgamers, not just videogamers. WP:NOT a forum for advocacy or support groups. While gay people have notably been treated unjustly and game fans have been disparaged, I've never (in thirty years of postal and tournament boardgaming) seen discrimination or violence against gaymers per se, nor read media coverage nor academic papers about such things. The articles cited by Coredesat are the first mainstream coverage I've heard of. An accusation of "systemic bias" is not a sufficient argument to keep an article; when it's thrown around without supporting facts, it can be just another empty epithet. Barno 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with previous poster. expanding on my previous query, is there anything particularly notable about gaymers beyond e.g. subcultures composed of gay goths (nerds, bowlers, ravers, etc.) or black (native american, deaf, etc.) gamers? i assume that all groups that suffer discrimination or ill-treatment within mainstream society will form support groups devoted to particular activities or subcultures. but do we need to document every single one of these? it could even be argued that this article should be examined from the other side of the WP:BIAS issue: gay gamers (esp. of the video type) are likely to be of the same male, technically-savvy, 15-49-year-old, white-collar, industrialized-country-inhabitant type that is in general overrepresented in Wikipedia. (for example, i strongly suspect there is a vibrant deaf gay community, and arguably it's much more important than the gaymer community; and there's probably been a lot more scholarly research done on it than on gaymers. but wikipedia has no page on it, perhaps because the native language of most deaf people is asl (or some other signed language) rather than english, and they may not feel comfortable in english-dominated communities such as en.wikipedia.) Benwing 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A couple things that I would like to point out. On WP:NEO one of the criteria for inclusion is that "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" (emphasis mine) One of the sources in the article is the university study about Gaymers--as an entity, as a group of which this terms apply. This brings the focus beyond the gay community as an extension of how the world at large relates to this sub-culture of Gaymers. Second, the systematic bias comes into play in that the term is being viewed through limited worldview that systematically excludes those things which are notable and relevant beyond those looking glasses. The Gay Community is a sizable minority and Gaymers are a notable subculture that is within that minority. It's Wikipedia's desire (As laid out in WP:BIAS) to "to fill in the gaps left by this bias, consciously focusing on those subjects and perspectives neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole.". Does the article need to be expanded? I concur and will note that Wikiproject LGBT has this on their list of articles to work on and expand. Actions like this help to counter that systematic bias instead of creating more gaps and, as a whole, Wikipedia benefits.Agne 08:20, 11 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Queerspawn

Neologism; page is mostly original research. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NFT Ohconfucius 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research on a non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Several of the sources "cited" just refer to Lynch's website "Queerspawn" rather than use the term as described in this article. Anything worthwhile here could be Merged with Adoption by same-sex couples or the page propsed there (Parenting by same-sex couples). Scorpiondollprincess 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As clarified in the original article the queerspawn.com url has been taken over by a new person, multiple references is due to multiple websites being hosted under the same url at different time periods. You're right that clarification in how the term is used would be good, but in several of the cases, the term is used in the title of the cited source. Additionally, the important distinction between queerpawn and parenting by same-sex couples is found in the second paragraph of the article. It is a term that identifies who the population in question is and focuses discussion and agency on their identity, not their parents.Nodesignation 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gaycruft 205.157.110.11 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs editing and updated information, but most of the sources cited are legitimate secondary sources such as Newsweek, NYT, Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide. The term also in use in several different non-internet communities, including the cited national advocacy organization. Note: I have a vested interest in this discussion as an activist and author speaking and writing on queerspawn issues for roughly 2-3 years. Nodesignation 22:53, 11 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 Merge into Lipstick lesbian. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapstick lesbian

Not notable; a neologism from the Ellen Degeneres Show. Benwing 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Ohconfucius 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable but I wouldn't object to a merge to lipstick lesbian. MLA 09:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to lipstick lesbian. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to lipstick lesbian, as per Coredesat's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merge to Butch and Femme along with lipstick lesbian per systematic bias. Relevant and notable term in the GLBT community. I have no doubt that these are good faith nominations and delete votes but the appearance here of such well known and actualized concepts of a sizable minority seems to scream "Systematic Bias". If properly expanded and source, these articles provide a considerable service to Wikipedia in shedding light on an area of knowledge that most in a straight-dominated world do not see.Agne 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment In retrospect, I think a merge of the information in this and the lipstick article would be better suited in the Butch and Femme article. Both concepts pay off of several themes within the Butch and Femme article and they would be stronger included then left as an article on their own. Agne 08:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Systematic bias? The terms nominated had no verification with reliable sources. All that's needed are some sources, really, but I think it'd work better as part of another article, since it's an "extension" of an existing term. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to lipstick lesbian, since they're practically the same concept. --72.85.30.240 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Butch and femme. (The article on lipstick lesbian needs work itself--it first asserts that a lipstick lesbian is attracted to more femme types, then says that they are more attracted to butch types.) Both concepts might better fit in to a larger article on labels within the LGBTQ community to represent gender roles. -- Merope 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a merge into appropriate parent article until it grows enough to stand on its own. - Davodd 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Any of the articles mentioned Konman72 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems enough notable. ev. merge -- Cate 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 58.108.87.43 05:37, 14 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 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Heteropatriarchy

Stub; obvious neologism. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NFT Ohconfucius 08:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as yet another non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not for the above reasons, but because this concept is better illustrated with heterosexism or just plain patriarchy. CaveatLector^Talk 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While my initial thought was delete, a search on Google Scholar gives 285 results, including results that appear to be over 10 years old. However, I mostly agree with CaveatLector. Mairi 07:18, 11 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 11:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Macho femme

NOTE: This was originally in the Aug 7 list, and was the reason why all the other similar words later got put on the AfD list (see posting below). I moved it to the Aug 8 list along with the other similar words, so that they all get reviewed together. Benwing

Not notable; a recently-coined term on the series "The L Word" with questionable currency. Benwing 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. -- Koffieyahoo 08:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, there are some other questionable terms of a similar nature in the "LGBT term" category (Category:LGBT terms), e.g.:

1. Chapstick lesbian, a neologism from the Ellen Degeneres Show
2. Gaymer "an umbrella term used to refer to people who identify themselves as gay, bisexual, lesbian, or transgendered and have an active interest in the videogame community", seems to have no currency outside the gaming community and not much inside
3. Heteropatriarchy, a short stub with nothing more than the definition "a manifestation of patriarchy which constructs a system of gender stereotypes essential to maintaining patriarchal controls and which are the source of societal prejudices against non-heterosexual persons"
4. Queerspawn, "a term adopted by some people who have one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender parent"; most of this article is a "documented use of this word" section trying to justify its existence; no cited text references before year 2004, and only occasional since then
5. U-Haul (lesbian), "a relationship that becomes very close very fast, for example moving in together after only a short period of time -- a pattern stereotypically attributed to relationships between two women", apparently due to lesbian comedian Lea DeLaria.
6. Gaysexual, extremely short stub "a comic term used to describe homosexual or lesbian like behaviour"

I'm not at all against detailed coverage of gay/lesbian-related issues in Wikipedia but I'm concerned about Wikipedia being used as a sort of soapbox to try and make ephemeral terms gain wider currency. Benwing 09:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. The other terms may need to be put up on AfD, because they also look like neologisms. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• I put the other six on AfD; see the page for August 8. Benwing 08:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete them all, as per nom. wikipediatrix 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge what little is here with an article like Butch and femme. Scorpiondollprincess 16:54, 8 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Extreme United Wrestling

None notable e-fed (people pretending to be wrestlers, fails WP:WEB amongst other things. Strong delete Englishrose 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, already prodded author for refs and notability, but (not suprisingly) couldn't come up with anything.--Andeh 11:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• GN-This is a notable e-fed. It has online recongnition in the e-fedding world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.251.66 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, non-notable, unsourced, 10 google hits. If you have evidence of notability (newspaper articles, major awards, ...) please do present them! Weregerbil 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• EUW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.3.214 (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 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpson’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law

Neologism, apparently coined this year on somebody's blog. The only references that can be found are the blog itself, and urbandictionary (which has standards that make Wikipedia look like a serious encyclopedia). If there's no evidence that this is in wide usage, it should be deleted. — sjorford++ 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable neologism. I am almost sure I've seen this appear before, and that it was deleted, but can't find it right now. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Frankly I'm not even sure Godwin's law should be kept. Cedars 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another neologism. Wikipedia is not a mirror of Urban Dictionary. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable neologism. It's not even a corollary. MLA 12:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. I disagree with User:Cedars, Godwin's Law should be kept. JIP | Talk 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, neologism/anti-counter-meme, and, unlike Godwin's Law, it lacks independent verification from WP:RS.-- danntm ^T _C 01:54, 9 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 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Secret Force

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness. Individual Magic decks not notable, as Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. (This one never even won a major tournament.) Features one of my favorite bullet points on Wikipedia: "The deck was widely considered fun to play." Andrew Levine 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Levine 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide or a repository of links, and it is not the Magic website or any other Magic strategy website. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Coredesat. wikipediatrix 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Again, I am owned. You might save time if you view my contribs and systematically AFD them. NorrYtt 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't take it personally. One's contributions to Wikipedia are not simply measured by the number of articles they created. Andrew Levine 11:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article describes something that would be better mentioned in one of the archetype articles. --Akhonji 18:00, 12 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 speedily deleted by User:Tyrenius per CSD A7.[20] — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Blade (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, non-notable members. First I tried a prod tag, but that was repeatedly reverted. The creator does no effort to assert notabilty. Medico80 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete per WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox and per nom. new band without track record - band clearly WP:NN Ohconfucius 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a speedy reason. See WP:CSD. Viridae^Talk 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD:A7. Viridae^Talk 11:04, 8 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 Incorrectly listed. AfD is not to be used for redirects or moves. Please list it at WP:RM or WP:RFD. Viridae^Talk 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Numb3rs episodes

List of Numb3rs episodes (a redirect) is to be deleted please, so List of NUMB3RS episodes can be renamed properly : please see Talk:Numb3rs#title in capital letters - kernitou talk 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This was not properly listed on AfD - I've completed the process for the sake of housekeeping, but this belongs on RfD. I won't list it myself. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Or WP:RM. Either way, not an AfD problem. Viridae^Talk 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Ian¹³/t 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jason Cowan

• Delete. Non-notable Big Brother housemate, only famous for being on Big Brother. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Big Brother (UK series 5), or maybe just redirect there (Liberatore, 2006). 11:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, has done nothing since leaving Big Brother apart from a TV show on five that I'm sure no-one watched anyway! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect with/to Big Brother (UK series 5). --S-man 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I would quote Nikki Graheme (from BB7 but as referring to a he instead of a she as reffered to Susie) Who is HE, who is HE, where did you get this!, Mr Cowan would have by the time you read this be sacked from a shelf stacking job at Tesco -- Willirennen 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB5 UK article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Trampikey. godgoddingham ³³³ 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (UK series 5). Fails WP:BIO. --Satori Son 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 07:52, 15 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 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pom the Panda

Simply a non-notable subject Eusebeus 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless some reasonable references can be found WilyD 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - There is a manga site with a page on Pom the Panda that has the whole thing scanned. It says the author is Junichi Saeki. Googling "Pom the Panda" brings up the Wikipedia page, the one manga site, and no other relevant pages, afaics. Googling Junichi Saeki brings up some other Japanese with that name, but no one connected with manga. I think unless someone can find some notability here, having it listed on the page for the manga zine is sufficient, we don't need a long article on a 30 page one-shot. Manga fans, what do you think? --Brianyoumans 16:39, 8 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.

Closed early as no consensus, because:

1. The entry is currently subject to arbitration.
2. The nomination appears out of process.
3. The nomination was also misformatted by nominator.
4. No consensus is likely to be reached at this stage.

El_C 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Delete - Stinks of POV, useless, non encyclopedic, propagadna... --Haham hanuka 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See previous AfD debates:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase) from May 29, 2006
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_(second_nomination) from July 15, 2006.

• Keep - We've just changed the title of the article from "Israeli Apartheid" to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid". Indeed, it's very encyclopaedic. It may stink of POV, it may be useless as it may be propaganda but i am sorry to say that it is soo very encyclopaedic. -- Szvest 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I thought Bots are diff than regular users ;) -- Szvest 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sometimes I think all Israel related articles are one, big POV fork... Medico80 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems well written and well sourced, referencing internationally renowned news sources. The potential to offend is not grounds for deletion, nor does it make an article unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored. The title of the article is "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". The text of the article proves that such allegations are a reality and asserts their notability. --IslaySolomon 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per IslaySolomon. BoojiBoy 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although the article is well written and meticulously referenced, cited and sourced, I still think the article is inherently POV. One can find sources for people making allegations of virtually ANY position you can dream of, but does that mean they all deserve articles? wikipediatrix 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whilst you probably can find allegations of any position, this allegation seems to have come up a lot, and been made by many notable people and organisations (and more have either referred to or denied it). In my opinion, it's significant enough, verifiable enough, and messy enough that we probably ought to dedicate an article to it. - makomk 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per IslaySolomon - makomk 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the second AfD, and it wasn't deleted last time. Plus, it's in arbitration. --John Nagle 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not in arbitration. The conduct of editors is in arbitration. ArbCom does not address content disputes (or isn't supposed to, anyway). Su-Laine Yeo 06:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How about Allegations of of Ehud Olmert being gay or Allegations of Palestinian babies being used in traditional Jewish cat food. Fair and balanced, with citations and references, both sides having their say... 84.238.25.152
• Delete - allegations of Israel human rights violations do merit articles (though one can always wonder the paucity of such articles about other states and regimes who do much worse), but the term "apartheid" is a rhetorical device that distracts from the real issue. --Leifern 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since it survived a prior AfD — I'm no fan of this sort of propaganda, but as long as we have a Islamofascism page I don't see why we can't have this well-documented article. Plus the section on counter-arguments is useful and constructive for those wanting to counter such claims. — RJH (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody talks about adding allegations in front of Islamofascism. -- Szvest 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- The difference is that Islamofascism isn't about Islamofascism. It's about the term, how it was created, how it's used. This article is just a big rant on allegations of Israeli Apartheid and how the author(s) beleive that it's true. It's not encyclopedic. It's not NPOV at all. It doesn't belong here. --PresN 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment- Also, so what if it passed a previous AfD? That's not an automatic pass for all future ones, it just means it shouldn't be re-nominated again for a while. --PresN 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree that it would be better to retitle the article as "Israeli apartheid" and provide a neutral investigation of the term's historical usage. CJCurrie 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Leifern. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If the current article seems to be infected with POV, the proper recourse is to correct it, not to remove the article. The allegation of "Israeli apartheid" has been made in various sources over a period of several years; there is no reason why Wikipedia should not document this usage (along with the debates surrounding the term), and every reason why we should. CJCurrie 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or else merge into another article, per my comments scattered through the many archived talk pages for this article. 6SJ7 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a little too much of a POV powder keg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2006

• Delete Way too much POV to ever be NPOV. --Wafulz 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Leifern. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep *sigh*, not again! POV problems can be fixed. At least the title isn't at "Israeli apartheid" anymore... —Khoikhoi 03:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article has always suffered from lack of a coherent reason to exist and probably always will.

• Under its original title it was defended as being an article about the political term "Israeli apartheid" but has always consisted of a set of arguments about whether Israeli apartheid exists.
• Much of the article now consists of quotes from people who do not say Israel practices apartheid, but instead compare current practices to apartheid or say that Israel might some day practice apartheid.
• Recently many facts have been added that sound scary in the context of this article, but does anyone consider them to be examples of apartheid? What is the 2005 Gaza withdrawal doing in this article?

Could one of the "keep" voters please explain, succinctly, what this article is about?

Furthermore, much as we have a well-meaning wish to help the reader understand whether there is validity to allegations of Israeli apartheid, it's not something that can really be covered in an encyclopedic fashion because the term "apartheid" in modern, colloquial discourse has no concrete operational criteria. (Yes, a definition of crime of apartheid exists, but if we restricted the article to that definition it would practically disappear.) You can have a coherent, NPOV article about whether Israel practices discrimination or genocide or war crimes or torture, because these are all well-defined terms. "Apartheid," as most of the sources used in this article use it, is a vague political insult. Su-Laine Yeo 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Human Rights in Israel and/or Zionism and Racism would work for me too. Su-Laine Yeo 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and merge any true human rights issues into Human rights in Israel As Sue-Laine eloquently said, this article has morphed and been changed to continue its survival so many times, that to me it seems apparent that its goal is more to disparage Israel than to inform as to facts.We now have an article for human rights issues, anything that is a valid issue should be (and likely already can be) found in that article. The current purpose of this article is now defunct, and it should be removed. Avi 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Per 84.238.25.152's reasoning, I think it is silly for such allegations to have its own article. However, I think Szvest is correct that it belongs on Wikipedia. Just like various blood libels, it is used enough that it is a notable enough for inclusion. Where to put it then? Per Avraham, I think it sounds logical to merge the NPOV bits into Human rights in Israel. -- Where 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unsavoury subject, but a very real political discussion (or propaganda battle, if you prefer) of which neutral coverage is certaily encyclopedic. Do not merge into Human rights in Israel, because that article is too long already. Sandstein 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- any legitimate concerns about human rights violations should be dealt with in the neutral article on the subject, without all of the problems inherent in a title like this one. Tewfik^Talk 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV title, and it only gets worse. Someone needs to read WP:WTA#Article_title. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we had this already. --tickle me 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This article should have been deleted long ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. propaganda buzzword. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if this is actually an article about the argument that Israel is an "apartheid state" rather than an article trying to advocate or advance that argument, as some here argue, it hardly seems encyclopedic. If we have to have articles about every instance an epithet is used on someone in a new way (Ann Coulter's "church of liberalism" or 9/11 victims as "little Eichmann's" in the very recent past come to mind) wikipedia is going to seem less like an encyclopedia and more like a collection of badly written flamewars about topics that are ultimately going to be completely irrelevant. GabrielF 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Su-Laine and others. IronDuke 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we do not need articles based on an allegation or based on a viewpoint. Issues related to Israeli internal policy, society, culture, etc, can be explored in the related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Apartheid" is just a more pejorative rhetoric term for "Segregation". -- Heptor _talk 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it cannot be made NPOV like most "allegations" type articles: the selection of whose allegations of what about whom is inherently POV. If someone called Clinton a "pinko", or does the mere existence of the urban myth of how Clinton supposedly sought Soviet citizenship during his visit to Moscow, do we get to start Allegations of Clinton's communism, if someone claims that Muhammad's wife was under 18, do we get Allegations of Muhammad's child molestation? Don't think so...and yes, both allegations have been made. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per jossi. AnnH ♫ 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete der jossi. This is an attack page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article has improved since I proposed it for deletion a few months ago and the title is now NPOV. fullsome prison 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Carlossuarez46 abakharev 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per johnny cash. ReverendG 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course. The original title was better; but this is silly politicing that just repeats the prior AfD with no new reason. LotLE×talk 00:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How many times do we have to do this dance? "Israeli Aparthied" would obviously be more NPOV a title as that is the exact claim... His Excellency... 00:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course we should keep it. As previously discussed, the term is in wide use, there are weighty arguments supporting the usage, there are scholarly works using the term. And unfortunately, the phenomenon also exists. If I thought you could get rid of something by deleting the Wikipedia article, there's a lot that comes to mind. . . RolandR 01:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although lacks available scholary information (see Talk:Israeli_apartheid/RS#Reliable_sources:_scholary_articles), so rewrite is in order under title that is in line with WP:TTILE, focussing on scholary studies comparing the Israeli situation with South African apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote, to mush scholary information to merge with other article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agee with the others. --Daniel575 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Svest and RJH or merge per Avi and/or Kim van der Linde. heqs 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant way of framing the controversy. Fred Bauder 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete propaganda. Pertinent details on these allegations are already in the article Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa and also in Israeli West Bank barrier. It is POV and unencyclopedic to single out one country for special demonization, and the term itself, "Israeli apartheid", is novel and a neologism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with this assessment is that there's a tonne of recent literature on the subject from credible, academic sources -- some of it dating back twenty years. CJCurrie 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is there? All the serious stuff I've seen has been about the way the term is used, or else discussing discrimination in general. I've not seen a single, serious academic source (i.e. a scholar who is employed in a relevant field in a university) argue that there's such a thing as "Israeli apartheid." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Glaser, D. J. 2003. Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:403-421. (pdf available on request)
2. GREENBERG, STANLEY 1980 Race and State in Capitalist Development: South Africa in Comparative Perspective, Johannesburg: Ravan Press
3. AKENSON, DONALD HARMAN 1992 God’s Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press

Just to give three of the sources... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite (and you know this already) allege that there is such a thing as "Israeli apartheid," as I said above. That is the problem with this article. Not one academic source (that I am aware of) says there is actually such a thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe read those sources

Glasier 2003: Drawing on a range of historical and sociological evidence, it shows that this claim (or accusation) is substantially justified in two senses. Firstly, Israeli Zionism is, in many areas, morally bad in the same way as apartheid; secondly, where it is different from apartheid in character, it is in some respects anyway as bad – that is, the difference is not invariably morally favourable to Israeli Zionism.

Glasier 2003: Israeli Zionism resembles apartheid in a range of ways recognizable to specialists in comparative race relations, and indeed scholars have done interesting historical-sociological work on the similarities and differences between them (e.g. Greenberg 1980, Akenson 1992). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Uri Davis is an honorary research fellow at the University of Durham's Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (IMEIS) and at the University of Exeter's Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies (IAIS)." That is from Uri Davis, article on the man who wrote "Israel: An Apartheid State". Based on the reasons being given I suspect that many of the people voting here have not actually read the article they want to delete. 62.156.190.36 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this was your first edit. Did you forget to log in? Su-Laine Yeo 06:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you've said yourself ([21]), that none of these sources actually allege that Israel practices apartheid. What these sources do is compare Israel's practices to apartheid. Nuanced comparison is what scholars do. Reducing a complex situation into a slogan, like "Israeli apartheid," is what activists do. Su-Laine Yeo 06:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you talk about the term perse, yes you are correct. However, scholars do make comparisons between South Africa and Israel, and their conclusions are straightforward. On the title of the article, the current is POV, as it denies the scholary studies, but for the rest, I do not care abut the exact title, see my comment above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at those sources. They seem to level the "apartheid" charge not only at Israel's treatment of the population of the West Bank and Gaza, but at "Zionism" as a whole -- in other words, at the belief that there should be a State of Israel as a Jewish state. That being the case, the "merge" (if any) probably should be into Zionism and racism. I know that that article has its own problems, but since it is already there, the fact that some people have chosen to use a word in another language ("apartheid") to refer to a related concept, does not merit a separate article with that word in the title. And I know the argument will be that the resulting article would be too long, but this article really does not need to be as long as it is anyway. We do not need to be citing every article in every little magazine, or every master's thesis, that refers to the issue. I think a lot of the sources are in there solely due to the controversy over the article's existence, to "make weight" for keeping it as a separate article. 6SJ7 15:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid goes way further than racism, but merging this article with that article and renaming that to Zionism-apartheid comparison (or something like that) would be a very usefull alternative approach. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP doesn't need this article any more than it needs Allegations of Jews drinking Christian blood. The info can fit very well into related articles, such as Israeli West Bank barrier and, well, Israel. POV fork. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. Let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An article here will give both sides their view. The term is widely used, and deserves thus encyclopaedic coverage. Bertilvidet 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not endorse them, but the allegations are often made. --Ezeu 06:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename Israeli apartheid. As legitimate and encyclopedic as New anti-Semitism and Islamofascism. --Ian Pitchford 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Evolver of Borg 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Merge or Rename - the title is perhaps not the best (perhaps something like "Ethnical discrimination in Israel" would be better), but in no way should the information be lost. // Liftarn
• Strong Delete Israel-bashing bait Kuratowski's Ghost 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. Whether or not the article is NPOV in its current state is a consideration for cleanup tagging, not deletion. We don't delete articles for being poor quality, we delete articles because the topic they are about don't deserve an article. In this case, the allegations are there, they have been extensively referenced proving that the concept or the term Israeli apartheid is verifiable and notable whether or not it actually exists, so obviously keep. Don't like the way it's written? {{sofixit}} Loom91 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I really dislike the SoFixIt phrase. I also heard it in the Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border AfD debate. It is a very big problem with WP that people create articles that are inherently POV and fob off all critcs with an arrogant "So fix it...". The burden of justifying controversial articles must lie on those who made them. Medico80 11:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Khoikhoi. --Yakudza 10:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Ian Pitchford, I'd also support renaming to Israeli apartheid. The article can (should) explore the validity of such a phrase, but the phrase has been used for several years -- much longer than Islamofascism, for example. There is no question that it will be a POV lightening rod, but so are other articles in Wikipedia. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 11:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the third AfD on this, anyone want to start taking bets on when the fourth will be? --Ben Houston 12:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The second nomination was a purposeful disruption by a strawman sockpuppet (see User:SoCalJustice), precisely so that it could get a Speedy Keep designation. It lasted all of 34 minutes. This is in fact only the second AfD. The article has had a great deal of time to mature since the first AfD, but instead of getting better, it's only gotten worse. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree with your assessment, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. --Ben Houston 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleting articles on genuine contraversial issues is not the WP way --BozMo talk 12:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --217.91.40.148 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anon's second edit -- Szvest 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This entry should be kept and should be developed...

• User's first edit -- Szvest 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork. Ayinyud 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The allegations have been made by reputable notable people. Arniep 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - those who vote to keep are violating of WP:Not Zeq 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Could you be more precise? I may understand that you mean WP is not a file storage area. Other people may understand that you refer to an original invention or even that WP is not censored. Cheers -- Szvest 21:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was asked via E-mail to take a look at this. As I recall, I voted delete in the last one. Perhpas I was wrong. As the result of the last one was speedy keep, I see no need for this AfD at all.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I voted keep on the first one. The result on the second one was speedy keep. However, I would much appreciate any contact being via my talkpage. I believe in a transparent wikipedia. E-mailing me about a vote on a highly charged and controversial subject gives the appearance of vote stacking and tarnishes my credibility if I do choose to vote.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is heavily referenced... making the claims of 'original research' and 'unverifiability' seem nonsensical. NPOV is often a matter of perspective, but frankly irrelevant to a deletion debate. If it isn't neutral we change the wording, not delete it. See NO basis whatsoever for this deletion nom. It is a meme which passes notability. People will certainly be looking for information about it. The forced renaming was a silly abrogation of Wikipedia's naming conventions fueled by POV... this nom strays over from there into attempting to enshrine POV bias as a Wikipedia standard. --CBD 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bertilvidet. --DieWeibeRose 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it has no basis here, it is just pushing propaganda, and does not show an accurate history. Delete. Shamir1 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I'd support renaming to Israeli apartheid again, for the reasons given above, and per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). For clarity, I learnt about this vote from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision#Meanwhile in the real world (that page is on my watchlist while I'm looking forward to a decision in that ArbCom case). --Francis Schonken 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - definitely a notable POV, with 80,000 Google hits and numerous scholarly and academic sources referring to the concept. Article is also well referenced. No reason at all for deletion as far as I can see. Might possibly be an argument though for changing the title or broadening the subject matter, but that's another issue. Gatoclass 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda. Pecher ^Talk 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. POV is not grounds for deletion. POV is correctable through judicious editing and collaboration-- the hallmark of Wikipedia at its best. As to purported inaccuracy, the benchmark is Verifiability and not whether or not one agrees with the information presented. The article is large enough to stand on its own and would overly expand other articles. Does not violate WP:NOT. WP is not a paper encyclopedia and can thus accommodate items that would not fit in one. The article is about an (alleged) phenomenon and controversial subject that needs to be treated evenhandedly without censorship based on politics. Any "propaganda" needs to be countered with verifiable information that tells the other side of the story. :) Dlohcierekim 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is an attack on the legitimacy of the very existance of Israel. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia and to the article's supporters. Noon 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• What does this has to do w/ the existance right of Israel? Could you develop your idea? -- Szvest 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• To apply the term "Apartheid" to Israel's policies, which is totally false, is a way to delegitimate Israel, with the hope that it will end the same way the Apartheid regime in SA ended. Thats why. Noon 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Noon, you mean the regime and not the statehood. It should be rather an "attack on the legitimacy" of the regime than. -- Szvest 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Those who use the term "Apartheid" in reference to Israeli policies are probably POV, but pointing out that those allegations exist, and explaining their point of view from a neutral point of view, is bonafide. --Ezeu 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• But there doesn't have to be a separate article about it, nor one that has the word "apartheid" in the title. 6SJ7 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• In which case the correct course of action would be merging, not deleting. -- ChrisO 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, it appears the material is already amply covered in other articles in a less POV soapboxy way. HGB 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, allegations of Israeli apartheid are commonplace, and noteworthy, so they need to be covered in an encyclopedia. The article has covered the issue well, and should be allowed to continue to do so without censorship. Carl Kenner 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Carl and strong suspicion of bad faith AfD nom. --Strothra 18:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Please see WP:DEL#Abuse of deletion process: "XfD(deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept." Without making a judgment on the worth of the article in question, Haham hanuka's nomination is a clear abuse of process. I note also that Haham hanuka has just recently been blocked for a week for another abuse of process on AfD and has a long history of blocks for 3RR and revert warring (see [22]). I've asked for this deletion vote to be closed. -- ChrisO 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Where else but Wikipedia am I supposed to go for a sourced NPOV article of what the (to me) bizzare notion of "Israeli apartheid" is supposed to be about? WAS 4.250 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep and improve. There is a very large published literature on this topic. Under such conditions, I think it is wise for the Wikipedia community to be very selective and make an organized effort to identify and cite mostly peer-reviewed scholarly articles (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources). I suspect that there are enough scholarly, well referenced and peer-reviewed articles from professional historians and sociologists to provide an account of this topic. Maybe near the bottom of the article there could be one small paragraph for "Media coverage" and a very selective account of commentary from blogs, reporters and media pundits could be restricted to that paragraph. --JWSchmidt 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note. It is in fact extremely POV to pretend (whether one agrees with it or not) that there are no allegations of Israeli apartheid. --Ezeu 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this gets merged with other articles, information might get lost. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:06, 11 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

April Lewis

db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Scorpiondollprincess 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB6 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per The JPS. Plausible search term. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:24, 9 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 keep. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Brown's gas

User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Brown's gas.

• Keep Google gives 24,000 hits on "brown's gas, so it is notible. pstudier 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep I have reason to suspect the nomination for the deletion of these articles is related to the deletion of the Aquygen article. However, unlike that article, both Brown's gas and Oxyhydrogen flame have good merit:
  • Both are long standing terms from the pre-20th century science community - as such, they have strong historical value.
  • Oxyhydrogen flame is linked to by many articles - despite it's non-20th centruy name, it's a simple and very scientific concept - oxygen and hydrogen.
  • Brown's Gas is strongly related to the Oxyhydrogen flame.
  • Both recieve a large number of google hits, indicating some level of notability.
  • Brown's Gas is a good example of a now-debunked scientific theory, whilst Oxyhydrogen flame is real dispite sounding similar.
  • The presense of these aids us in dealing with or discussing psuedoscience akin to Aquygen

I'm cross posting the same vote on both AfDs, as I believe these nominations are intrinsically linked, and one cannot be discussed without the other. LinaMishima 23:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • KEEP this page--Brown's gas may or may not be Hokum, but it is worth having as a reference!--Itkastle 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Please view the deletion discussion on Aquygen and HHO Gas for reference. Based upon the reasons both of those articles were deleted and subsequently Aquygen was permanantly deleted, and for the sake of looking like a hypocracy, this article should also be deleted based purely on the same criteria which was applied to Aquygen and HHO Gas. In fact Brown's gas has much less scientific research and evidence than does HHO Gas, which had patents, scientific peer reviewed journals, and media coverage of it usage. This article on Brown's gas lacks sufficient information on wikipedia as per the same criteria used to delete the articles on HHO Gas/Aquygen. Since it is implied within the article on Brown's gas that it is based on false information or is lacking sufficient evidence, it would be entirely hypocritical to have deleted one article (HHO Gas and Aquygen) which had more cited sources for its existance, than to keep this article which has even less cited information for it not being a hoax. HHO Gas was confirmed as being used in schools and other welding applications, while I have not seen any information provided within this article on the actual use of Brown's gas. For example, no media coverage, press releases etc. Based on these reasons I have recommended that this article be deleted for uniformity, so there are no accusations of hypocracy. User:75.108.54.176

Reply Brown's gas is a historical entity, which means all news coverage of it happened over a century ago. it was and still is quite well known, and is somewhat notable for being a quack gas. I will agree, however, that the article does need tidying and rewording to make it clear that it is detailing a scientific falsehood of the past, now well debunked, as opposed to a current real gas. LinaMishima 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional Brown's gas appears to the educated observer to be the correct term for things like Aquygen and HHO. Surely as, I suspect, a supporter of Aquygen you would be in favour of this article? Being the more historic and well-known term (especially within the scientific and history of science community), this would be the appropriate place to detail such creations. LinaMishima 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I would like to address your concerns LinaMishima. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the information provided on this article. WP:HOAX As a historical entity, I would assume that such claims would have cited sources, yet there are none provided in the article. I dont think this is a well known or historic fact. To an educated observer like myself, your above point about Brown's gas being the correct term for HHO Gas/Aquygen only further supports the deletion of this article because as mentioned, HHO Gas was deleted on the belief that it was a hoax or scam, which alone would be a reason to endorse deletion of Brown's Gas. I think your statement misrepresents my intentions by insinuating that I am a supporter of HHO Gas or Aquygen. I simply want to ensure fairness and equality of treatment to such questionable articles, otherwise it will appear to educated observers that wikipedia's administrators and editors have an agenda of unfairness and hypocracy. And that is my primary concern with this and similar articles. User:75.108.54.176
    • As you should be aware, as the age of something increases, especially if it is from before the information revolution of the 1970's, the ease of finding good sources to cite increases. Searching on SwetsWise (an academic paper database), there are two results - a typical number for a matter of historical rather than current importance. WP:HOAX does not apply, as this article is not attempting to be a hoax. It is detailing historical work once thought to be true but now generally understood to not be. WP:HOAX would not, for example, apply to a page on, say, the moon landings conspiracy, as this details the hoax, rather than attempts to continue it. I agree that the article as stands is poorly written, but it is an issue of some note and merit. Rewording would be the prefered solution. LinaMishima 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Confused reading more carefully, I suspect that the pre-20th century gas I was thinking of was something different, but with an almost identical name. If I am able to work out what this is, I am likely to change my vote. If anyone has any ideas what it is I'm trying to recall, please use my talk page LinaMishima 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not real, but many people believe in it. —Keenan Pepper 04:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a well-referenced encyclopaedic article. I'm at a loss to figure out why anyone would delete it. WilyD 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. wikipediatrix 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Referencing in progress See User:LinaMishima\Brown's gas for what is currently a list of references, and will eventually become a rewrite of the article LinaMishima 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crap. -- Femmina 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Peer-reviewed References can be found at User:LinaMishima\Brown's gas. Current article could do with a rewrite, however, which is what I am working on. LinaMishima 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter if it is crap. It is notable, so we should keep it if only to debunk it. Just make sure the category pseudoscience or pseudophysics stays. Paul Studier 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is bogus science BUT this is why wiki maintains bad science, obsolete science, obsolete theroies, and pseudoscience categories. Do not sweep this sort of material under the carpet but deal with it, how can you discuss good science without examples of bad science? V8rik 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I did some research and didn't find much to note.. This is just as significant as an episode of Commander in Chief.. As far as I am concerned, even as a hoax, Brown's gas isn't even notable.. Name someone off the street who knows anything about Brown's gas.. They will probably tell you that they heard about that guys flatulence, but I doubt you will get them to tell you a thing about hydrogen.. And thats about all this article is, something which stinks to high heaven.. Also... WIKI isn't meant to "maintain bad science".. It is meant for the presentation of accurate factual information. If it is the case that Wikipedia is for "maintaining bad science", then I say bring back those supposed HHO Gas and Aquygen Articles, they had more evidence for their existance than does this article.. They were claimed as "bad science", just as this article is, but I dont see anyone trying to bring those articles back... Based on the related articles being deleted this Junk Science should not be on Wikipedia. This Article must go!

hypocracyonwiki 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hypocracyonwiki (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. LinaMishima 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That's funny, as I've found two papers on the issue in scientific journals. Although I suspect they are actually refering to Oxyhydrogen, that's not what the sources say, and assumptions cannot be made (WP:OR). LinaMishima 00:20, 12 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cuthbert Goes Digging

Nominated for deletion on grounds of notability. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 (talk • contribs) .

• As the original author, I'd obviously like to argue for the article's retention - while not perhaps the most notable computer game, the Cuthbert games were part of the history of UK computing and important to the development of home computers and games consoles (even if the Dragon system was an evolutionary deadend!) Swpmre 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE, unless this criteria can be met "The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.". --Porqin 12:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's decided to delete this, surely it's wrong to quote WP:SOFTWARE; given that this page describes itself as a "proposed Wikipedia policy" meaning it "may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption." The article then continues ...."References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." Swpmre 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, it is a guideline, and without anything more, this game that is 20+ years old doesn't seem to be anything an encyclopedia would contain. If you find some verifiable sources proving this game to be significant or infleuental, I will change my opinion otherwise. --Porqin 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Cuthbert (Microdeal). This doesn't strike me as sufficiently notable on its own. But as a series of games, I think it squeaks by. Scorpiondollprincess 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• merge per scorpiondollprincess (good name!). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm sorry, but how does it fail verifiability? Granted I haven't heard of the series or the platform, but can you qualify your statement? I cannot vote delete with such a dubious assertion (dare I call it even that?). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you're referring to my comment, I never made a claim the game itself isn't verifiable, but rather why this game deserves a place in an encyclopedia. It fails WP:SOFTWARE, and unless it is notable for some other reason which hasn't been mentioned yet, I see no reason to keep it. --Porqin 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: seems notable as an ancient video game --Peephole 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just because it is old doesn't make it notable. --Porqin 17:17, 14 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kristi Frank

delete per WP:BIO - non-notable subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 August 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She was a contestant on The Apprentice, was in a couple of pornos, and doesn't establish notability via WP:BIO. --Porqin 12:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:42, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of non-mainstream theories

This page was redirected to List of pseudoscientific theories But, of course, non mainstream theories are not pseudoscientific at all. It is just an attempt by some supporters of certain pseudoscientific theories to argue that pseudoscience is just non-mainstream science. I therefore vote to delete this article. Count Iblis 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. JoshuaZ 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete as above William M. Connolley 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the above. Byrgenwulf 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that the title is somewhat biased (that's why it's a redirect rather than the title of the actual article), but to delete it might be an overreaction. Isn't it a fairly likely search term for someone who doesn't know the word "pseudoscientific"? Also, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fringe theories do refer to "non-mainstream theories", apparently as a neutral, all-encompassing term. --Grace 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-mainstream theories can be respectable theories, they certainly don't belong by definition to the pseudoscience category. So, a redirect to the pseudoscience list would not be appropriate. A list of theories that can be considered to be non-mainstream is very problematic. Of all the scientific theories that exist a certain percentage is non-mainstream, in the sense that most other people working in the field don't buy it but as a theory it is not obviously wrong. But you can't make a rule to demark the boundary between mainstream and non-mainstream. In case of pseudoscience there are reasonable criteria, but even in that case you can expect some borderline cases. So, this is a recipe for POV disputes. Count Iblis 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for non-mainstream are about as easy or difficult as for pseudoscience, and it's certainly less a recipe for POV disputes. Harald88 07:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are clear criteria for pseudoscience. The only POV disputes you can get is whether or not a particular theory satisfy these criterea. Of course, you can expect the supporters of such theories to resist their theory being classified as pseudoscience, because it isn't a label they like to see attached to their theory.

In case of non-mainstream theories there don't exist unambiguous criterea at all. Supporter of a theories listed as "non-mainstream" may not object as often compared to their pseudoscience collegues, but in case a dispute does arise, there is no way to resolve it using objective criteria. Count Iblis 14:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are also clear criteria for non-mainstream: just consult textbooks. In practice the criteria are similar to those that now are used for the psuedoscience list: non-mainstream is what mainstream rejects as "wrong". And indeed, Wikipedia is in principle against pejorative labeling of ideas held by certain groups. Harald88 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. You make an excelent argument why this list should be deleted; the aim is clearly to try to get pseudoscientific theories such as creationism into the same category as non-mainstream theories such as, say, Modified Newtonian dynamics and oppose any kind of lists to which you can only add theories like creationism but not Modified Newtonian dynamics. For the record, mainstream scientists may not believe that Modified Newtonian dynamics is correct, most don't work on it (if they do they try to disprove it). But they don't label it as nonsense. Articles written on such theories are not rejected out of hand. So, clearly there is a huge difference between pseudoscientific theories and theories one could label as non-mainstream.

The labeling "pseudoscientific" for creationism may be pejorative for the creationists, but to put creationism and similar nonsensical theories in the same list as some non-mainstream theories is pejorative for scientists. Just imagine that you work on Modified Newtonian dynamics and that your neighbor does a google search to find out more about what you work on. He will find this theory listed alongside all sorts of nonsensical theories. Count Iblis 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this discussion isn't about the proposed contents but about the subject. I fully agree that clearly there is a huge difference between pseudoscientific theories and theories one could label as non-mainstream. However, it has also been noticed that theories that simply are non-mainstream have (had?) a tendency to be included in the list on pseudo-scientific theories because a list of non-mainstream theories didn't exist. Harald88 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think it goes too far to call many of the topics listed in pseudoscience "nonsense" (many of them have a high level of internal consistency) what Iblis says is essentially correct. To use a related but more direct example- only a small fraction of biologists still think that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, but the opinion is very much not pseudoscience. However, denying common descent is. It would be terribly offensive and unencyclopedic to categorize them in the same way at all. JoshuaZ 20:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Too vague (potential for overpopulation) and shouldn't redirect. List of pseudoscientific theories has potential if it's adequately sourced (which of now it isn't) and annotated. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - already a pointer List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories erroneously points to List of pseudoscientific theories! As long as there are lists like list of pseudoscientific theories (which title I propose to change because it implies an NPOV violation) and the one in Superseded scientific theory, we need more category lists to correctly categorize theories that are in disgrace. But at the same time, either such categories should be deleted or the corresponding lists (merge). Harald88 07:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and maintain as the list page. Much more neutral and accurate than List of pseudoscientific theories. Some of the non-mainstream theories listed on that page do not purport to be scientific theories, so listing them as "pseudoscience" is inaccurate, perjorative and a little silly. DrL 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Whether or not the list there needs to have better and more NPOV criteria for inclusion is not relevant to whether or not we should let this POV fork/redirect stand. JoshuaZ 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right except for one thing: it's certainly not a POV fork, but a (rather misdirected) attempt to neutralise an unmistakable POV title. Because of that as well as being a POV fork of Category:Pseudoscience (see recent Talk!), I have in mind to propose either the cat or the List of pseudoscientific theories for deletion. Harald88 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Page was created in a campaign of POV-pushing by Arturo 7 when he moved List of pseudoscientific theories here. Leaving it up would be giving in to his efforts. ---DrLeebot 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact that's erroneous, as I made clear above: originally the "pseudoscience"list was called different names, a true consensus was never reached, and the change of name to List of pseudoscientific theories has caused a mispointing of List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories to that list instead of this proposed list. As this title is NPOV, it may more rightly be claimed that deleting this proposed list "would be giving in to the efforts of POV pushers". Harald88 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do your research before spouting off claims. This is not a proposed list, this is a relic of a failed move. See here and here. Yes, it originally was at "List of alternative, speculative, and disputed theories," but that was a conceit to NPOV which opened the door to too many legitimate theories (What theory isn't disputed by at least one person?). The list was moved here to match the original intent of the list.

As for pseudoscience being used as a pejorative; that's completely irrelevent (besides, it's even mentioned in the official policies with this word. However, there is a good point in that proponents of these theories generally contest the label, so I'm going to recommend a page move to List of theories commonly considered pseudoscientific. ---DrLeebot 13:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the word pseudoscience and articles about and referring to pseudoscience with accusations of pseudoscience. Anyway, that's not the question here. It's beyond discussion that "non-mainstream" isn't the same as "pseudoscience", and that in principle the contents of the list should differ. Harald88 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Why was this brought here rather than Redirects for deletion? The page has no content and no history, being merely the resulting redirect from a failed page move. -- nae'blis 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point (I also didn't know the existence of it!). Harald88 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, which is to say I support the deletion, whatever the correct forum for this is (I din't know there were special debates for redirects either). In any case non-mainstream =/= peudoscience, and we should aviod confusion here. -MrFizyx 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should be at RFD anyway but while we're here might as well get rid of it, as pseudoscientific and non-mainstream are not the same thing at all. Things which are pseudoscientific are almost always currently non-mainstream, but may have once been mainstream, and things which are not mainstream are not necessarily pseudoscientific (some are just wrong, for example, and some are just unpopular). They are very different designations (one is sociological, the other is epistemological). --Fastfission 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and move List of pseudoscientific theories to List of non-mainstream theories. The list currently at List of pseudoscientific theories was created in 2003 and for most of its history resided at List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories, where it explicitly included "respectable theories that are simply the minority view"—non-mainstream theories that are not pseudoscientific. It was moved to List of pseudoscientific theories last month by Count Iblis, who has now nominated for deletion List of non-mainstream theories, a redirect created during a subsequent dispute over whether the list should be moved to that location. As Harald88 points out, "pseudoscientific" is much more controversial than "non-mainstream", because (1) it is a pejorative term, and (2) alternative theorists often admit that their theories are non-mainstream, but fiercely deny that they are pseudoscientific. If pseudoscientific theories are to be separated from other non-mainstream theories, either at List of pseudoscientific theories or through sectioning at List of non-mainstream theories, the classification of each entry will have to be very carefully justified by reliable sources, something the current list wholly lacks. Tim Smith 11:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have quite a lot of sympathy for this POV... the current list includes quite a few theories that are simply obsolete (e.g. le Sage gravity) and shouldn't be listed as pseudo. How about List of alternative, speculative, obsolete or disputed theories? William M. Connolley 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

William, there already exists a list of obsolete theories. But a list of alternative or speculative theories is very difficult, because what are the criterea? This is inherently POV. What is bound to happen is that the list will consist of not so popular theories of which a wiki page happens to exist. Of course in certain cases it's clear that a theory is "alternative", take e.g. various theories that assume that humans are not responsible for global warming. And even in this case, how many revert wars were there about the "small minority " sentence :) Count Iblis 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The current list also contains some theories that are completely incomprehensible, so then maybe we should move it to List of alternative, speculative, obsolete, disputed, or incomprehensible theories. And what about the theories it includes that are just weird? We could go on like this forever. Le Sage gravity shouldn't be included and should be removed if no one advocates it now, but if advocates are still around then it does qualify as pseudoscience. ---DrLeebot 13:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Tim Smith: Tim Smith wrote: As Harald88 points out, "pseudoscientific" is much more controversial than "non-mainstream", because (1) it is a pejorative term, and (2) alternative theorists often admit that their theories are non-mainstream, but fiercely deny that they are pseudoscientific.

"pseudoscientific" is not more controversial from a reasonable neutral point of view at all. There are clear criterea unlike in the case of "non-mainstream". We cannot appease the pseudoscientists for opposing the the very reasonable majority view (based on objective criterea) that their theory is pseudoocientific just because they don't like it. Any list of "non-mainstream" theories is highly problematic because there are no unambiguous criterea at all. The original list before I renamed it had this problem. What happened was that the list contained almost exclusively pseudoscientific theories. That meant that you could not add theories that were "simply the minority view", because that would be offensive to the people working on that theory. Note that even if you split thelist in two parts on the same page, google's indexing methods will cause respectable theories on the list to be associated with the label "pseudocience". Count Iblis 12:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but properly sort. There are really three types of theories that would fit on such a list. Modified Newtonian dynamics as referenced above is a proposed theory that most physicists probably believe is a possibility, though they may not support it or work on it. Few would consider it impossible or nonsense. On the other hand, the Electric Universe theory (which among other things claims that black holes don't exist) is probably in the second category: most mainstream physicists believe that it is probably BS, and those who support it are generally not accepted as part of the mainstream. However, a supporter of Modified Newtonian dynamics would not find himself ostricized in the community because MOND is accepted as a possibility, and isn't pseudoscience. Then, of course, there is the third category, the category of theories that are all-and-out pseudoscience and have no actual scientific backing. If the list can be properly titled and sorted, this would be quite useful. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question Why isn't this in Redirects for Discussion? The discussion here seems to be about the List of pseudoscientific theories article (which is protected so can't be nominated for deletion yet) rather than about the article this AfD links to. I get the feeling the nominator chose to nominate the redirect because the page he wanted to delete was protected. Shouldn't an admin close this discussion, then the relevant article can be unprotected and nominated? Lurker ^talk 13:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply No, this should be at redirects because this was a result of an attempted POV move by Arturo 7 and was then moved back. That is the sole reason for the existence of this redirect at current. The nominator didn't know that there was a separate page for RfD but we should be able to deal with it here given how long this has gone on. JoshuaZ 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-mainstream does not mean pseudoscientific or vice versa. There are scientific theories that aren't mainstream, just as there are mainstream theories that aren't scientific WilyD 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What constitutes "mainstream" is purely subjective. wikipediatrix 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is a simple mistake, but you've already voted. ---DrLeebot 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! No wonder I felt a creeping twinge of Deja vu! wikipediatrix 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete how mainstream is mainstream? Enough said. Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete...or an attempt by mainstream theorists to declare non-mainstream theorists pseudoscientists. Cut and dried. Dekimasu 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a pretty clearcut difference between Pseudoscientific and non-mainstream science that anyone should be able to recognise if they ignore the rhetoric and look at the issue. Some fields are problematic (such as Cryptozoology) because there are both real scientists working outside the mainstream and quacks - I guess. WilyD 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -Doc 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork and strictly limited to POV. Konman72 06:28, 9 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary Pearcey

Rippercruft. The article proclaims its subject's own non-notability in the opening paragraph: her only importance in history is being "sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper", and then concludes by admitting there's no evidence for any claim of such a connection. wikipediatrix 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Thousands of pages have been written about this woman. She got global press last year (previously discussed in this article but removed by editor Victrix for reasons I never found convincing).Uucp 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of pages have been written about practically anyone and everyone remotely mentioned by anyone in the course of Ripper study, but that doesn't mean they all need an article. Pearcey apparently hasn't even been considered notable enough to get her own subsection in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, where she is dealt with in one single sentence at the very bottom of the page. wikipediatrix 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That evidence could demonstrate just as easily that the discussion at List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects should be expanded. In May of 2006, when she got her most recent round of press, Mary Peacy was discussed in the Daily Mail (London), Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland), The Mirror (Ireland and U.K. editions), The Herald (Glasgow), Belfast Telegraph, Hobart Mercury (Australia), The Independent (London), and the AAP Newsfeed (Brisbane), some more than once. I would be glad to e-mail you the text of every one of the articles. I would argue that anybody who receives such press for /anything/ is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The Ripper connection should not make Pearcey less so. Uucp 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This sentence says it all: Her only importance in history is that the crime is sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper. non-notable and fails WP:BIO. After this revision I am still unconvinced of notability. Google hits are just passing references to her being Jack the ripper (no great detail) and the first link is to the wiki article! But I think it looks good enough and sourced enough now for a keep well done all those that revised it! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think her possibility of being the Ripper is very very weak, and probably only considered due to the irony and novelty value of the Ripper possibly being a woman. That said, the crime she actually was convicted of and has hanged for was sensational at the time, was covered in all the papers, and she was very famous as a murderess. In fact, Madame Tussauds wax museum in London even made a wax figure of her. She still shows up in famous-crimes and unsolved-mysteries books to this day. Strong keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article currently contradicts what you're saying. Can you get sources for what you're saying, and put them in the article? wikipediatrix 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added more references and expanded the article somewhat (as has Uucp). Even more references than these could be found with some serching: the crime and trial were covered extensively in newspapers at the time. I must say I don't see what was contradictory in the original article though, unless you count the bizarre line "Her only importance in history is that the crime is sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper." which is untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed the contradictory statement to which I refer. wikipediatrix 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. The article in its current updated state is a great addition to Wikipedia. I suggest those who had an opinion of delete take another look and reevaluate their position. DrunkenSmurf 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-documented, verifiable, article on subject notable enough to have received more than 100 years worth of multiple, non-trivial coverage in books, newspapers, etc. Scorpiondollprincess 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep apparently well-referenced article, don't see what all the fuss is about. WilyD 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw. Now that the article has been greatly expanded and improved, and no longer makes the "only importance in history" claim, I find it suitable. Given this new information that has been presented, she still deserves a more detailed mention in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. wikipediatrix 18:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen flame

User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Oxyhydrogen flame.

• Keep Why delete, this is just legitimate science. pstudier 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep I have reason to suspect the nomination for the deletion of these articles is related to the deletion of the Aquygen article. However, unlike that article, both Brown's gas and Oxyhydrogen flame have good merit:
  • Both are long standing terms from the pre-20th century science community - as such, they have strong historical value.
  • Oxyhydrogen flame is linked to by many articles - despite it's non-20th centruy name, it's a simple and very scientific concept - oxygen and hydrogen.
  • Brown's Gas is strongly related to the Oxyhydrogen flame.
  • Both recieve a large number of google hits, indicating some level of notability.
  • Brown's Gas is a good example of a now-debunked scientific theory, whilst Oxyhydrogen flame is real dispite sounding similar.
  • The presense of these aids us in dealing with or discussing psuedoscience akin to Aquygen

I'm cross posting the same vote on both AfDs, as I believe these nominations are intrinsically linked, and one cannot be discussed without the other. LinaMishima 23:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This article in conjunction with HHO Gas, Aquygen, and Brown's Gas represent information on a hypothetical gas which is created through electrolysis of water, however there is no evidence provided in this article on how the gas is created or if it even exists, there is simply no cited information provided other than the source coming from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which cannot be verified. Also this article has been identified as a stub, and has not been improved upon bringing this article to wikipedia standards. Please view the deletion discussion on Aquygen and HHO Gas for reference. Based upon the reasons both of those articles were deleted and subsequently Aquygen was permanantly deleted, and for the sake of looking like a hypocracy, this article should also be deleted based purely on the same criteria which was applied to Aquygen and HHO Gas. Oxyhydrogen Flame does not appear to have peer review scientific journals which support the existance and properties of the gas. Without the proper citations, this article lacks sufficient evidence, and based upon the relation to HHO Gas which was deleted per the (AfD), this article should be deleted, or there is the risk that it will appear hypocritical to delete one article and not all related articles. User:75.108.54.176

Dude. Oxygen + hydrogen + flame = oxyhydrogen flame. It's no more a "hypothetical" gas than any other two gases one could combine in a flame at the same time. wikipediatrix 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Are you denying that hydrogen burns? pstudier 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article Unlike brown's Gas and Aquygen, the Oxyhydrogen flame is nothing magical - it's meerly a dated term for the burning of hydrogen with oxygen. The article itself and those that link to it cite it's many uses over the years. LinaMishima 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. LinaMishima 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Rather than nominating a legitimate stub for deletion, why don't you expand upon it? --Porqin 11:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, the only criteria I could think of that are appropriate WilyD 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but damn, can't we get a better reference for this subject than the 1911 Britannica? wikipediatrix 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - don't mistake this for the pseudoscience, under "normal" science, electrolysing water produces a mix of H₂ and O₂ in 2:1 proportion, which will burn or explode. Ace of Risk 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep per LinaMishima's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep , the article is interlinked Oxyhydrogen. Mion 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) and merge Water torch into Oxyhydrogen flame, the other name for Oxyhydrogen flame is fire polishing. Mion 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (There are different names for use of the flame " on different temperatures" and the flame is created in various ways, in welding 2 tanks, in jewelry a small electrolysis installation, Mion 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm currently looking to rewrite a number of articles related to this subject, once the AfDs are over I shall look to merge or redirect as needed. LinaMishima 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or maybe speedy keep since there is no actual explanation for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply no explaination on the deletion because User:75.108.54.176 failed to complete the AfD process - meerly tagged the pages, rather than doing the next two needed steps. Draw from this what you will. LinaMishima 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was not able to produce an explaination and complete the AfD Process because of a flaw within Wikipedia which allows for one to put up a deletion AfD Tag, but does not allow for the creation of the discussion page unless one signs up for an account, which I choose not to do, so I wasn't able to give an explaination until someone else with an account created the discussion page. But now that it has been created, I would like to share with you why I nominated this page. I nominated the page because it was dealing a a subject of great scrutiny of late. HHO leads one to this page, and as I did my research on HHO Gas and Aquygen and Browns Gas I found that they were all interlinked which led to to believe that all the linked subjects must all relate to the Hoax which was claimed by many with regard to the HHO Gas. My impression was the an Oxyhydrogen Flame is the "water torch" flame produced by the burning of Brown's Gas or HHO Gas. Therefore per the discussion during the AfD process for the deletion of both Aquygen and HHO Gas, I assumed that it was appropriate to tag this article for lack of information in its source references. So if one can provide sufficient evidence for the article, I would be glad to change my vote. But as it stands I still feel that this article being a redirect for HHO is tied to HHO Gas and Brown's Gas and therefore represents false information per the discussion of HHO Gas being a hoax. User:75.108.54.176 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • From Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, Hydrogen has a clean flame and is good for use on aluminium. It can be used at a higher pressure than acetylene and is therefore useful for underwater welding and cutting. For small torches, the hydrogen and oxygen used are often produced by electrolysis of water in an apparatus which is connected directly to the torch. Do you deny that hydrogen burns??? Paul Studier 04:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is legit, articles without references comprise 90% of current Wiki, no reason for deletion. Also try google and find many legitimate uses of Oxyhydrogen flame V8rik 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment and indeed in this case we have references to oxyhydrogen flame, although they could be stronger. I'll make a note to do a journal search for the term. LinaMishima 15:48, 11 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 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Parfitt, Jeffrey

This does not appear notable or worthy of an entry. Let me know if I am wrong here. Thanks Dubc0724 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google returns 2 hits with his name and 'actor'. He appears to have had a couple trivial roles in a couple of movies or television shows. Fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 11:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Dancarney 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable actor. JIP | Talk 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above -- Alias Flood 17:29, 8 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. Please note I considered the quality and substance to the arguments presented. This is not a vote counting exercise. Petros471 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorcery 101

Both the readers and The Author would like to know why it was suggested for deletion?

It doesn't fall into any category under the wikipedia Deletion Policy, so Why Has it been nominated? Churba 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the edit summary that added the deletion text, "nominated for deletion due to non-notability". I'm not sure I could agree with that since every other comic on KeenSpot has a page too, no matter how small. Maybe the content of the article needs refocused more towards a particular goal, but that's not qualification of a deletion in my eyes. --Zimzat 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - it doesn't seem especially notable. I say "weak" because I can't right now dig up a policy on Webcomic notability if there is such a thing. BigHaz 11:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination was from a drive-by anon who didn't even bother to complete the AfD. This comic was picked up by Keenspot, which is the major syndicate for webcomics, meeting WP:WEB 3. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WEB 3 would require that Keenspot be "both well known and independent of the creators." Keenspot is not well-known in any sense outside of certain segments of webcomic fandom. I've also seen it, perhaps incorrectly, referred to as a "collective," which would make it less than independent of its artists. As it was founded by webcomics artists, it is certainly not independent of every creator under its umbrella. Finally, we can't use a notability guideline as a dodge around official content policies like WP:V and WP:NOT. -- Dragonfiend 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Keenspot is a syndicate, not a collective, so I won't accept the assertion it's not independent. As far as WP:V and WP:NOT are concerned, they are intentionally broad and quite frankly I find your reading of them too strict. With the exception of WP:BLP, I am not inclined to immediately delete an article on what I feel to be a notable subject simply because it hasn't yet evolved into a well-sourced one. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: First, we can't keep articles based on the idea that someday they may be covered by reliable sources; if we did we'd have to keep every article made up in school one day. Second, as I understand it, syndication, whether in print, television, radio or the web, involves licensing content to multiple providers. As Keenspot's goal is to "provid[e] one steady place for readers to find what we believe are some of the finest webcomics,"[23] and they "claim[] to be the largest publisher of exclusive webcomics,"[24] (emphasis mine) they sound like the exact opposite of a syndicate. As I said, I may have seen them incorrectly identified as a "collective," and it is entirely possible that they function as somewhat of an independent publisher to some or even many of their artists. They clearly aren't an independent publisher of all of their webcomics, however (take, for example, Chris Crosby's webcomics), and they're certainly not "well known" in any general sense. If you have verifiable information on Keenspot's business practices and decision-making which suggests that they are in most cases or in this case independent of the artists they publish, then I'd be interested in seeing that. But, as it stands, I am unsure if they are "independent," I am quite sure they are not "well known," and in either case we can't write articles on topics (even allegedly well-known and independent ones) without verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm not advocating we keep every article. I think I've sent enough articles to AfD and prod to establish that. However, if I believe a subject is sufficiently important for an article, I'm not going to advocate its deletion simply because it's not dotted its Is and crossed its Ts. They are policies and guidelines, not dogma. As far as Keenspot is concerned, I really don't think it's necessary to rehash this argument every time one of its comics is nominated for deletion. Bring it up on WP:WEB instead. From prior discussions held there it's my impression Keenspot is considered an indicator for item 3, but of course that can always change. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I know you're not advocating keeping every article; I just think that's what we open ourselves up to when we encourage an environment where we make judgments based on "I believe a subject is sufficiently important [and may someday be covered by reliabel sources]" rather than "reliable sources believe the subject is sufficiently important to cover." Requiring encyclopedia articles to be based on widely respected, fact-checked sources is fundamental to what we're doing. -- Dragonfiend 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fairly notable web comic, as someone has sais all the other comics on the site get a page! Also there are plenty of google hits for the name - all of the first page links are related to the comic and they most arn't to the comic itself or the wiki article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable webcomic, vanity. Other related webcomics should be deleted as well. wikipediatrix 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Okay this is the author of Sorcery 101 and I'm a bit unfamiliar with vanity but just read up to see what you mean. I don't really think it's vanity because I didn't make this site (I don't even have an account here) and didn't even know how to edit the link when it was moved to Keenspot. Also, to go against the nonnotable thing I was interveiwed at this url http://www.comicatalog.com/interview02112006.htm even though most people don't know about it. - Kell Hound

• Keep The fact that the site is feature on KeenSpot is an indication that it is notable enough. --Marvin Monroe 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And why is that? wikipediatrix 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Keenspot was developed as an alternative to the print comic syndicates. It's not the only one, but by far it's the most successful. For a webcomic to be invited by Keenspot, it has to have achieved a degree of success beforehand. Among webcomic artists, to be "spotted" is like being asked to join the big leagues. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Among webcomic artists" sounds like Weasel words. As long as we're making assumptions about what other people think, let me say that I doubt actual big league webcomic artists, like the creators of Get Your War On, Megatokyo, American Elf, Penny Arcade or Copper (comic), are secretly dreaming of being published by Keenspot. -- Dragonfiend 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt. However, as in every medium, there are different levels of significance. While the likes of Megatokyo and Penny Arcade have little use for Keenspot, there's also the second tier who aren't so dismissive. I believe that second tier is Keenspot inclusive, and though they may not have the influence the biggest names do, they're considerably more important than the thousands on Comic Genesis, Smack Jeeves and the like that have yet to distinguish themselves. Now, maybe you feel we should only have articles on the most significant webcomics, but that's not a sentiment I can support. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE per Non-notable and most likely vanity. --Bschott 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not meet our official content policies. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "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." This article has no third party sources, let alone third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ..." This article has none of that -- it is just a webcomic with a web site, a story, and some characters. -- Dragonfiend 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails the WP:OR/WP:V combo WilyD 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Webcomics, again. Basically, "It doesn't meet official policy whatsoever (But wait! My sock puppet/friend/promoter says it's notable! Look at this Keenspot invite!), but some people really want it in Wikipedia, so it's going to stay." Don't bother fighting it. A lot of people really like these things, so why let them down? These things end up staying.  Cdcon  20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument is awful. People will ruin Wikipedia - we might as well let them is not a good guiding strategy for making a worthwhile encyclopaedia. WilyD 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It's done by a third party - not Vanity. it's got reference links, research, so it's not just thrown together. it fits everything. I added some, someone else added some, it's all fitting, true, and valuable material. it's notable - i can name 4 people that read it that i know in PERSON. you show me another webcomic you can say that for. Keep it, the deletion discussion is weak and unintelligent. TopKnotticus 0:00 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I already cast my vote, but I wanted to include a link for a short blurb from Comixpedia - Kel McDonald brings popular webcomic Sorcery 101 to Keenspot! Opeative word being popular. I do believe Comixpedia is a reliable, independent source. --Marvin Monroe 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Comixpedia is definitely not a reliable, independent source. It is mainly a group blog where webcomics artists post about themselves. What you just linked to is basically a press release posted by the founder of Keenspot hyping the comics on his own site. -- Dragonfiend 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "Keenspot is not well-known in any sense outside of certain segments of webcomic fandom." If that is the case, should not the Keenspot article itself be deleted? Boxjam 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I don't see what's so notable about it. wikipediatrix 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So why don't we just delete every webcomic article on Wikipedia? </sarcasm> Just because it's a niche market, that's far smaller than the traditional press comics, doesn't mean it's not significant enough. --Marvin Monroe 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason we don't delete every webcomic article is because notable webcomics have actually received sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (those are links to our official content policies). For example, you can find information on Nowhere Girl in the Village Voice, Sluggy Freelance in The Washington Post, Leisure Town on CNN, When I Am King in Wired, Fetus-X in The Detroit News, Get Your War On in Newsweek, Narbonic in Publishers Weekly, Drew Weing and Megatokyo in The New York Times, American Elf in The Boston Globe, and Svetlana Chmakova in USA Today. We will not delete every webcomic article after this one is deleted, just like we won't delete every article on every rock band just because we delete articles about minor bar bands with no reliable sources. We delete articles on topics with no reputable, reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy because an unreliable encyclopedia is useless. -- Dragonfiend 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 265 articles listed under Category:Webcomics, not including sub-categories. Even if we subtract from that articles such as List of self sufficient webcomics or Comixpedia (which isn't a reliable source, yet deserves its own entry) and webcomics collectives, we are still left with far more webcomics than 3rd party articles about them. How "notable" does a webcomic need to be to be assured it won't be considered for deletion? Are 10,000 unique hits per month enough? 50,000? 250,000? Does it have to have an article written about it? Or is it not about anything quantifiable but more of a "feeling"? Also, although I wasn't able to read the full Washington Post article about Sluggy Freelance, judging from the little I had I can safely say that it deals with its financial success, not its characters or storylines. How does that settle with "independent, reliable sources"? --Marvin Monroe 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, our three official content-guiding policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Yes, articles need reliable sources. No, there is no magical inclusion threshold of web site hits; if a web site gets only three hits ever but they happen to conicidently come from reporters at CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post while working on stories for the next day, then we can write an encyclopedia article because we have reliable sources in those stories that next day. On the other hand, if the entire population of planet Earth logs into a website but no reliable sources notice, then we can't write an encyclopedia article because we are trying to build a reliable encyclopedia. This is not a blog where we just write about neat stuff we found on the internet; we have standards for sourcing that are at least as high as a junior high school research paper. -- Dragonfiend 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how NPOV is relevant to this, because it's a description of the webcomic. If there are any superlatives in the article they should be deleted, but I haven't seen any. Also, you didn't answer me regarding all the two hundred plus webcomics that have no significance, and that have even less information written on them than Sorcery 101. For example The Karnak Hates Everything Show, Jazz Age Chronicles, Vigilante, Ho!, Ribald Youth. I'm sure we both could find many more. I think there should be a better policy regarding webcomics. I searched and still couldn't find a definition for "notable". Maybe I simply missed it, and if so, please show me where it is. --Marvin Monroe 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: "Because [ WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV] are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. ... All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." In this article's case, there are absolutely no significant published points of view in reliable sources suggesting that this topic has reached any level of achievement, impact or historical significance. For Wikipedia editors themselves push their personal POV that this is a historically significant webcomic is counter to our content policies. And, yes, there are many other bad articles on Wikipedia besides this one. We consider deleting hundreds of articles per day. You have many options available to you for any problematic articles you find; see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed . The best you will find on "notability" is Wikipedia:Notability, which is a contentious essay, unike WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT, which are long-standing official policies that all users should follow. -- Dragonfiend 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Popular_culture_and_fiction: "However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on." Yes, sources are still required, but they don't have to be as strict as in other subjects. This webcomic, like many others, is simply not notable enough to warrant an article about it. It has, however, been invited to a major webcomics collection that's invitation-only, and is featured today in the KeenSpot NewsBox (direct link to image). Although it is no longer relevant, Wikipedia:Importance states that an article is important if "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject, and therefore shouldn't be deleted if is "of insufficient importance, fame or relevance". From WP:VAIN: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." Just because you don't know this webcomic doesn't mean that it's a vanity page. This articles violates none of the condition in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and going by Wiki is not paper, there's no real reason to delete this article. You are not bound by page size, only by disk space. It seems to me that the reason for deleting this article stems from WP:HOLE and nothing else. Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics refers back to WP:WEB for notablity, which I think is a mistake when the subject is webcomics. I really want to know why some webcomics are notable enough to remain, while this one isn't. --Marvin Monroe 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V alone. Sandstein 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a work of fiction, that's available online. How is it not verifiable? By that logic, we can also delete Much Ado About Nothing, because it's "not backed by any independent, verifiable sources", at least not as of writing this comment. --Marvin Monroe 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability more closely. For example, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Shakespeare's works have reputable, reliable, third-party sources. So do many webcomics. This article does not. If you'd like to improve our articles on Shakespeare-related topics, please do. -- Dragonfiend 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But that specific Shakespeare article has no sources listed, as opposed to many others. And I have yet to read an article from a third party about webcomics that dealt with their subject matter and not financial success or "Hey, look at this new-fangled thingamajig on the internet". --Marvin Monroe 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. Feel free to go to your library and find some sources for unsourced articles. It is not revelatory news that Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress and that there are other articles which have flaws, some of which may require article deletion. If you can't see the distinctions between articles on major Shakespearean plays which could use better sourcing vs. articles on trivial webcomics which no reliable sources have ever covered, then maybe encyclopedia editing is not for you. -- Dragonfiend 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragonfiend, thanks for making the argument I was too lazy to type in. I agree with you with respect to this article, but do please remember WP:NPA. You're not more likely to motivate your fellow editors to help source Shakespeare articles that way... Sandstein 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that we should delete this page, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Obviously Shakespeare is more significant than a webcomic, and I was pointing out the lack of sources in the article. I didn't think about this at the time, but I think it's quite fitting that the Shakespeare article I picked was "Much ado about nothing", because discussions about whether a page about a webcomic should stay or not are very minor in the large scheme of things. --Marvin Monroe 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I really don't see a reason for this entry to be deleted. The webcomic in question is viewed by albiet a small fanbase, but a fanbasenonetheless. Other Keenspot artists have their comics listed, such as Clan of the Cats. And there is no controversy over that. If the question of if entry is purely vanity is really that much of a difference, multiple fans of the comic have already come to edit it and prove that it means something to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tin-chan (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

A "small fanbase" does not mean notability on Wikipedia. And actually, I think Clan of the Cats is non-notable, crufty as hell ("Chocolate raspberry truffle ice cream is Chelsea’s absolutely favourite flavor") and needs to be deleted. wikipediatrix 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If "a small fanbase" does not mean notability on Wikipedia, then how do you explain other such articles like "Yiff" which does not list it's references or sources. It's not to my taste, I find it abhorable, and yet it's still on wiki. And no one has disputed it yet. While a "small fanbase" means nothing to you, or many users who have posted their tastes on this discussion, it means something to a different group of people. Sorcery101 has multiple visitors and daily readers, and it's wikipedia article is satisfactory to the comic and said readership. Just because it doesn't suit someone else's tastes does not make it wrong. (As for Clan of the Cats, at least someone listed detail on the matter of what Chealsea's favorite ice cream flavor actually WAS.) If we didn't care about small fanbases, we wouldn't be arguing over them on wikipedia in the first place. (Tin-chan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.247.177 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

{{sofixit}}. Yiffing has been the topic of news reports, including in Vanity Fair and on MTV, and has also been the topic of a C.S.I. episode. It took me less than an hour to find sources for this at my library. This discussion has been going on for almost a week, and nobody has been able to find any sources for this webcomic article. It may also be worth noting that I have absolutely zero interest in furry fandom, but am an avid reader of webcomics, yet I can still put my personal preferences aside and recognize which topics have enough reliable sources to allow us the possibility of writing an encyclopedia article from a neutral point of view without devolving into original research. -- Dragonfiend 17:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

Notability is a highly relative issue. While an article in a national newspaper would make anything notable it is sadly not so with the media of the various subcultures. For example, While cart racing monthly may be "the" authority on cart racing among the cart racing subculture, it isn't to me ( I am no cart racer ). The same goes for webcomics. If you would judge the notability of wikipedia articles solely from the view of Your Average Idiot ( err.. Citizen )you could remove a sizable part of her content and whipe the list of webcomics ( nearly ) clean. -Arsenic- 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It was apparently written entirely independently of the author of the comic (thus not Vanity), and I feel that just because some people haven't heard of the comic, or don't like it, that it should be considered "non-notable". The comic is well-written, has an interesting world-concept, and actually updates regularly. And while I may not be reputable, I am reliable and a third party (not that this is verifiable as I have no Wiki account as yet) and I read the comic regularly and appreciate that there is another perspective published here in Wiki. Thanks for listening; no attacks are meant; I am only expressing my opinion. Light and laughter, SongCoyote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.118.113.10 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Keep

This comic is on Keenspot, and that requires it to be good. This comic is no less notable than many of the comics on here, and much more so than most of the articles in, say, Category: Star Wars (can't figure out how to link there).--Nick012000 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the three posts above appear to be made by the same person - not only do they each use the same peculiar indent of their vote, they're all first-time users. wikipediatrix 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know for sure if the three are one person or three, but it's possible that, since they're new users, they copied and pasted the above person's, for style, then changed the content. Boxjam 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per wikipediatrix and per WP:V and WP:RS. Unless somebody credible (and that doesn't necessarily mean a professor) writes about this, it's not suitable for inclusion. Notability is not subjective (to steal Uncle G's neato catchphrase). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Published on Keenspot, thus meets WP:WEB furthermore a declaration of "NN" is not a reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS Whispering^(talk/c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Keenspot is one of the major commercial webcomic sites. On of the requirements for a comic to be picked up by Keenspot is readership numbers and circulation.[25] I believe this falls under point 3 of WP:WEB PaleAqua 10:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Keenspot is an invite-only commercial webcomic syndicate which meets meets WP:WEB. Formerly on Comicgenesis. 20/7866 for ComicGenesis PageRank, 1.00% of all ComicGenesis traffic. Notable ComicGenesis comics by traffic appear in the Top 25 or Next 26-50 --Kisai 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The words "invite," "commercial," and "syndicate" are not in WP:WEB. If this were a not-for-profit webcomic on a free host like geocities yet it had some reliable sources concerning its impact or historical significance then we would keep it. This comic has not been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works," has not "won a well known and independent award," and is not "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators," so therefore it does not meet the WP:WEB guideline, which can't supersede Wikipedia:Verifiability anyway. . -- Dragonfiend 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators , Keenspot does not own the comics it hosts, the authors have only signed a hosting contract which gives rights to Keenspot to host, distribute, and advertise on it. Additional contracts may be signed giving exclusive merchandising rights to Keenspot which require minimum schedules to keep. News article on Keenspot listing Sorcery 101, [26] Comic-con page listing date and time of announcements]. --Kisai 06:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think we can consider this publisher to be "well known." Generally, when a well-known publisher publishes something, reliable sources notice. And again, the WP:WEB guideline can't be stretched so far as to supersede WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
        • This publisher is well known. Keenspot has been at ComicCon for numerous years, even hosting some of the Comic Genesis artists at certian events. It has it's own syndicated comic page that has been printed in the Turlock Journal, a Californian newspaper. Many Keenspot books have been published through Plan 9 Publishing. I know of no other way of verifying Keenspot's status other than talking to tens of thousands of people who attended ComicCon and the 6000+ people who use their Comic Genesis service. (and yes, I do have a bias, being one of the Comic Genesis administrators and part of Keenspot Entertainment) -- STrRedWolf
          • I do think your association with Keenspot is clouding your judgment. Outside of Keenspot, being printed in The Turlock Journal, a tiny twice-weekly newspaper with a circulation of 6,000, is not a sign of being "well known." By this measure, each and every one of the completley unkown comics published by my college newspaper is about 5-10 times as "well known" as these comics. If the only possible method of verifying some possible historical significance of this comic (Sorcery 101) is by talking with its small readership, then we don't have the reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog; we write about topics with reliable sources, not just things we find on the internet. -- Dragonfiend 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I do wish the same wikipedia editors that keep nominating webcomics indiscriminately for deletion would stick to their own WP:WEB and not keep using WP:V as the straw man for deletion. If WP:V is to be invoked to justify deletion of webcomic entries, then it should be invoked to delete every page in wikipedia as a whole, seeing how every suggestion of a verifiable third party presented gets refuted with another straw man argument discounting the verifiability. This is nonsense. I don't see anyone recommending copying or moving to comixpedia. The problem I see is the same people nominating webcomics for deletion are also in violation of WP:CIVIL everytime with comments like "death to webcomics!". How is it the same people are always nominating webcomics for deletion and the same people are voting for a delete all within a short period of time? Sorcery 101 is Keenspot, Keenspot picked up Sorcery 101 and announced it at ComicCon 2006, Comic-con is A big comicbook convention in the USA. --Kisai 21:55, 18 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 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Utah Basketball League

This Article is a Hoax. There is no such league and if it is real it is riddled with lies. No UBL team plays in the Delta Center, and no UBL games are on any TV station. FancyPants 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Action Art Banners where the names of the teams were made up. google turns up zero hits for the leagues name, and one of its teams. --Porqin 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article belongs on Uncyclepedia not Wikipedia Hypernick1980 04:38, 11 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 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

William F. Galtney, Jr.

Non-notable person Dancarney 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article is a copyvio, and I have tagged it as such. --Porqin 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO it seems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 13 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 speedily deleted by Lbmixpro. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

DaKlika

Reads like nonsense, non-notable group as far as I can tell. The articles writer has removed the CSD tag so I've brought it here RMHED 12:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on one school day. Google turns up 2 hits for the group name and the city, of which both are myspace pages. --Porqin 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or, better, move it to MySpace where it should feel much more comfortable. WikiMedia has a MySpace page, don't they? Bustter 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as CSD7 - "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." --IslaySolomon 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom and Islay Solomon. wikipediatrix 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a blatant violation of WP:NFT. This belongs to someone's blog, not in an encyclopedia. JIP | Talk 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per WP:NFT. Scorpiondollprincess 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, not notable. —Ben FrantzDale 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per IslaySolomon. It's also quite horrible nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nominator, this is largely incoherent. Yamaguchi先生 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ''hateless'' 02:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, indecipherable patent nonsense. So tagged. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:24, 9 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 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the Carrot

Alot of POV unsourced information about an unkown google video - in fact there are NO google hists for the title of this film! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A google video that is non-notable, and contains anonymous actors. Contains a lot of random jargon. --Porqin 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A non notable random google video.--DINOMAN 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no IMDB entry, claims that it was "banned from the Academy Awards" (gee, you'd think the press would have picked up on something like that!) Claims to include "400 stunt doubles", which if true would have pushed the budget well into the millions. In other words, the artcle is a total load. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. —Ben FrantzDale 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete blatant hoax about a nn video. Danny Lilithborne 20:38, 8 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 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Guaranteed price moving

29 unique Googles, creator has no history other than this article and linking it and its website to other articles. No evidence of meeeting WP:CORP, advertorial tone. The oly sources are the company's website and an entry which "has either been provided by the company, or has been compiled by the Bureau from other sources." Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Clearly fails WP:CORP Lurker ^talk 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it's spam. Fry it up with Ketchup and we may have a sandwich, an encyclopaedia article we have not. WilyD 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; spam. —Ben FrantzDale 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete & 50% of Wiki; Have you looked at Moving_Companies Moving_companies Category ? Its no better or worse then every other site in this category... Before you light the flame-thrower on one site ... look at the whole cat.. whats this place turning into dmoz? Becuase its not one of your own contribs you light a torch? --160.79.75.254 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate any or all of the articles in that category. Heaven knows there's a few pieces of spam floating around, inspiring similes comparing Wikipedia to a university residence stew. WilyD 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets See... Commercial Spam 100% commercial nothing useful , Wiki SpamMelt , Double Dipping Spam , Spamtastic , How Many Here for Sirva? , I mean really of all the sites here NONE really have anything other then commercial interests at heart... the one in question is no exception but at least they offer some guides and how-to's... the only item of merit here I see is Assoc. Definitions --160.79.75.254 22:42, 8 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 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob Teller

Seems like a non-serious personal article for a small group of people on interconnecting Wikipedia pages. Was link to user page Cedric Lessing which I removed. Mattisse(talk) 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks non-notable. Medico80 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete TexasDawg 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete Non serious. Personal page--DINOMAN 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A line from the article: "Bob tried to stop Mariusz from drinking too much soda, but Mariusz got right in his face. Then, Connie had banned him from drinking soda for the rest of the school year." Sounds like the plot of a Vicky Pollard sketch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom -- Deville (Talk) 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:BIO Trivial article about non-notable person. Ohconfucius 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what!? Remove the tag or I'm telling Greg! —The Pope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariusz Zielinski (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 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Connie Colosimo

Irrelevant article linked to Bob Teller page nominated above and written in similar joking tone. Mattisse(talk) 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete TexasDawg 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom -- Deville (Talk) 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:BIO trivial article about non-notable subject. This sort ofd stuff gives Wiki a bad name. Ohconfucius 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You out of it! I'M TELLING CHRIS RIGHT NOW! —Mariusz Zielinski 12:06, 9 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Tereshinski III

This is not a notable figure. He has zero noteworthy accomplishments of any kind. Wikipedia does not need an article for every back-up college quarterback or similarly insignificant athletes. -- TexasDawg 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Tereshinski is a notable figure. He is currently the starting QB and will most likely see significant playing time early in the season. --Hotlanta 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. For it is written: Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Assuming that the University of Georgia's football ranks, he seems to make the cut. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most members of the University of Georgia football squad are not worthy of articles. Tereshinski certainly isn't. Every Division I college football team (of which there are over 100) has 85 scholarship players and dozens of others... do the math.Hadnot 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, starting QB of a college team does not make the cut. Wait till he wins the Heisman or gets drafted into the NFL. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't forget: collegiate football is a big deal in the USA. Even semi-important players for major programs are arguably as notable as many NFL players (and often more well-known than some NBA and NHL players). Zagalejo 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• So we should have an article on every player for every team? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, but , IMHO, reasonably well-known players on major programs (Georgia has the fifth largest on-campus football stadium in the United States) probably deserve articles. The notablilty criteria for college athletes are pretty vague at the moment, however, so I don't know where I would draw the line between major programs and non-major programs. Zagalejo 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 10,400 Google hits for "Joe Tereshinski III." Seems to have attracted his fair share of media attention. Zagalejo 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • All major college QBs get media attention. That doesn't mean they meet WP:BIO. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - From WP:BIO - "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league ... including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." In addition, Joe T. has started at QB for only a few less games than D.J. Shockley had started when his wikipedia entry was created (14:57, 27 September 2005). --Roswell native 02:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ros -M^ask 00:37, 10 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, then redirect to Travel insurance. - Bobet 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Travelers Insurance

Advertising spam, copyvio [27] but since author claims permission given I'd rather have it delete through AfD. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• We certainly could use a good article on travel insurance, but this is so far from an encyclopedic article that this most likely will not be it. It reads like an essay summing up all the disadvantages of travel insurance, so my vote is Delete, unless someone sees an opportunity to salvage this into a real article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

---

• At this point I have salvaged another article, Travel insurance, which was changed into a redirect to Travelers Insurance a couple of days ago. Therefore I now suggest a redirect to Travel insurance. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• REDIRECT per the salvaged article Reinorutr/Cpt. Morgan found. --Bschott 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Disambiguate between the new travel insurance article and St. Paul Travelers, a notable insurance company. Those who land on this page might be looking for either one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to travel insurance. -- P199 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd love to, I really do, but can you please elaborate on what exactly you think can be merged? The article is very POV, so I would prefer to not include anything from it in travel insurance. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio per nom. The proper title of this article should be travel insurance as indicated above. The recovered article could be expanded, but this content has to go, and the redirect to St. Paul Travelers should be restored per Smerdis of Tlön. -- Slowmover 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete WP:SPAM cut and dried advertisement masquerading as articles. Ohconfucius 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above Konman72 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The article is completely factual and accurately cited. It would stand up well against peer review. The article has more detail than many wikipedia entries, and is much more informative than the existing [Travel Insurance] article. It is likely that those with stakes in InsureMyTrip.com are trying to remove this article from Wikipedia. In order to remove the article it should be neccessary to actually discredit its contents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfein (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete text and redirect per Cpt. Morgan. - David Oberst 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Further Comment: There is also a redirect at traveler insurance to this article which should be dealt with as well by the closing admin. - David Oberst 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is nothing like any wp article. --Effoveks 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Travel insurance as silly POV fork or ad or essay or whatever. Sandstein 19:47, 16 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 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

David Gabrielle Martyn

No relevant or noteworthy information has been provided in the article (including the cruft I've reverted out multiple times); no apparent claim to notability. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, this is complete nonsense -- Deville (Talk) 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V WilyD 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Dmartyn and delete. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN, WP:AUTO. Trivial, unsourced article about non-notable person. 2Ghits, bith from Wiki Ohconfucius 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete is there a reason words like wikify and userfy can be thrown around willie nillie, but an article like this can be considered nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMartyn (talk • contribs)

• Do not Delete I'm not sure I want to visit a website that has some sort of filter on information. In fact, JZ Knight may be possibly holding an investigation on the conduct of wikipedia. David Gabrielle Martyn's article was continuously vandalized. Furthermore, the entry was subjected to the much dreaded "WIKIFY", "USERFY", "COHERENTFY" tags that detract readers from the article. Finally, it should noted that Emufarmers continuously emailed me, throughout this argument, asking for my sign, A/S/L, postal code and unwashed briefs. CDiPoce 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, bordering on nonsense. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wiktionary defines pretension with the example of Wikipedia having a page on itself, and questioning the notability of others.--Dmartyn 05:35, 14 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 Keep (apparent bad faith nom) Syrthiss 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ermin Šiljak

I request this article to be deleted because it was made without my permission or consultance. --Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete nomination - completing. Subject requests deletion. See this. Viridae^Talk 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep verifiable/ied, notable bio. Viridae^Talk 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well unfortunate as it is that myself and viridae are the first people to vote I guess I'd better add my pennorth (and expand on what Viridae has said). Following the link he provided the person who listed this for deletion claims to be the subject and has asked for bthe deletion. I am voting keep on the basis of unfounded grounds for nomination, it being a verifiable article and no conclusive proof the user is who they say they are. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Saddly for Mr. Šiljak, he's just too good at football to be deleted. --IslaySolomon 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and of course watch like any WP:BLP), notable footballer, has played on national team. Kusma (討論) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sadly against his wishes, however if he can confirm who he is, perhaps he can contact the admins or Wiki staff directly and work something out to have this removed? That would have been my first action if I was in his place. --Bschott 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - such is the unfortunate reality of being in the public eye. WilyD 14:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE - changing other people's comments in an AFD is extraordinarily bad form and completely unacceptable. WilyD 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Lightbulb-Bulblight changed everyone from Keep to Delete, I changed them back. DrunkenSmurf 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didnt --Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You did. The diff doesn't lie. Kusma (討論) 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt prove anything --Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is proof enough, and the evidence is a lot better than for your unproven claim to be Ermin Šiljak. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Let's simply face the facts, here: It's an unbiased, verifiable article on an obviously notable person. Whether or not the user is the subject (and I honestly don't care either way), the article will stay, and neither an AfD nor talking to anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation will change that. -- Kicking222 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I believe this may throw this whole AFD into 'bad-faith'. LB-BL has been proven, via the edit history, to be acting in bad-faith. I personally believe we should move this into a 'speedy keep' and LB-BL cited for Disrupting WP to make a point. Bad-faith nomiation. --Bschott 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, even if LB-BL is who he says he is, that doesn't matter. The reasons are quite lucidly stated on the Village Pump discussion linked above. Subject is verifiable and notable. -- Deville (Talk) 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think the irrational bad faith behaviour of the editor LD-BL, his odd username and excellent grasp of english that this is not in fact the person he claims to be. I would support a speedy keep. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per bad behavior of nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tmorton166 the subject is notable in European football. Yamaguchi先生 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep And block Lightbulb from editing for a little while for his changing of votes. That is extremely out of line. Konman72 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lightbulb has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Syrthiss 14:30, 10 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. Petros471 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Kennametal

appears to be nothing more than a cut 'n' paste from PR literature Markb 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cut n paste = copyvio (see WP:COPY). I tagged and blanked it per policy. Anyway the article (even if rewritten) fails WP:CORP so Delete --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 14:32, 8 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 based upon WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY arguments below.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian Mulholland

Author(who's username is the same as article) removed prod. Does not meet WP:BIO(does not assert any particular notability). i kan reed 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a serious and notable musician with some interesting credentials. I added categories and references. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  this is not meant to influence the AfD discussion I've looked over your talk page and history before, have you ever voted to delete anything? i kan reed 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy or Delete Google gives 83 unique hits for "Brian Mulholland" bassist, AMG lists one album. I know it's hard to verify the significance of jazz artists, but WP:AUTO tips the balance here for me. Just zis Guy you know? 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, I'm almost convinced by JzG's reasoning, and the WP:AUTO does hurt. However, the guy does have an album and has played with very significant musicians. So he barely tips the scales for me. -- Deville (Talk) 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete WP:Vanity and WP:AUTO violations. Google search does not bring any notable media articles just for this artist, and it should be noted that other people have the name 'Brian Mulholland' so a google search will not be accurate to just this man. --Bschott 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and NN. -- P199 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per above. WP:NN Notability not well established. Clearly plays in Maynard Ferguson's band per MF's website. New artist with only 1 album "Deco" just released this year. Also fails WP:BIO. Article not sourced and guilty of "padding" - I suspect his claimed association with artists notable or otherwise is through having been with Maynard Ferguson's band. He mentions, for example Stockton Helbing implying he is a separate artist, whereas SH is MF's drummer. 0 hits on hudsonmusic.com. WP:NOT Wiki is not a crystal ball. He's not notable, yet. Ohconfucius 03:21, 9 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 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Horror Movie Maniacs

Notability per WP:WEB --Clappingsimon talk 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Totally NN. 19 unique google results [28]. --IslaySolomon 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The site isn't even ready; it's still under construction. Also, the author keeps removing the deletion tags. --GringoInChile 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, he only removed the prod tags, which he can do. The AfD hasn't been removed. Anyhoo, delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, extremely nn. -- Deville (Talk) 15:42, 8 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 of the debate was keep – Gurch 12:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Classic Vacations

This is probably big enough to be notable, but some people might think otherwise. -TruthbringerToronto 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Classic Vacations is a subsidiary of Expedia Inc and deserves a page just as the like of other Expedia sub-companies such as Hotels.com and TripAdvisor.
- sthakkar 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa ranking of hotels.com: 768. Ranking of TripAdvisor.com: 323. Ranking of this thing: > 40,000. Come here when notable, not to get notable. --DaveG12345 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (see below)
• Delete as copyvio [29].--Allen 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a copyvio any longer (unless somebody reverts my edits). --TruthbringerToronto 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Thanks for removing the copyvio. DaveG12345, Classic Vacations seems to be more of a traditional travel agency than a website (despite having been bought by Expedia), so I'm not sure Alexa rankings are a fair guide here. --Allen 03:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep OK, I will trust your judgment on that, not having heard of them myself. --DaveG12345 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems like a noteworthy tour operator. I don't know where one would find statistics on its market share in the package tour areas where it operates. --TruthbringerToronto 03:29, 29 June 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 roundhouse keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Total Gym 1000

Only notability of this product is its association with Chuck Norris. As it reads currently, article is a non-notable unencyclopedic vanity advertisement. Katr67 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep. If this is cleaned up, it seems to fit notability requirements - 84,000 Ghits in quotations; available for purchase through many major retailers including Wal Mart and body building stores. Srose (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Conditional keep. While the article does strive to maintain NPOV, it is essentially a product review, and I find it highly unlikely that any references will be found that are not either opinion (independent reviews) or materials from the manufacturer. A better (and different) article would be one (non-vanity) about the company that produced it. Or better yet, an article about that class of exercise machines into which the TG1000 falls, with perhaps a list of machines that are in the class or a statement like, "... such as the Total Gym 1000." Twisted86 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. Okay, Deville convinced me -- especially after looking at the Bowflex Machine article. Which led to a tangential editing of the Nautilus, Incorporated article, which led to tinkering with the Arthur Jones article. <sigh> I'm still with Katr on the notability issue, but I live under a rock as far as pop culture is concerned, so I can't really judge whether this is notable or not. Twisted86 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment waves from under rock I'm not ready to retract my nomination, as I feel this discussion is necessary. As far as notability is concerned, however, despite not watching much television, I've heard of Nautilus, and I've heard of Bowflex. Will Total Gym 1000 stand the test of time so that your average American (correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt this is an international phenomenon), will have heard of it? Millions of products are introduced each year, but they don't all rate an article in Wikipedia.

• To answer this, I am Australian and know it. The infomercials for it have been broadcasted on late night public television for years and I have known well funded gyms that have kept this device. The infomercials are notable in themselves: "Buffed up gym junkie says to Norris: "Chuck, I have been a fan of walker texas ranger for years and I have always wanted to know how you keep in such good shape" Chuck"with the total gym 1000" with woman in swimsuits surrounding and stroking him. I did not think keeping it would be a big issue as it is available in most retail stores in Australia like Big W and K-Mart as well as on Danoz direct. I also believe that exercise generally is very badly done on Wikipedia and fitness devices are always valuable to add. Consider the Pokemon test and I am sure that this has come out on top. Everyone knows the infomercial adds at least and they have been a joke here for years. --Realms forward 05:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep after an extensive cleanup, as per Srose. I think that Twisted's objections could be overcome if the article were really encyclopedic, as of now I agree it is much more of a product review. For example, if this article looked much more like Bowflex Machine, then I think we'd be in business. Also, we should be careful about angering Chuck Norris...:) -- Deville (Talk) 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why we should not anger Chuck Norris. Katr67 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep. I believe keeping information on all sorts of exercise machines is encyclopedic and good for people seeking information about this type of thing. NB, I wrote the article. Perhaps a new category is required for such devices. I did try to write it NPOV and would welcome and encourage any suitable changes to the article. --Realms forward 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Needs a rewrite, but thats not a good enuff reason for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.169.185 (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 9, 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can some of the folks holding this position give a good reason why this article should be retained? We've seen arguments about why it should not be deleted, but none about why it should be retained, which is not quite the same thing. Considering the question this way might give some better insight.... Twisted86 23:48, August 9, 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non encyclopedic, advert. MaNeMeBasat 14:33, 11 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 merge. Petros471 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now I find the school article does not exist. Therefore, changing closure to delete as merge is not possible. If an article on the school appears at a later date this article can be restored for a merge. Petros471 13:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Highland Rugby

high school rugby team that is apparently very successful. I removed a line from the article about a feature film on them coming out in 2007; until then, though, I think this is not an appropriate encyclopedia article topic. Plus, entirely unsourced, et cetera. If this is deleted, the logo Image:HR Logo.jpg should be deleted as well. Mangojuice^talk 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment my first reaction is to keep, since if all of the information contained in the wikipedia article (and the team's website) is true and verified, then this actually does seem notable. Sure, we don't want to keep many high school sports team's pages, but winning that many US championships, and a world championship, do convey a level of notability. The problem here, though, is I can't seem to find any third-party source verifying this information. For example, this Gsearch turns up nothing. I'm sort of surprised there is no WP article on World Schools Championship in the first place. In summary, I would !vote keep if any third-party sources were found, delete if not. Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league could help? -- Deville (Talk) 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Fair criticism, I'll look into finding third party sources. Trust me, the results are legitimate, and the movie (starring Gary Cole, titled "Forever Strong")will be released next year. I'm new to editing/creating wikipedia articles, and this is my first attempt, so help me out here please. For now, here is one news article about the movie and a brief explanation of who/what Highland Rugby is. I'll be looking around for actual competition results, and when I find them I'll post them here. -- Nz tonto (Talk)

http://www.abc4.com/local_news/local_headlines/story.aspx?content_id=A28E86F4-7406-489C-87A0-CFFE9C9513D3

• Delete. High school teams are generally not notable. For now, this one does not appear to merit an article. What little material there is could easyly be merged into the school article if it needs to be kept. Vegaswikian 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into school article. Daniel.Bryant 04:32, 19 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 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

GlobalIpVideo

Non-notable company; only a single Google hit. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Haakon 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete certainly nn as per nom, moreover, if this is all we have to say about it, then there is no need for an article. Note to closer: GlobalIPVideo redirects here as well -- Deville (Talk) 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all reasons above. Nuttah68 20:59, 8 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 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Vwho

Non-notable company. Few related Google hits. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Haakon 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - At first, the number of Google search results can look deceiving - 18,000 - but upon further investigation, most of these results seem to be forums posts and advertisements. Additionally, VWHO stands for "volume-weighted hypolimnetic oxygen", which gives a good amount of the results. A web-based company (as stated in the article itself) should certainly have more related search results. Srose (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Srose and nom, and I also note that a large number of the hits were typos of "who". -- Deville (Talk) 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. --Satori Son 17:46, 8 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 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actioner

neologism. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Crossmr 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I wish authors of articles were prevented from removing the prod tag (at least without also making substantial edits). -- Merope 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on the corner of 6th Street and Ave A in New York City at approx. 7:32pm on the 7th day of August 2006. -- Fan-1967 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• while the actual word is new, the events and works it attempts to describe have been going on with a community of performers around the world for some time. These people create works that do not fit into the notions of dance, theater, happenings or performance art, though they draw upon pieces of each dicipline. The creation of a term that acts as a melding of a collection of ideas is an attempt to make the ideas behind it more clear, instead of constantly attempting to re-define current terms that are inadequate, and at times incorrect for the work that is being made. By creating a term, to describe something that has existed on the fringes of many fields, creates a field of its own from within which critique, structures, and development of the form may take place.--Januszj 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This speaks for itself. Delete Danny Lilithborne 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is a Tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a place to float new words, concepts or analysis. Fan-1967 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:V, Wikipedia, she be many things, but a free webhosting service she ain't among others WilyD 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete, but I would like to put in the possible suggestion of a redirect to Action game, as "actioner" is a common synonym. -- Kicking222 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT and WP:V which will be impossible to meet. How can a reliable source exist on a term that was made up yesterday? Mangojuice^talk 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment WP:NEO Actioner is a new term, but it is well-explained, so the prohibition against neologisms (that the new term will not be understood) is not applicable here. WP:NFT This term was not "made up" on a whim, but rather created by serious arts practitioners in an attempt to describe an existing phenomenon that had no current name. WP:V The term itself is not verifiable, but the phenomenon is clearly visible to anyone watching current trends in performance and visual/conceptual art (and even in advertising--e.g. viral marketing has "actioner" tendencies). The irony of deleting the term from Wikipedia is that that will help to ensure that it continues to be an invisible trend in a liminal space, and that the robust movement will continue to be voiceless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.137.250 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 August 2006

  wikipedia is not a place to start trends or further them. If and when this term ever gains notability it will be entitled to an article here. Wikipedia is not a primary source for information.--Crossmr 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  You need to read all of WP:NEO. Especially the part about "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources." Since the word was invented the other day, there are no secondary sources on its meaning or usage. Fan-1967 17:44, 9 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 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority bus routes

Already deleted once. Record of discussion here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed AFD nomination. -- H·G (^words/_works) 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An indiscriminate list of information (presumably copied from the MARTA website or bus schedules) with little potential for improvement. If general information on the areas served by MARTA buses is considered useful, it should be at Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority#Bus.--Mako 03:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Buscruft --Spondoolicks 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more up to date, reliable and relevant information can be obtained directly from the transport authoprity. Wiki adds no value here. WP:NOT wiki is not a directory, even less so s bus itinerary. Ohconfucius 10:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Try some information about why there are so many bus routes in Atlanta.Garrie 04:59, 11 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Melbourne tram routes

Wikipedia is not a bus/trolley schedule. --DarkAudit 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with cleanup. Wikipedia isn't a schedule, but we have, for example Red Line (MBTA). —Ben FrantzDale 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Another badly-described nomination. The article is route list, not a schedule. Could be expanded to be more like similar public transit articles. -- Slowmover 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not a list of bus routes, either. --DarkAudit 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - but it is an encyclopaedia, and there's no reason why a list of bus or tram routes can't be included to demonstrate the area to which a public transport system covers. That is what these lists do. (JROBBO 05:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment A paragraph can give an overview of what area a public transport system covers. For microscopic and guaranteed up-to-date detail an encyclopedia is not the right place to look. --Spondoolicks 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a map. 132.205.93.19 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. Anon editor with no edits before today. -- Slowmover 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BenFrantzDale. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Another example of dodgy attempts at stretching the WP:NOT criteria to cover useful articles. If I want to catch a tram somewhere in Melbourne I've never been before, I usually start from this article. Rebecca 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

comment I would google "Melbourne tram" ;-) Ohconfucius

Comment As would I. There are many sites I'd check for what tram to take before coming here. --DarkAudit 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge any non-trivial information into Trams in Melbourne, or cleanup so the article makes some claim as to why Melbourne tram routes (as distinct from more general information about Melbourne trams) are important. --Mako 02:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as useful article per Rebecca. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - as per Slowmover and Rebecca. What is with all these people nominating transport lists for deletion? They haven't put any work into them at all yet they believe it is right to just go ahead and nominate everything for deletion. (JROBBO 05:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
• delete this pretty pointless route list. Red Line (MBTA) is an article and not a list - Have a look. Wiki imparts no value to keeping this information. wiki is not a [transport] directory. An easier and more effective way to demonstrate the area which a public transport system covers is by substituting a map, which has every chance of being more easily maintainable, and giving a more global view of the transport system even if out of date. Without knowing where the end-points are (or even having to click on another link to find out) kinda defeats the object. It should go. Ohconfucius 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this list is not a tram guide, but it needs to be cleanup a bit. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously-useful information. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as useful transport history article. Looks like a lot of work has gone into this, and it's more than just a list or table like the Sydney bus routes lists also currently nominated, it's quite historical in its scope. --Canley 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Fg2 09:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not what an encyclopedia is for. --Spondoolicks 10:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC) delete second vote made in error, comments merged. Ohconfucius
• Keep - this seems a well-maintained list, some of such sets of pages developed into really informative and interesting sections of Wikipedia. Tram lines can have their history, peculiarities etc. Even though the subject is pretty minor, it is not controversial and does not outright violate any policy other than raising some notability concerns. Bravada, talk - 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Melbourne is nationally, and maybe even internationally, famous for its trams. -- Chuq 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there is already an article on the trams at Trams in Melbourne. -- Mako 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - yeah, but moving the list to the article would immediately spurn calls for creating a separate list, as the article would get unweildly girthy. Bravada, talk - 11:23, 13 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong bus route numbering

Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep fortunately, this article is not a bus schedule. WilyD 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It would be nice if the nominator accurately described the article and gave a valid reason for proposing it for deletion. This article describes the system used for numbering the HK bus routes, in addition to listing the routes. There is no schedule information. It may be of marginal interest, but the nomination is faulty, and there's no reason to delete. -- Slowmover 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup. —Ben FrantzDale 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A list of bus routes is pretty much close to a bus schedule. An article on the numbering system ventures into 'indiscriminate collection of information' territory as well. --DarkAudit 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a map. 132.205.93.19 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. Anon editor with no edits before today. -- Slowmover 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WilyD, the deletion remarks are largely incoherent. Yamaguchi先生 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Slowmover and per cited argument in [30]. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Slowmover. Article is sound, and informative about the principles underlying the numbering system, with some examples. It does not describe precise bus routes and does not consititute an unmaintainable list. It has aplace within Wiki. Ohconfucius 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ohconfucius. The article is more than a simple list of bus routes, and offers some useful insight (though some references would be good).--Mako 03:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not a bus schedule, but an encyclopedic article. It only gives a brief listing of bus routes and how are they numbered, not a whole lot of bus numbers serving from X destination to Y destination. The nomination is incorrect and the nominator should give a better explanation of the nomination what is wrong with the article. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per OhConfucious. SM247^{My Talk} 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThis article actually describes, bus route numbering in Hong Kong rather than simply listing facts about each route. But personally I'd remove everthing after #Route numbering system for public buses Garrie 04:57, 11 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 near unanimous keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Toronto buses and trolley buses

wikipedia is not a bus schedule --DarkAudit 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. And neither is this article. Is this a good faith nomination? -- Slowmover 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes it is and yes it is. The entire second half of the artcle is a list of bus routes. --DarkAudit 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A section of the article is a list of bus routes. Admittedly not very useful, the section could be deleted. The rest of the article has good content even if it's not top quality, per Scorpiondollprincess. -- Slowmover 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while the article is set up a little strangely, it is not just a bus schedule WilyD 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is well-sourced and verifiable. Could be cleaned-up some and better organized. But this article provides information on the history, automotive technology, garage facilities, shelters, appearances in film, and experimental bio-fuels programs of busses in Toronto. This is much more than just a bus schedule. Maybe tag for cleanup, but definitely keep. Scorpiondollprincess 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per Scorpiondollprincess. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a map. 132.205.93.19 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. Anon editor with no edits before today. -- Slowmover 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful article. --Usgnus 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article is an extensive and non-trivial overview of all aspects of the Toronto Transit Commission's bus and streetcar system. Not only is it not just a schedule; no part of the article is even attempting to be a schedule at all. (A schedule would include what times a bus is expected at which bus stop, not just a quick list of what the names of the routes are.) A bit of cleanup is certainly needed — as it always is on any article User:Fat pig73 has had any significant hand in creating — but there's no meaningful or legitimate reason to delete this. Keep. Bearcat 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Substantive article. Wikipedia deletionists are a problem; they have a responsibility to give full and convincing arguments for deleting an article from a site with no size restrictions that aims to be an actual “encyclopedia.” No such argument was given. – joeclark 22:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Joeclark. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Snowy Speedy Keep and close. BoojiBoy 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:SNOW doesn't really apply here, and I'm not sure there's any criterion for a speedy keep. WilyD 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with cleanup. The formatting of the article is a bit perplexing, so obviously needs work. Some sections could be superfluous, but the article as a whole is useful.--Mako 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with major cleanup. Written by and for trainspotters, but including too much info about bus routes and numbers which are largely unimportant and difficult to maintain. 'History' section is OK but perhaps only a stub, but who cares if "The 58 Malton and 192 Airport Rocket operate approx. Mon-Sat 6am-1am and Sunday 8am-1am, the 307 and 300A making up the rest of the time"?. The 'roster' has relevance for the really anally retentive only, but is als worthy of keeping. The 'current bus route' section and trolley bus 'loops' should be dseleted, and replaced with a 2 sentence summary about their existence. Ohconfucius 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, overall the article is encyclopedic, but some information on the bus routes and lists should be removed and list only notable routes. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. When you nominate an article for deletion, please do not insinuate that the article is something that it clearly is not. Fg2 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Blizzard Close But clearly? Not at all. It's still mostly a list of bus routes. --DarkAudit 14:17, 9 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse studies

I don't think this is sufficiently encyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it has the potential to be encyclopedic. At present it's mostly just a list of Books about Buffy with one link to an online scholarly journal. But this subject does seem to be taken seriously (and studied seriously) but many published authors. I'd let this article continue to grow and expand. Scorpiondollprincess 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR and non-notable - there's no evidence that the concept isn't made up (lumping some books and a website together doesn't cut it - the website is on Buffy studies rather than Buffyverse studies anyway). If it gets some references I'll change my opinion (weak-minded fool that I am) Yomangani 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable original research. Fancruft in disguise. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

*delete WP:NEO neologism. we could reinstate it of any reputable university has a course on it. Any useful content here can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer Ohconfucius 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• vote change to weak delete. [Edit: No to a redirect from buffyverse studies] "Buffyverse" is a definite no-no per WP:NEO. Good effort to rewrite and add supporting references, would vote to keep if renamed to "Buffy studies" or somesuch. Ohconfucius 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Konman72 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am changing my vote. Notability and fancruft, not that it violates either in my opinion, have never been sufficient reason for deletion. The reason fancruft articles are deleted is due to a lack of citation and verifiability, which I feel this article does a good job of avoiding. Even if it has issues I think that it has the ability to improve. Konman72 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: At this point in the discussion the article underwent a major edit in efforts to improve the article.

• Keep - For several reasons:

Edited - I gave the article a fairly major overhaul, but think the article has the potential to further improve, and offer an impartial perspective on this polarising phenomenon; there are those who believe that this is a topic worthy of study, and those who believe academics should be doing better things with their time. The article can grow and improve to cite sources from both sides. The study of Buffy has not declined since the show ended, with many acdemics finding it easier to now analyse the series as one complete and closed 'text' - so the topic will continue to grow. And I think it deserves a tiny little space here at Wikipeda. There are several things that people should take into account before voting.

Navigation - The article is needed for navigation for anyone looking for Buffyverse academia info rather than looking for one of the specific books.

Dictionary? - The article isn't supposed to be saying that "Buffyverse studies" is a widely used term or a concept. The article is about the study of the Buffyverse, so the article is called 'Buffyverse studies'. ..On a side note "Buffy studies" is kinda widely used by the acdemics who study the show, and Googling using speech marks for an exact phrase ("Buffy studies") gets over 26 000 results. It's mainly been popularised by the popularity of www.slayage.tv. But this isn't given more than a brief mention in a footnote in the article.

Notability - I can't help thinking that this topic is a lot more notable than people realise. It already has over a dozen published books (with more planned during 2006-7), and hundreds of articles (take a look at this massive extensive bibliogrpahy). Conferences relating to the study of Buffy have been held at Universities (including University of East Anglia, and University of Huddersfield). The topic appeared on the front page of Salon.com back in 2002 (see [31]) and even in the Financial Times), amongst others. I found a few articles about this topic and added them in external links (or cited them for info).

Are there still any major issues that people have with the article that might be addressed? -- Paxomen 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - very good work Paxomen - the UEA conference establishes enough notability for it as far as I'm concerned (although it would be better at Buffy studies with the redirect pointing there, as that seems to be the more generally accepted term). Yomangani 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your right this needs to be renamed to the actually used term, 'Buffy studies', and the article slightly reworded to take into account new title. Can this be done during AfD? -- Paxomen 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd need an admin to do it, as the redirect will stop you moving the page. Best to ask the closing admin to do the move if the AfD results in a keep. Yomangani 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep. It's an excellent rewrite. Good sources. And I'd agree with the rename to "Buffy studies", because using "Buffyverse" makes this sound extremely fancrufty (hence my "reluctant" keep). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but "keep" working on it. Cite more sources etc. Is this topic considered "fandom"? Xsxex 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Wow. I initially thought the article title was a dead give-away for fan cruft, but actually seeing the breadth of books and references on the topic the article has definitely established its notability, though I'm perfectly sure future AFD opposers will hold this up for comparison in their defence. I also support a rename though. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I felt like I learned something from reading it that I didn't previously know, so I'd say it's useful enough to keep around. It looks like whoever wrote/edited this article really did their homework. No pun intended. MaskedScissorDoll 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If BTvS has sufficient meat to it to have several books and hundreds of articles written about it, as well as its own encyclopaedia, I say there's enough for an article on academia. Joss rules! Dev920 07:30, 12 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 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Behind Tinted Glasses

Non-notable, crystal ball, vanity piece. Prod removed by author -- Merope 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hello Merope, I understand you're meaning to delete this page on Behind Tinted Glasses, but please hear me out. I have read your Wikipedia page and I see that you monitor new pages like these. Behind Tinted Glasses is a movie that we used our whole summer doing and used all the resources we could come up with. We renovated out school and covered every inch of ground in out county and more. This page was not to boost our egos at all but to tell the few people that know about this movie what it is truely about. As you can see on the page we spent a lot of time making the page and it wasn't for a mere boost of ego, you have my word. This might not have had a chance to get in in movie search engines or even independent movie search engines, well that's because it is only in post production. As you see in the article, we set our own budgets, which was a lot of money that could have been used elsewhere in this Summer. We are extremely dedicated independent film directors and do way more than just home movies. We make films and we are debating holding a community gathering for the film later this year. This film might not be large yet, but it is only a beginning to our filming company, Plastic Swords Production. We are trying to get that legalized at the moment. So I really plea to you that you allow this article to stay. It is not close to being finished and will be worked hard on for the next few days. We were meaning to put a whole lot more content on there, but it was just made last night. We are 15 and 16 year old dedicated film makers.

Yours Truely,

Nathan Couch

Comment. Hi, Nathan. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a free web-hosting site. I understand and appreciate that a great deal of time, effort, and financial resources went into making this film; however, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise your movie. -- Merope 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the author admits it fails WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM WilyD 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How long before this is deleted? We would still work as hard as possible around the clock to make it a suitable and professional looking article and correct grammar mistakes and everything that goes along with a wikipedia article. Wouldn't it be suitable if we made an article about our filming company? We are not advertising at all. I've been on wiki for 3 years now and have seen indie films and companies. I am not here to argue at all, please don't get me wrong. I would so appreciate it if it would be allowed a bit more time to be polished. Yours Truely, Nathan Couch

Comment. Unfortunately, it is not the quality of the article that is at stake--if it were a case of that, I would help. The problem is that the subject of the article fails WP's policies concerning vanity articles, advertising, and, sadly, notability. Once your film is finished and you do send it to Sundance (and it receives recognition), then perhaps the article can be recreated. As it stands, there isn't anything (in my opinion) that you could add to it to change the outcome of the vote. -- Merope 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For starter's review the criteria at WP:V and WP:OR for some idea of the kind of changes needed if the article were to be kept (and I'm not sure it'd be possible) WilyD 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per WilyD's comments and Merope's as well...dang you! You beat me to the punch in stating those! *chuckle* I think this also may fail the school day policy. I also added 'comment' tags to Nathen's statements --Bschott 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for all of your help, really. I understand all of your decisions to make this article deleted. But if this had one public appearence and was recognized (not on the web but in the city) could it have a shot on wikipedia? So how long until this long piece of work gets trashed? I read the articles briefly... so there's not a shot of keeping it? So I should just quit adding?

Well, deletions usually take place within in a week. Some independant media coverage could bring it up past WP:V which is really the penultimate criterion for inclusion. Being presented at some notable festival or something could definitely do it. WilyD 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for all of your help. I guess as long as it's there I'll just add to it. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. We'll just have to wait until it is past post production and it gets bigger.

Your Truely,

Nathan Couch

• Delete - if it makes an apperance at Sundance, then perhaps it can be recreated. -- Whpq 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy the article. Themindset 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and userify per Themindset Yomangani 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am the writer of the film Behind Tinted Glasses, and if the best web encyclopedia is what you are looking for, I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to include a wider variety of articles, including some that may not be as well-known as others. The Plastic Swords Team has been preparing to make the film for a great deal of time now, and I think it's even more impressive that we are just 15 and 16 year olds. We did, indeed, gain access to film inside a local high school and filmed for probably over 80 hours, which will all boil down to about an hour long movie. The article was made to inform people about the movie and the struggle to make it. At the moment, we aren't at the point yet where we can make a trailer, because I do want to be finished with the post-production process before I create one. I can tell you that I plan on making a trailer, so if I do so, is there still a shot, like we were told, about recreating the article? Thanks.
• Snowy Speedy Delete per above Non-notable, WP:VAIN. Note that your project is a labour of love, and we don't mean to demean it, but Wiki is not a soapbox. all the criteria are fulfilled for its deletion and none apply to keeping it Ohconfucius 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

With a {{prod}} tag having been removed, the article is definitely not covered by WP:SNOW WilyD 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Having taken active participation in the creation of this movie, I, of course, have to side against the Wiki Overlords. As you can tell by the previous comments of my fellow film makers, we have put a lot of time and effort into this movie (as well as a lot of money!), a feat that, in my opinion, is multiplied many times over due to our young ages. We are not inherently using this wiki as a form of advertisement (though we admit that some degree of it may come from the article being read). If we were, we would be throwing the link to this wiki all over the place, yelling at the top of our (textual) lungs "Look at us! We have our own Wiki Article!" Obviously, we haven't. It may seem a little ambitious for a bunch for three teenagers, but we really are proud of the effort put into this film and feel that we can take it places instead of shelving it as just a fun summer project. We may not be known, and it is true; any potential fame brought to us in the future is unknown. I suppose that all I really can contribute to this argument is a pseudo-plea for pity. I don't suppose you'd be willing to hold out and wait for the trailer, do you? If so, maybe then you can decide whether or not we're worthy of an article here on WP.

Your goals are admirable, but unfortunately you've come to the wrong place. Wikipedia is not what's you're looking for, however. Sorry about that. WilyD 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn film, vanity, we are not discouraging your efforts, but to adhere with Wikipedia's policy, this has to go. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment / Quotes / In Our Defense

Found on WP:VAIN

"It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate."

I think we all know by now we are not just "passer-byers" that will post a small snippet of our work and move on hoping that we get discovered by an indie film producer.

"Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."

"Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship."

Isn't this the problem?

"If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them" but then it also says "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity"... So my misunderstanding here is: How could any independent movie company write about themselves if they are not that well known... because it says "lack of fame isn't the same as vanity" and isn't that why were are getting deleted... because of a not known film?

Vanity edits: examples I've taken a look at that category and we are not breaking any of those rules simply because we are promoting nothing.

"The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors"

I can name multiple editors, locally, that come upon wiki everyday that know of this film that could and would edit the page. A great deal more than twenty.

From WP:NFT

I am insulted that you would take the article as a "school day policy"... not by the name but by what I have read. This article was NOT yo create for "new lingo" we could show our fellow classmates at school. We have webhosting, and we weren't planning on using this as webhosting. As a creator of a site I do take band-width into consideration, but this article was not going to be used just "for our own purposes". It just seemed the whole school day policy didn't apply to this situation at all... excuse me if I am wrong.

From WP:SPAM

I am sorry, but I have read every inch of that page and can not find one thing we could get accused for. We are not spam bots, we're not votestacking, I think it's clear by now we are not campaigning, and we are not canvasing.

From WP:V and WP:OR

You are correct. I do believe that is what the world needs these days is verification. We do not have Behind Tinted Glasses in an original search, and we do not have Behind Tinted Glasses verified as a movie at all besides the author's words which we are giving you. (if that means anything at all) But doesn't this all go back to "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia" found WP:VAIN

From Wikipedia:Snowball_clause

"The policy also states that "[a]ny substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early."

"Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion allows for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that arguments are fully examined, and maintains the appearance of fairness."

---

I really do appreciate all of you moderators who have left this discussion open, and those who have had open ears. I, Nathan, am not here to argue by any means, but just try to understand the rules thouroughly because at this point, the only thing that, I can see, is against us is a not known film. But the rules state the article does not need to have a famous-based article. So having that said, if you could clear up the rules we are specifically breaking, and just allow us this 30k space, it would be so much appreciated since the article has been worked on hard.

So with all the reasons and rules out why we don't want a wiki page (like egos and such), some might be thinking, "Why do they want one?" Without heroic theme music or cheesy catch lines, we belive that people should hear the story of three film makers going through anything and everything to get their film made and I believe that's what people really want to hear these days, a good story. A good, true, story.

-Nathan Couch

• • Comment: Why don't you guys just copy this article to a website, and register a domain like BehindTintedGlasses.com and put it all there? Wouldn't it accomplish exactly the same thing? Why is it so important that it is hosted here, on Wikipedia? Themindset 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello Themindset,

Thanks for the suggestion, but why wouldn't any article on wiki have a website? We are in the process of getting a website at the moment but we feel it is more convenient to host an article on wiki for several reasons as followed:

• It is more convenient to link article to article (like we linked REM; we would not like to explain what REM is so we link article-to-article)
• Wiki is easy to use (not easy to advertise). We do not want it to advertise, but just be able to utilize all the features that come along with an article such as contents that are made as you make your article
• We feel like we deserve a wikipedia article just as much as anyone else does. Why don't we?
  • FYI: We are getting a story in our city Newspaper, The Jackson Sun, (http://jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage) and the story will be appearing soon in our city Newspaper... couldn't we cite their site as a source?

Thanks for everyone's listening.

-Nathan Couch

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

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

The result was merciful delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A Sharptooth's Heart

Non-notable fanfiction. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merciful Zeus. Delete. --Merope 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merciful Jupiter. Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merciful asteroid coming to wipe out these dinosaurs. Delete. Dekimasu 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion BJAODNed after wiping tea off my monitor. Oh... erm... Delete - nn fanfic. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ummm...Is there something wrong with this article I did that's being considered for deletion? Kenichi340

Comment It's not encyclopedic - it's a fine article about an obscure topic. Try Wikia for things like this. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response Oh, OK. Thanks. Kenichi340

• Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy. --Kuroki Mio 2006 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merciful Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Delete. Fanfics don't belong here. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. WP:NN 2 Ghits for 'A Sharptooth's Heart', both pointingto fanfiction.net. ALso WP:VAIN Editor/creator Kenichi340 takes his name from or has given its name to one of the main characters of the subject fiction. Ohconfucius 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Came here from the BJAODN page, thought that with a bit of work, this could easily be a candidate for that particular project. Delete please — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 05:50, 9 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 The article is, by its own terms, about a name unpopular in its native land; that, taken together with lack of explanation/cultural context (to say nothing of verifiable sources) makes this a borderline CSD A1 speedy. Delete, in any case, is the consensus here. Xoloz 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Raiyan

This page only describes (incorrectly, at that) the English transliteration of the Japanese transliteration of the name Ryan. (The correct transliteration of the transliteration is Raian.) A Google Japan search suggests to me that I have misspelled Ryan and has no hits outside of the Middle East. There are a number of hits for Raian, but if this is the standard, we'll soon have a page on the Japanese version of every English name. And the article even focuses on how uncommon the name is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekimasu (talk • contribs)

• Delete as non-notable information about a personal name. Article makes no assertion of notability, or why "Ryan" is any different than every other personal name. -- Slowmover 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps I'm biased but I find articles about names interesting - and I don't see how having an article for every person's name (and its etymology, etc) is a threat to wikipedia. Themindset 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The name is Ryan. This is describing the English transliteration of the Japanese transliteration - something that has no etymological value. If you transliterate the Japanese, it should be back to Ryan. Dekimasu 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: this is like putting something into Babel Fish back and forth... try it. Dekimasu 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete nihoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a page that consisted only of a link to another page; no content, no context, not a real redirect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP: Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.

Somehow I think SPD fits this better, but I'll let the article speak for itself. CPAScott 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On the same subject, is the page that this one links to of proper merit? I didn't realize "WP" pages could be created. Should it also be deleted? CPAScott 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and rejected, on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spiderman

Thanks. I'll take a look at that link. CPAScott 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. —Ben FrantzDale 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a redirect, belongs at Redirects for deletion. -- Fan-1967 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ... and indeed has already been there on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 July 25. Uncle G 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • A discussion which I see was closed as delete with the only vote being Keep.Septentrionalis 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep here too. Part of the article. Septentrionalis 16:38, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The United Simcity Nations, United Simcity Nations

non-notable webpage/organization(it's hard to tell) author removed a 2 different prods without reason and a prod2 moved to afd i kan reed 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (as prod2'er). Website for simcity players, fails WP:WEB. Weblink is labeled "USCN.org" (which is actually a US-China youth exchange program) but the site is actually a freewebs page. Fan-1967 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V WilyD 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if deleted by admin, please lock, this is a user recreate(as in same user) i kan reed 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well-researched nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note User has repeatedly removed AFD tags, after being warned twice. Fan-1967 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• note 3 times— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

• Delete and warn the user politely. Themindset 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• we warned with drafd and drafd2, which are polite enough i kan reed 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• One, I've warned the creator about personal attacks for his comments on Fan-1967's talk page. Two, a copy of this article (titled The United SimCity Nations) was speedy deleted earlier today as nonsense. And my vote is for Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merope (talk • contribs)

you never had warned me.... so that is a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruutbuut (talk • contribs)

The warning is still on your talk page. -- Merope 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note Author once again removed AFD tags from the article, and also removed this discussion from the daily log. Both have been reverted. Fan-1967 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• He's also created another copy of the article at United Simcity Nations. Fan-1967 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• ... and removed the AFD discussion from the daily log again. Fan-1967 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added related article. -- Merope 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sub-article off Simcity. Not worth an article on its own.  Cdcon  19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete utterly not notable gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and this is why we read the article in question, it's some fansite. the "gamecruft" attitude is snobbish(that's not an attack on you personally). Fictional universes are within "all knowledge" but here is not the place to argue about it. i kan reed 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:41, 9 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethical monotheism

OR, as author admits in comments. Nuttah68 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this is an essay, and admittedly so. -- Whpq 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as uncontested OR. Themindset 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V WilyD 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Cite sources, please. I really hate voting delete, but please, read it over and have it vetted by a PhD professor in religious studies or philosophy. You know, someone credible.  Cdcon  19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. There actually is a philosophical concept known as Ethical monotheism systemetized by Hermann Cohen, and there are academic resources[32] for it, although the content of this article as it stands is unsourced OR. It shouldn't be deleted, just rewritten and sourced. HGB 17:44, 11 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. Petros471 13:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Izlude Tingel

Not even the main character, Ramza, has his own page. In adition, it's horridly written, with no sources, and some obvious POV. Probably falls into cruft. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would argue that this page needs to be heavily edited but not deleted. I see no problem with a minor character having his own page but much of the material in the article is either made up (based on a complete lack of corraborating information in the game) or the product of what could be termed 'fanboy speculation' rather than serious though. I refer to the 'Virgo stone' idea as an example. The person holding the stone thought it reacted to Alma and it later reacted to her when Izlude was long dead. Since getting the 'right body' was of the utmost importance, if there was any chance that it was reacting to Izlude, Vormav wouldn't have killed him. Anon

• Somebody posted a link to this article on the FFT board on GameFAQs [33] and some people were annoyed that this relatively minor character got a page with a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff. --Raijinili 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think this is so much a good argument for deletion of Izlude Tingel's entry as it is a good argument for new articles about more major characters and other minor characters. It seems like a good enough article to me, and that there aren't equivalent articles about Delita, Ramza, Balbanes, and Dycedarg's older brother. --Deltopia 01:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why the above two entries had to be removed. Your link doesn't even work. --Raijinili 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• What I find pitiful about these arguments is that you guys are acting as if this site should supply information to your own personal interests and not what others would take interest in. Keep in mind this site does not belong to you. It a free place for "any type of information" as long as it is not harmful, which in this case, it is not. Your arguments are clearly personal attacks quote "Not even the main character" "some people were annoyed that this relatively minor character got a page" and have no grounds for the deletion of this article. I approve of the written article on Izlude Tingel and find it to be very helpful and interesting based on the theories that were posted. I suggest to the wiki crew that this article be left alone. Remember, not a lot of people like the current president of the USA (excluding me) but that doesn't mean you should tear his pages out of the newer encyclopedias. -- gizmo dude 1:59, August 10 2006

• What I find pitiful is that you didn't recognize that I didn't give an opinion on the matter. Is the phrase "relatively minor character" wrong? --Raijinili 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why take it down? It is 100% on topic and delivers. --Pellion 8:39, 15 August 2006

• Delete per WP:FICT, which states, "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." --Satori Son 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FICT and above. Daniel.Bryant 04:33, 19 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Elemental television series

Appears to violate WP:NOR; may not be very notable either as a separate classification of television series Crisu 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with nom; this is WP:OR. -- Slowmover 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. My views are in the article's talk page.Eduardo Cuellar 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. Somewhat convoluted reappraisal of my original feelings are on the talk page. GeorgeLouis 07:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rescue!!! SoaP 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Santosh tatepalli

False, uncited information. Only a couple of Google hits, none of which back up the claims made. --Chris (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, WP:V. Creator of article has same name as the article, loads of outrageous claims cannot be verified. DrunkenSmurf 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Unverified, patently untrue information. Badbilltucker 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense; applied speedy tag.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clea Rose

Wikipedia is not a memorial, Should be deleted. We dont need a page for every death in the world. Also Not Notable. Feedyourfeet 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the page is obviously problematic, but with her death mentioned in a parlimentary debate - there may be some notability. WilyD 17:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with regrets. I would ordinarily say that the article could be merged into an article on the alleged perpetrators, but they are all minors who can't and haven't been named. Wikipedia has sufficient articles already about noted criminal misconduct to which this article is similar that it would be inconsistent to remove this one. If the names of the perps were known, it would be a different matter entirely. Badbilltucker 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments made by Capitalistroadster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose. If I may quote him, he said "There is some implications in that the tapes from the security cameras in Civic (the CBD of Canberra) are missing and that there is some indication that there was a police chase underway when she was hit. The underaged driver of the vehicle is facing manslaughter charges as the result of her death. There will be a coronial inquest into her death. This case has been newsworthy in the ACT and raised in the Legislative Assembly." Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. This nomination is simply a WP:POINT revenge for my votes to delete Stephen Battaglia and Zazz. The Rose case has received much media attention here, sparking an inquiry, a coronial inquest, much political wrangling, and a review of national police procedures appears to be coming. To this extent, it was the subject of a nationally televised television program aired only two nights ago. This is very clearly notable, which is why I'm trying to get it to featured status, and I really don't appreciate this useless stunt. Rebecca 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to accuse the nominator of bad faith - the article reads in many ways like what he or she accuses it of being, and if the accusations were true, deletion would be appropriate. The nomination may have been hasty, but it's not rediculous. WilyD 13:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Rebecca's evidence establishes sufficient notability. Maybe we haven't heard of her on a worldwide scale but in her home country she is big news. This article is also really well sourced and researched. Cyde Weys 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as there is no new motivation for deletion beyond what existed in the two previous deletion cases. -- Seth Ilys 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There was an Australian Story piece on the ABC last Monday. There are 49 returns for "Clea Rose" on an Australian media database - if it included the Canberra Times it would be 100. Contentious coroners inquiry to start soon. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FTR, there are 175 hits from the wider Factiva newspaper database. This is more than some politicians I've written about. Rebecca 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - would this article be better served by turning it into a legal case article about the crime itself? That would cement its validity as an encyclopaedic article. If it's an important ACT case it should be notable. (JROBBO 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
  • The crime itself is not particularly notable (people get run down every year), and if that were the issue, it would have never had one to begin with. The issue (and the focus of the media attention) here has been the responsibility of police for the death, and the subsequent inquiry, inquest, calls to change police procedures nationally and ongoing political ramifications stretching on for more than a year, as well as the Walk for a Rose brain injury awareness event, which saw a lot of media attention here. This is why there is only a section of the article dedicated to the actual legal proceedings. Rebecca 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a noteworthy case. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tidy up to be more explicitly an article about the noteworthy case not an apparent bio. As a bio it's a delete, lacking any biographical substance, as a noteworthy case it's not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a Canberran, I saw this coverage in the press, and it was huge. Definitely notable and easily verifiable per above. Doesn't read like a memorial either. --james^(talk) 08:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an obviously-noteworthy subject. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and caution nominator.--cj | talk 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clearly not just a road death. --Canley 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known in Canberra --Astrokey44 14:27, 9 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. As esWiki has an article this is technically a speedy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Funciones computables

This article is in spanish and has not been edited since july 20.

--Ernalve 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• The English article is computable function. Uncle G 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Transwiki? Looks like it belongs on the Spanish wiki, but there's already an article an article there (but much shorter). My Spanish isn't good enough to determine if the content of this article is valid, however. -- Slowmover 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Comment My Spanish is pretty good and I was able to read and understand almost all of it. I'm not a mathematician, but I think that while this article seems valid, the English computable function article is better. The English Wikipedia has all these theories and mathematicians in much greater detail, and the important people and ideas have their own articles. Since this is covered already, this Spanish article won't be missed. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:24, 18 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletic Chair

This article discusses a non-notable position that only exists in some organizations. It cites no sources or references, hasn't been substantively edited (or probably even seen) in a couple years, and until yesterday had no links. This position probably merits at most a sentence or two in the main fraternities and sororities article. --SuperNova |T|C| 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Essentially, the most the article could ever hope to belabor is that "an organization which participates in sports may designate an officer who's in charge of organizing its participation in sports."-choster 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Choster. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 9 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 no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Crims

Can't possibly be notable enough to warrent an article--Frip1000 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I suspect that this may be out right vandalism, the fact that I can't tell the difference, makes me wonder if it should have an article at all--Frip1000 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST Please do not delete I will finish the article soon.It was first made by someone else who was trying to put the game into a bad light.I started working on it already it will be completed in a day or two.Thanks.kirk1987

• Delete, NN. -Big Smooth 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ANOTHER REQUEST As you can see I have developed the article even more but I need some help I don't know how to put a picture in it...i have uploaded the file but I don't know how to put it on the article...could somebody help me with that?Meanwhile I will continue to add further even more detailed information.Please do not delete it and teach me how to insert a picture in it.Thanks(kirk1987)

• Keep this MMORPG seems just as notable as many others listed in the MMORPG category. --RMHED 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is finished.I've added many informations, links to this article are in the MMORPG list article, and at the Free MMORPG article(with a short introduction there and a link to the official site and wikipedia main article).I think that now the article is complete and therefore could that announcement that it is considered for deletion dissapear? Many thanks kirk1987.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, (Liberatore, 2006). 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. good faith, not entirely non-notable.  Cdcon  19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, which I think applies since the game is browser based, and partially reads like spam. -- Koffieyahoo 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have seen many articles considered for deletion and are far worse than this one I made.They are mostly stumps, incomplete in information.This one is well structured and complete and one more thing I'm not trying to ADVERTISE the game(like Koffieyahoo said).I really don't know why do u want to delete it but if this is the policy of Wikipedia so be it.I'm just sorry i've spend much time creating it and with no result.kirk1987
  • Well, the first thing you might want to do is to come up with some reputable sources, i.e. that don't have any commerical or other connection with the subject and hand. If those exist I might always reconsider my above suggestion (please let me know on my talk page in that case). -- Koffieyahoo 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete because this was all hashed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter: Book Seven (film) and the situation has not demonstrably changed in the interim. Uncle G 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7 (film)

The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Computerjoe's talk 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination.
  JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wizards and witches with crystal balls. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Porqin 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Plus, very bad article. I mean, "The probably won't come out untill 2007." What the heck does that mean? The probably won't untill? --S-man 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Come on, people, let's not be ridiculous. Harry 5 won't be out until 2007, and the book hasn't even been written yet for #7. Nothing but crystal-ballism and rumor available here. Fan-1967 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy DELETED. -Doc 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Manosaurus

This looks like a completely uninformative page. Green caterpillar 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Green caterpillar 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G1/A1. --Porqin 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per CSD G1. -- Merope 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 20:48, 8 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Moon base

This is a curious mix of fact and fiction, a testament to the fact that there is nothing so inherently absurd that some crackpot somewhere will not believe it. The only thing is, given that we lead the table of around 100 unique google hits, we appear to be leading the race to tell the world about this ludicrous idea. Exclude Wikipedia and the leading lights include YTMND and the Aryan Nations forums. There being no reliable sources out there, on account of the idea itself being barking mad, scientifically impossible (then and now) and 100% evidence free, this article is inherently original research. Not bad research, in that it documents pretty well the entire absurd conceit, but the linked sources are absolutely not what we would consider reliable.

From the deletion log at its previous home Nazi moon base, now a redirect:

• 03:06, August 14, 2005 Geogre (talk · contribs) deleted "Nazi moon base" (Every reason, every criterion)
• 17:47, August 13, 2005 Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) deleted "Nazi moon base" (hoax/joke article)

First AfD was a speedy delete, second was no consensus. I recommend a transwiki to Uncyclopaeida. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this is verifiable modern-day folklore/cryptohistory and we can present it as such. It's not limited to Ernst Zundel and his followers, as I had assumed. At worst, it can be merged to New Swabia, which is absolutely real. Gazpacho 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is verifiable can you please explain how to verify it using reliable sources? How did you verify it? Merging any information requires verifiable reliable sources too. Weregerbil 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article could use some reliable sources. Even one would be a start. Now it has Usenet postings, angelfire and 404 pages. Weregerbil 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at worst, an internet meme. No harm in that.  Cdcon  18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears (and originated) off the internet, such as in games and pamphlets. Gazpacho 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• So what are the reliable sources? Just zis Guy you know? 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Zundel's pamphlets and the Heinlein book (cited in the article) are all sources for the existence of Nazi UFO theories. We don't need to verify the truth of the claims to document them as claims, just like our other UFOlogy articles. Gazpacho 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (I crossed out the game because it doesn't seem to resemble the theory described in the article.)

• Zundel's book is self-published; if it's just hijm, this could be a redirect. The Heinlein book is fictional, whereas Zundel claims it's not. It's the mix of fiction and fantasy which is part of the problem for me. The other part is the assertion that it's a notable Internet meme, when there are only around 300 hits, 100 unique. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep per gazpacho. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep --Rodrigo Cornejo 01:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a well sourced article on a subject of encyclopaedic interest - what more do you want? WilyD 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is ...problematic. There seem to be a few fringe (self-published, we-publish-any-crackpottery presses) books about it. The article should have a lead that says this is a joke by fringe nuts on acid, mix of fiction and more fiction, and no real historians take it seriously in any way. But where do you find a reliable source for that statement...? This is a somewhat recurring problem on Wikipedia: crackpot theories that are so obviously loony that no reliable source even bothers to waste the ink to debunk them. Weregerbil 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article already refers to it as a fringe belief - I'm not sure there's much that can be done - I'm pretty sure Template:Bullshit you shouldn't take seriously would have WP:NPOV problems. WilyD 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. The article is poorly written, but clearly verifiable (unless we conclude that the small publishing houses aren't reliable, but I don't see people arguing that). I think it's notable based on the references provided. TheronJ 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Self-published works are generally not accepted on Wikipedia to show the reliability of the claims therein. However, they still demonstrate that the claims have been made. The Goodrick-Clarke book, in any case, is totally legit. Gazpacho 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense —ptk✰fgs 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's cited to an expert on Nazi mysticism. Gazpacho 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment then, delete as hoax —ptk✰fgs 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't claim that the UFO base really exists. Gazpacho 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now, following an extensive rewrite which does make it much clearer how tiny the support for this is. It's now sourced and although I'd hardly call it notable it is amusing enough that I bear it no malice :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge to Nazi UFOs. The article contains as much or more information about Nazi UFOs than about a Nazi moon base. I think it is more comprehensive on Nazi UFOs than that page itself. Eron 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nominator following the extensive rewrite. RFerreira 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep UFO's are a hoax, we do not delete the article tho. Article is large enough to be a stand alone so a merge is unnecesary. --Cat out 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is large enough to stand alone, but most of the content refers to UFOs and Antarctic bases - which are not the subject of the article, and which have their own article. The moon base content could be condensed to one paragraph if the UFO stuff were removed. Eron 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no reason to delete this factual documentation of wierd theories. Carfiend 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge to Nazi UFOs as per User:EronMain. --Cyclopia 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep Probably merge in Nazi UFOs.It's interesting,like Flat Earth Society,if flat earth peopol stil exist,then i'm ready to beleav,in this article too.Even if it turns out to be a hoax,we should keep it as such.--Pixel ;-) 06:39, 12 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 keep. After reviewing Talk:Kingdom of Talossa, Talk:Republic of Talossa (where an old VFD discussion can be found), and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Talossa (and refreshing my memory of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talossan language, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Ben Madison) it is clear that this AFD nomination is disruption resulting from editors losing a content dispute on this list article with other editors who are attempting to keep original research out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Uncle G 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of micronations

This page should be deleted because it will never provide a list of all micronations because of mean admins. --Kitia

• Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination. Gazpacho 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Gaspacho. —Whomp t/c 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a maintainable, manageable list and supports an existing article. Agent 86 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Speedy keep per Gaspacho and Agent 86. This is a completely fine list, and there is no reason why it should be deleted. Bad-faith nomination. --S-man 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone above me.--Isotope23 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article provides clear guidelines on qualifications for inclusion. As Agent 86 said, this is maintainable and manageable. Scorpiondollprincess 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per mean admins. Danny Lilithborne 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. Yamaguchi先生 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. --Centauri 23:17, 8 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 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:The X Factor UK and Ireland series 4

The ITV website talks about some countdown to the third series having started, and this article speaks of the fourth series. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as talk page where the main article does not exist under WP:CSD G8. The series is still a year away from airing anyway. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Why is it a talk page? There is no article...weird. Anyway, crystal ball delete. Konman72 06:35, 9 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 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Music-Web

Fails WP:WEB; is also quite spammy. Prod and prod2 removed by author. -- Merope 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no info on alexa [34] seems to fail WP:WEB for notability thus delete.--Jersey Devil 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The creator added external links to the same site at Encyclopedia and Music, which I removed. I think the user is well-intentioned and acting in good faith, but unfortunately the site does not come close to meeting WP:WEB. Wmahan. 17:10, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikispaces

Non notable wiki, seems to fail WP:WEB. Looks like advertising/spam. Peephole 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the entry qualifies at least under clauses 1, 2, and 6 on WP:SOFTWARE. We've been regularly profiled by our members and independent third parties since we launched and are pretty regularly noted as being innovative and a leader in our space. Moreover, there are several other entries on Wikipedia which detail wiki hosting services which are equally or less qualifying under these criteria than we are.
  We didn't create the entry originally although we've edited it from time to time to keep it up to date so I don't think it's advertising or spam. Thanks. Adamfrey 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Nom. Non Notable, and does fail WP:WEB. This is now verified as vanity by Adamfrey. Wikipedia is not here to use as an Advert board. --Bschott 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — fails WP:WEB and has no encyclopedic merit in current form - Glen 01:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hang on a second guys. I'm not saying there should be website specific or company specific entries on Wikipedia. Whatever the Wikipedia community thinks should be the standard is fine by me. That being said, I don't like the idea of the policy being arbitrarily applied to us and not everyone else. I've also updated the entry to show that our "content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" although it seems to me this article should be held to WP:SOFTWARE rather than WP:WEB— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfrey (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Sorry Adamfrey, but this is not a software title. This article is refering to a website that offers a service. It is not covered under WP:Software. Also, it very much looks like a Spam or Advert. Hence it is failing the AFD. --Bschott 07:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is that the entry doesn't meet WP:WEB I'm OK with that even though I disagree. But is anyone going to apply the same standard to other entries that profile similar services to ours? Adamfrey 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Response to Adamfrey: Of course, Adam. We hold all articles to the very same standards. If you see an article that should be deleted for the same reasons yours is being considered for deletion, please nominate it (follow the instructions at WP:AfD). Srose (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• So I'd much rather not have to go and start nominating these entries for deletion myself since they are services that compete with ours. Since I'm biased I imagine that wouldn't be the best approach. What do you recommend? Also, would another alternative be to change the Wikispaces article so that it's not so much a description of the service (i.e. remove the pricing, feature list, etc.) and just have a short entry that describes what it is and perhaps some notable uses and mentions? Adamfrey 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. --Ixfd64 23:05, 12 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 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eml32118

Neologism. Prod removed by author. The article even asserts its non-notability: "Used seldomly for nearly a decade now, eml32118 has gained little popularity in the tech community." Sheesh. -- Merope 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete gained little popularity in the tech community and is known by a select few number of computer novices. I think that sums up something that does not warrant a Wikipedia article. DrunkenSmurf 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gets 6 Google hits: 4 are somebody's forum username, 2 are a list of netIDs. Also no Usenet hits, and you'd think even the most obscure computer-related term would have been used there at least once. Either neologism or hoax, take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 8 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. - Bobet 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NDSM Design

nn company, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Delete Owen× ☎ 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 19:40, 8 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 no consensus on whether this character should be merged to a list that doesn't exist with articles that aren't specified. Defaulting to keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Patsy (Monty Python)

Minor character from one film, no way notable. Redirect and merge at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsoo (talk • contribs)

• Merge into a List of characters from Monty Python and the Holy Grail per the guidelines at WP:FICT. No need to get out the admin's deletion tools here. BryanG^(talk) 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Before someone asks, I meant merge, I don't know why I said delete in the edit summary. BryanG^(talk) 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Bryan Konman72 06:37, 9 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. - Bobet 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cargurus

Non notable website (see WP:WEB) with lots of linkspam (some of which I removed). Author misrepresented Alexa rating in the article (I fixed it). The alexa rating is 455,863. Author removed prod tag. Delete ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the above. The article has only one link to the site itself, with more links to competitors and external resources. That is not link spam. The original text around Alexa ratings clearly said the article was not in the top 10000 sites on Alexa: that's true and not a misrepresentation. If you want to look at Alexa ratings, make sure to also check out the details Alexa. And I did remove the prod tag, because the speedy deletion template tells you (as the author) to do so if you disagree with the speedy deletion. The purpose is to have this discussion. According to all of the above, I say do not delete this entry. --YoavShapira 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - The article has one link to the site now. That is correct. I was referring to an old version. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Don't confuse prod and speedy. They are different. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Saying something is not in the top 10000 when the rating is also not in the top 100000 is a misrepresentation. However, this is offtopic for the AFD. The only thing that matters is that the website fails WP:WEB. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see how ths site and company come close to the guidelines of WP:WEB or WP:CORP. The content and/or company has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that I can find and doesnt meet any of the other criteria as well at the present time, regardless of an Alexa rating. DrunkenSmurf 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I found the site through DMOZ, which in my opinion meets criterion 2 of the Criteria for companies and corporations section of WP:CORP --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You are mistaken. Criterion 2 says "listed on ranking indices of important companies". That means lists like the Fortune 500. DMOZ is an open directory of important and unimportant companies alike. Fan-1967 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I saw the Fortune 500 and Forbes 500 examples but that list can't be exhaustive, can it? No other directories are considered important? --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Comment Of course there are others, but they must be reputable selective lists. Let's face it, DMOZ's a phone book: it is an attempt to be a comprehensive directory, not a selective list. Fan-1967 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - By the way, thank you for explaining these. At least now I understand what you mean and what policies you refer to. --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: the CarGurus site displays content about many cars which have had Haynes manuals written about them. Note 7 of [[WP::CORP]] specifically mentions this as an example of a notable product. So it would seem to apply? --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Lets see if I can follow your logic. WP:CORP says all cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them are allowed. The CarGurus site displays content about many cars which have had Haynes manuals written about them. Therefore the CarGurus site is allowed. No, that is a logical fallacy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're trying to argue that if they write about notable cars they must be a notable site? That's really stretching it. I'm sorry, but you're really grasping at straws there. Fan-1967 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Easy guys lets not bite here, YoavShapira already said he was just trying to understand WP:CORP and everything else. I think we can all assume good faith here and not jump all over him, after all this is supposed to be a discussion. DrunkenSmurf 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. I'm sorry. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not free webhosting and a whole assortment of other policies. WilyD 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks again for explaining these, I understand now. --YoavShapira 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WilyD and consistent with the reasoning of Fan's comments. Joe 21:38, 9 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. Xoloz 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Transformers World 2005

Delete, I'm not sure of the best reason, but this oft-vandalized article seems to be about a nn-chat site for something related to Transformers. It reads somewhat like advertising and has some attack of somebody sprinkled into it in most versions. I know I'm not summarizing this well, maybe someone else can do a better job.... --Brian G (Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

the "Attack" on Jack is not an attack, but the honest truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.194.127 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Someone has replaced the zeroes in the website's domain name with the letter O, making any attempt to cut and paste it into google or alexa yield no results. It's actually at: http://tfw2005.com/ --Xyzzyplugh 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User:24.23.208.28 has twice removed the AFD notice from the article. --Brian G (Talk) 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You can make that three. JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Completely Rewrite. This article is way far from WP standards and Anon users seem to "own it" (and in a bad way). Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:03, 10 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 keep. - Bobet 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Hama

This is a tough one. For the first time I'm nominating a page that I'm not certain should be deleted. The majority of the content in the article deserves to be removed as unverified and possibly original research, and the article as a whole fails WP:NPOV for reasons discussed at length in the talk page for the article. Over a week ago I tagged the article with {{not verified}} and {{unreferenced}}, but nobody has edited the article since. I could simply remove the POV material, but that would leave an article too brief even for a stub ("Al-Hama is a town in Syria", pretty much) and even that has proved difficult to verify. I would welcome discussion from the community on the appropriate fate for this page. For now, my inclination is delete. VoiceOfReason 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with regrets. I would welcome seeing the content of the article verified, but without verification it doesn't belong here. Badbilltucker 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. POV material should be removed and verifiable sources provided. If the article becomes a stub, so be it. After trying several Google searches on this, I'm convinced the subject is notable-enough to warrant an article. However, most of the Ghits were for blatantly POV sites/blogs. Extra caution should be taken in citing sources to avoid POV. If this is deleted, I would not be prejudiced against a superior re-creation later. Scorpiondollprincess 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I've rewritten and removed much of the POV material in the article. It still needs citations, and probably will need corrections based on whatever new information that the new sources would provide, but for now I think it's closer to NPOV. -- H·G (^words/_works) 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Cite sources. This should be verifiable, especially since it's currently a hot topic.  Cdcon  20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I did a google search using keywords "Al-Hama" & "attack" and only got one decent descriptive hit from an opinionated website. See this link. Doesn't appear very well documented on the web elsewhere. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely unsourced article, if anyone really wants it on Wikipedia they can easily find a source or two. Palmiro | Talk 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V. No prejudice against recreation with proper cites. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - changing vote to neutral now. Citations have been added. Not the best ones, though, only one seems to be close to a reliable source - but the fact that it has some cites now is more than I can say for a lot of articles. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, basically per AbsolutDan. The first link that quotes David Hirst is solid documentation of at least one attack, and theoretically one could track down the book to find his primary sources. Melchoir 15:42, 14 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. - Bobet 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cristy Joy

Non-notable actress, 47 ghits for 'cristy joy slavis' +actress, and 111 for just 'cristy joy slavis'; fails WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, no real estabilishment of notability. --Porqin 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Trisha Woodward

Notability of subject is not established, article is doubtful, probable hoax. TheM62Manchester 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No sources can be found that would help this subject meet WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly Speedy. Someone trying to set up dates via Myspace, apparently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• (Speedy) Delete per A1/A7. This article fails to establish notabilty. --Porqin 20:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete a myspace page is a pretty laughable verification of her dating expertise.--Kchase T 20:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - she's apparently left her email address in her profile here --TheM62Manchester 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, she will become more notable in the future! --Corn Man 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Note: This comment is made by the articles author.
  • Comment: While you may be a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not (cf. [35]). --24.141.162.250 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom Konman72 06:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• (Speedy) delete non notable (both the person and the "job"), probable spamlink, not a crystal ball. -- Cate 12:26, 9 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Connor Star

Non-notable news website. Google turns up 11 hits for "Connor Star" +Dorchester. Danny Lilithborne 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB. --Porqin 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and no alexa ranking. (and, nominator, just using Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion would have been simpler) --Xyzzyplugh 14:48, 11 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 keep. - Bobet 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald

Delete Non-notable.. Was in a rather non-notable band and he should not be confused with the actor Scott MacDonald who has an IMDb entry. "Scott MacDonald" spoons on Google gets 397 hits, mostly being Wikipedia mirrors. Mrtea (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Spoons (band) were very popular in Canada in the 80's, released six albums on major labels, and had several charting hits. Members of a notable band are notable. BoojiBoy 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Spoons passes WP:MUSIC and this guy probly gets past WP:BIO WilyD 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Considering the fact that Much More Music and it's affiliate Much More Retro play at least a Spoons video daily, and not to mention with the rising interest in 80s music, this guy is well deserving of a page on Wikipedia. Also, tonight, I heard Tell No Lies on the radio and then again at a restaurant, where everyone I was with knew the song, as well as others around us. I especially feel this article should stay because if I know the Spoons music this well, surely most other Canadians would too, seeing as I was born in 1987 and their biggest period of success was prior to that!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

CRAFT Club

WP:V and non-notable. Marked for speedy delete shortly after article creation in December 2005. Prod in April 2006 removed without comment. Marked {{unreferenced}} from April to July, but that template was removed with an edit summary that I don't understand even though it is still unreferenced. Quale 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Quale sums it all up, this is fit for deletion.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you care to explain your keep vote, and how you think this article satisfies WP:V? Also, why did you remove the {{unreferenced}} template from the article? Quale 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX WilyD 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:V. Probably HOAX. --Satori Son 19:13, 15 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 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadafire

Organization founded by Darian Kovacs; article was created by, you guessed it, User:Dariankovacs. It may be interesting that "through another divine appointment, Darian met with businessman Ed Becker for pie during the summer of 2000." Must have been some pie, but still fails WP:ORG (as it does not have sufficient media coverage) and, additionally, should be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO. JChap T/E 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:ORG, WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO. Nimur 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per (hilarious) nom and vanispamcruftisement. -- Kicking222 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Nimur. Could also add that it's contrary to WP:POV as well. Agent 86 21:19, 8 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 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Syrnia

This is second nomination for this online game. First result was delete but it is still here. Some hits on Google. Mattisse(talk) 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrnia is result from first afd. Mattisse(talk) 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted page- it's already been killed three times, including once through AfD (though, to be fair, that AfD only had two voters). The article- which is an advertisement and written in the second person- does not assert any notability that would keep this from being deleted as a repost. -- Kicking222 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete and block If this article has, in fact, been deleted with merit before, then let's make sure we don't have to have this conversation 10 more times. CPAScott 22:05, 8 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, then redirect. Xoloz 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Public Tendering

This page already exists at Tenders. There isn't such a difference in the tendering process between public and private that it needs a separate page. At AfD because the creator objected to a simple redirect. OzLawyer 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A cut-and-paste from another article between an unsourced dicdef and an unsupported generalization from Ontario regional government practice. There's nothing here worth saving. JChap T/E 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to censor this information form the public. User:OsgoodeLawyer has made it a point to delete from the Tenders page the section refering to the unatural practice of governments to award multi-million dollar public contracts without tenders and I am working with him to edit that page which will make it distinct from this one. All that is required to distinguish the two pages is show the difference between Tenders as a generic term and Public Tenders which is more specific to governmental activities of noteriety.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. WikiWoo, you've been told many times that your accusations of "censorship" are uncivil and uncalled for. Please stop it. As for the article needing to exist, why? The process is the same, except in one instance it is done by public institutions, and in the other it is not. OzLawyer 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• If we got a penny every time someone throws tantrums about "censorship" on AfD... With respect to the process being the same, though, I can't agree (see also below). From a business point of view, sure, but as a matter of law it's quite different: Tenders by governments are not only governed by contract law (i.e. civil law, here in the old world), but also by the public law that regulates such aspects of the government procurement procedure as tendering threshold values and exceptions, non-discrimination and transparency rules, possibilities of judicial review etc. All of this affects the procedure of tendering a great deal. So this is a article on public law waiting to be written, not one on commercial usages. Sandstein 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You've also been warned about recreating material against consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invited public tenders, where it was decided to merge this material into Tenders. This is part of a pattern of behavior, quite frankly. You refuse to work with the community by following consensus and you don't put any importance on trying to convince people that your edits should be kept because they follow WP policy. Every change to an article you think you own is met with by charges of vandalism and censorship. JChap T/E 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comments The comments the two you make in favour of censorship and watering down anything concrete about municipal government activities is appaling. It is not comming from good faith but some agenda you share with keeping people from knowing facts and details of govermnent activities in Ontario Canada most particularly. From your edits I know that you know as much as I do in many cases but are here to distract my work and to intefer with expansion of public knowledge. I am calling is censorship because you want to keep plainly written material that anyone can understand about these things off and keep adding a POV designed to mislead and confuse readers. I could just as easily call it vandalism. Only its a vandalism with the purpose of censorship and distracting a knowledgeable editor from addding interesting and important public information.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• agree with nomination. no reason for separate existenc of article, and ideal candidate for merger with Tenders, that way, both will no longer be stubs. Don't see why there should be a prolonged political discussion on the subject. A merged article should maintain a NPOV, meaning we should write only about that which can be sunstantiated. Ohconfucius 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- pointless repetition. Should be included in Tenders, and is. --Gary Will 08:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see any content overlap at this moment. More importantly, though, as a jurist professionally involved in government procurement (or public tendering, if one prefers that term) I can attest that as a matter of law and practice it is substantially different from private tendering, at least in countries party to the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement. As such, it deserves its own article, as a merge would probably lead to inapt generalisations with regard to both types of tendering. The article needs a lot of work, though. Sandstein 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm loathe to go against the apparent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invited public tenders, but your argument is very compelling. One problem: "public tender" can have several meanings. Should this be merged to Public Procurement? JChap T/E 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend that, as Public Procurement redirects to Procurement, which is again a very generic subject matter. We do ought to have an article on the specifics of procurement by the government, though, and I recommend moving the article at issue to Government procurement, which is unambiguous and appears to be an internationally accepted way to refer to this subject matter - at least insofar as the WTO uses it for its work. The previous AfD consensus, incidentally, appears to be that the subject is notable but that the term then used was unverifiable, and that the content ought to be merged because it was just a dicdef. That sort of consensus doesn't preclude recreation as an actual (although not yet very good) article, I would think. I'll try and contribute something if it's kept. Sandstein 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, if the article is expanded beyond a stub/dicdef, it would be a great subject. I would think a Government procurement article should be kept. JChap T/E 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic as it stands.--Peta 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • vote changed in favor of a new Government Procurement article I agree with the idea of an expanded Government Procurement article and we can add sections dealing with public tendering practices as well as the rules of WTO etc. I think a lot of the material that would be deleted or confused would have a good home there to help expand Wiki to categorize and reference as much interesting information as possible.Wiki The Humble Woo 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I would say it's censorship, but I've been censored from doing so. --Tess Tickle 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:10, 16 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. Xoloz 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The supernatural in monotheistic religions

Unsourced, non-encyclopedic essay. Page is not being improved and appears to have been abandoned by its original editors. Quale 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Though I do believe in the power of miracles and if by some chance sources miraculously appear in this article, I will change my vote to keep. Can i get an Amen! 205.157.110.11 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. --Satori Son 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to store college essays. Humor is always refreshing on AfD pages, 205.157.110.11. :) Srose (talk) 19:30, 17 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. Xoloz 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of programmes on ITV digital channels

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Nuttah68 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also adding List of Five (TV) television programmes. Nuttah68 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. As digital TV grows and eventually replaces VHF/UHF TV, the list will become impossible to maintain. Ohconfucius 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - was created as a compromise to keep such lists out of the ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4 articles (the latter even being the subject of an edit war). Agree with Ohconfucius, and I'm fairly sure it would contravene WP:NOT. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - for the same reason Ohconfucius gives. Categories work so much better for lists. --tgheretford (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The point referred to (Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, WP:NOT 1.7.3) doesn't really apply here, IMO. I don't find anything there that implies you can't list programs broadcast on a certain network. However, if you add current schedules and time (as in FOX#2006-2007_Line-Ups) that would break the "not a TV Guide" rule (as well as NPOV, since it isn't time neutral). Additionally, there are several other lists like this one (List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs, List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company, List of programs broadcast by MTV, List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC, List of Channel 4 television programmes, List of programs broadcast by Network Ten, List of programs broadcast by Seven Network, List of programs broadcast by Nine Network etcetera) and the related Category:TV schedules that would also face deletion, if these articles are. Väsk 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It isn't necesarilly the list of programmes I have a problem with, it is maintaining the list. It would be far more productive and easier to add the programmes concerned to a category rather than maintain a list of programmes that could get out of date pretty quickly. --tgheretford (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see the maintenance problem. The article doesn't state that it includes every programme that has ever been broadcast on the channels, so it wouldn't get out of date just because ITV add new shows. And the editing history of ITV4 definitively shows that there is interest enough in this topic to maintain and expand the lists. Väsk 18:58, 13 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 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Peep Fight

Not-notable, Possible cruft Bschott 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it's a youtube video, article doesn't meet WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not going to vote because I know nothing about peeps, but thank you for a good laugh -- couldn't stop! Probably a generational thing. Mattisse(talk) 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all internet ephemera. This one per WP:V; its only source is the youtube link, which only documents the video's existence, but none of the claims in the article. Sandstein 18:36, 10 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. - Bobet 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

6 Degrees from Truth

Delete Promotion for forth-coming movie. Written by film-maker. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlistairMcMillan 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - when the film is released and successful, it's a valid topic for an entry. Until then, it isn't. BigHaz 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Fame (success) is not a determiner of Wikipedia notability. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability . It does have importance/impact (it's a 67 minute documentary about a big political figure). --Adamreuter 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True enough that success alone doesn't determine notability. However, simply by being a film about a famous person, a film does not become notable either. Particularly not when the only indication that it exists that anyone's been able to find are 50% from here and MySpace. The reason that my rationale was based on "when the film is released and successful" was because that a release and some kind of independent commentary (a review, even a review saying that it was bad and that everyone walked out) is going to make it notable. Even a release could achieve that same effect. It's not a case of verifiability but one of notability. It's verifiable that I've got a film in mind about all sorts of things, but until one of them gets released it's not going to be here. If Moore's latest film doesn't appear to satisfy the notability requirements, put it up for deletion - the fact that its entry exists isn't necessarily proof that it's notable, and it certainly isn't proof of any partisan bias. BigHaz 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:The same could be said about Moore's upcoming "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" movie. I have left plenty of ways to verify the accuracy of the article and the film at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:6_Degrees_from_Truth

If the 6 Degrees from Truth entry is deleted, so should the article about "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2". At this point, the reality of that movie is just hearsay. However I can, at this point in time, provide anyone with a finished copy of 6 Degrees from Truth: Michael Moore...the same can't besaid for either of Moore's upcoming films.

As I've said before, if the issue is that *I* wrote the article, there wouldn't be a problem getting a third-party to either verify or rewrite the entry. I just don't believe in hiring/enslaving someone to do something that I can do myself. All of the words I used in the entry are in my view, "neutral." There are no "whiz-bang" public relations words used to describe the film.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because my wallet is not as deep as Moore's and I don't have the connections to Hollywood/the media like he has. But if Wikipedia wants to knock this little man down, by all means. After all, it's their website and their servers. When the film is released, I would like an apology though if this article is deleted. --Adamreuter 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to correct injustices or to help the "little man" promote himself. We are here to document things that are already famous. Sorry. Gamaliel 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: Not true. According to Wikipedia notability policies, things that aren't "famous" are allowed to be documented. --Adamreuter 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (Full disclosure: I'm a die-hard, bleeding-heart liberal, but I also really dislike Michael Moore; since he's so pompous and self-serving, I've never even tried to watch any of his films except for Fahrenheit 9/11 and Canadian Bacon, both of which I love.) This film is non-notable, and the article is an advertisement. "6 Degrees from Truth", appropriately, gets a grand total of 6 unique Google hits, and of the 6, 2 are WP and 1 is MySpace. The film might deal with a somewhat controversial topic, but it's an unreleased film with no distribution deal created by a (Wikipedically) unimportant filmmaker violating WP is not a soapbox. -- Kicking222 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google shows this to almost totally unknown outside wikipedia and the film's own website. Directed by an unknown film student. This might become notable after release, but certainly not now. Fan-1967 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. Gamaliel 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: Crystal ball argument: It is verifiable that this documentary will be released. I have offered to send a copy of the film to anyone who requests it. And I also have reliable third-party sources who can verify the existence of this film...as per Wikipedia's rules.

What difference does it make whether the article is published before or after a film's release? If the announcement of my film would appear in "Variety" magazine tomorrow, all that is is a relaying of information. Apparently that's sufficient enough for a WP article.

A lot of films are announced before they're even shot...and then they are canceled. Yet those films are allowed on Wikipedia. This documentary is "in the can" and will be released shortly. What's the point of deleting an article that will be reposted once the film is released to the public? I have yet to be taken up on my offer of an "at-cost" DVD by anyone who objects to this article.

As far as using Wikipedia as a promotional tool...how? This article is not linked from any other WP article...albeit it was at one time. I myself have not linked to it from my own website. You could use the promotional argument for just about any film that has been released or will be released. By the same logic, every single film that hasn't been released yet should be deleted from Wikipedia! Again, the only difference between the announcement of my film and others is that my pockets aren't deep. If they were, I'd buy big advertisements in all major newspapers tomorrow! Then it would "notable", right?

Now if this film were a narrative (fictional in nature), you could argue that it's not notable. However, it discusses a very controversial filmmaker (who is controversial for the revisionist history, distortions, half-truths, etc. he puts in his films/books, not his concrete [i.e. verifiable/factual] points of view) who continues to have a career in filmmaking. And for that matter, the public's ear.

Soapbox argument: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not , "self-promotion" is allowed as long as a neutral point of view is maintained. I feel that I have kept a neutral point of view. I will re-word the article if specific objections are made. As it stands, the article discusses what is contained in the film and what the series stands for.

Notability argument: Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are two of the highest grossing documentary films of all time. My film aims to show the audience scenes from the films IN CONTEXT and then address discrepencies in those scenes. The film is the first feature-length documentary to be released about Moore that will be made entirely free to the public. It is a large resource (4 hours of audio/visual content and text) of information about Michael Moore.

As soon as the newspaper article is ran, 6 Degrees from Truth: Michael Moore will be listed on IMDB. That will meet one of the criterion for verifiability. The article has not been released yet due to space considerations. This is beyond my and the journalist who wrote the article's control. If anyone wants to verify this, I can provide a phone number/email address for the newspaper. I will not, however, post it in this public forum.

At this point, I believe any further argument from myself is futile. I am clearly outnumbered and majority rule in this case will probably win. --Adamreuter 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Newspaper article has been released (update): http://www.dundalkeagle.com/articles/2006/08/11/news/news07.txt Image of newspaper: http://6dft.com/newspaper1.jpg and http://6dft.com/newspaper2.jpg . --Adamreuter 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems verifiable. The question is now (and to a greater or lesser extent has always been) one of notability). BigHaz 08:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Many, many student films are verifiable, and listed in IMDB. It doesn't mean they will have any widespread ditribution, or even notice. It is certainly possible that this may receive notice; certainly there are many people who might promote criticisms of Moore. It has not achieved that notice yet. There is always the option of recreating this article when/if such notice occurs. Fan-1967 14:26, 11 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. Petros471 13:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinecor

An advertisement masquerading as an article about a posture correcting brace. An article with this name has deleted twice as an uncontested prod (log). The current article is a very close copy of the text in this pdf. WP:NOT for advertising. Mr Stephen 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CPAScott 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. Also fails WP:V. --Satori Son 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is some extraordinary spam we have here. RFerreira 21:30, 18 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A Leap Into The Unknown

Print-on-demand paperback = delete. Reads like an advert, contains likely copyvio back-cover-type synopsis. A very persistent editor resists all attempts to despam and decopyvio this thing so it should simply be nuked. Quale 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Ample opportunity given to rewrite the article to conform with Wikipedia's guidelines. CPAScott 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity publishing, see Exposure Publishing at www.diggorypress.com. --Mr Stephen 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable publication. Fails WP:Verify and notablity guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). --Satori Son 03:21, 18 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. As with many game guide articles, Man in Black's argument says it all: this is original research or nothing. The only argument the keep side has for this not falling into the "game guide" material explicitly prohibited by What Wikipedia is not is the material about the "evolution" of the units; without sourcing other than expecting readers looking for verifiability to play one game and then play another, this is classic original research. Unreferenced tags are for articles which lack sources but the subject has them available; despite this AfD remaining open for a week after normal time no available sources have been nominated and it is clear that such a tag would not improve anything. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Units in Nintendo Wars

This subject is wholly unnecessary and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Its counterpart for Advance Wars was deleted awhile ago, so I'm surprised this is still hanging around. This adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the game and is only useful to players of the game. Delete. Wickethewok 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree. The article focuses on a historical overview of how the units were designed over the course of a popular series including eight games. I have never played these games, and it's unlikely I ever will, since they probably won't be translated into English - however, I found this very interesting and notable since the Advance Wars games did make it out of Japan. I'm sure there are many others, not only just fans of the Nintendo Wars series, but those who have a interest in strategy game design who would find this type of article encyclopedic. There was some more POV material in the article before, but I've tried to remove anything that sounds like an original speculative opinion. As for the Units in Advance Wars AfD, that article had considerably more unencyclopedic material in it, and I supported the transwiki and merge of that article. However, the rationale for deleting that article doesn't apply here. --SevereTireDamage 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All the information here seems pretty trivial. How does it increase someone's knowledge of the subject knowing that (for example), that the train gun has a "fierce firing range" or that the small aircraft carrier holds three units instead of four? This article is many times larger than the Nintendo Wars article. All of the important general information should be there, instead of hundreds of little unit details in a separate article. Also, there really aren't any reliable secondary sources on the subject of "Units in Nintendo Wars" anyway aside from game guides. Wickethewok 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Nintendo Wars. --Gray Porpoise 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Deep, severe gamecruft. Move to a gaming wiki if creators want Bwithh 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete. At the very least, we want the information kept around. We should consider starting a Wiki for Nintendo Wars and Nectaris. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with a change: it may be worthy of staying if it includes a short overview of unit evolution from the first Wars game to the last Nintendo DS version. - Roma_emu 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This will never be anything but a game guide or original research. There aren't any sources other than the games themselves for the "evolution" of the units in the game, so there's going to be a lot of original research going on comparing one game's units to another's. If you ditch the evolution bit, you're just left with descriptions of the capabilities of each unit, which isn't at all encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOR. Whispering^(talk/c) 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR. Good writing, no sources. JoshWook 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOR, WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per above --Peephole 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: per SevereTireDamage. Also, note that this isn't a game guide. You have to read closely but it's pretty apparent that it's a history of how unit capabilities changed across the entire series. With the exception of a few sentences that anyone here can easily remove, there is no "do this, do that for TEH WIN!" Therefore, not a game guide. I agree that some of the information is not of interest but this article can be pruned. I see no rationale for its full deletion. Lastly, failing to cite sources is not grounds for deletion. We have a category in fact devoted to articles without sources, remember? -- Solberg 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

• Sources are not optional, I don't know why people that slapping on the no-references tag makes it alright. Wickethewok 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• You don't have a point here. Sources are not optional in the sense that they have to eventually be in the article. But we don't delete articles because they don't have sources at a certain moment (undeniable given the unreferenced category whether you like it or not), we only delete them if they *can't* have sources-- for instance if the information is either false or unverifiable. What makes you think the information here is either? -- Solberg 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

• Actually, I am saying there aren't any sources. According to WP:V, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" after the editors have been given a chance to provide sources and have failed to. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence for the whole thing about why information that remains unsourced after an extended period of time needs to be removed. Wickethewok 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Either merge this into Nintendo Wars, or merge the info about the units from the Advance Wars games' pages into this, and clean up this article. --Quadraxis 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - After over a week, there still aren't any sources. Wickethewok 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep - Thorough and well-written article. Not a game guide, because it does not tell you how to play the game. Not original research, because the article need only cite the games themselves as primary sources. This is no different from an article about any work of fiction or other artifact. If it makes unverifiable statements, delete only those statements. If it is missing references for verifiable but unsourced statements (like a large number of Wikipedia articles are), fix those or add a tag. — brighterorange (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Yanksox with summary "CSD G1". BryanG^(talk) 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm EIsa

I am not sure why we need an article on the name of a tropical Storm that may/may not occur 6 years from now. I am sure the Hurricane/Cyclone centers have a list of names ready for 2012, this seems a bit odd to add. Let's wait til after the storm, and then add it. Also, the storms name is spelled incorrectly. rhmoore 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. CPAScott 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete crystal ball and that kind of stuff. -- Koffieyahoo 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The crystal ball policy specifically indicates that articles such as this are not encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 02:24, 9 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don Mullan

I'd say db-bio, but figured best to leave to debate. My contention is it fails the notability test. CPAScott 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --TheM62Manchester 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up. Films he produced won several film festival awards, he was given one by some agency of the UN, and authored at least seven books, plus a number of books for children. Seems mildly notable, IMHO. eaolson 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seven books with reputable Irish publishers as well as other work. Dlyons493 Talk 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• probable keep, but needs a lot more work. Seems notable and serious enough. 'Gordon banks' is for sale in the Guardian bookshop, and 'Eyewitness Bloody Sunday' received coverage on bbc.co.uk. My one concern is WP:AUTO, plus the article is unsourced. Ohconfucius 04:29, 9 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 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kitties & rainbows

WP:V, no sources, and a non-notable "video game performance art" group in any case. The first AFD was closed as a no-consensus keep which was an arguably incorrect decision with only one signed keep vote and the WP:V problem unaddressed. Quale 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unverified, NPOV, non-notable. -- Kicking222 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:44, 9 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 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cooking With Scorpion

Commercial video that could be described on the articles for Scorpion (Mortal Kombat), Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, or Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, but is not notable enough for its own page. Jeff Silvers 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete small bonus-feature video that can be unlocked in a game. Not enough for its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it can't be explanded anymore because there is no more information on it. Also, Starblind's reasons. ^---SilentRAGE! 09:42, 9 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 keep. ~ c. tales ^*talk* 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Connor Barrett

Article fails to establish notability. Was speedied, then undeleted out of process. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. (Full disclosure: I originally speedied it per CSD:A7, and I think such speedying was justified.) Stifle (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Keep since expansion, notability was asserted and article expanded. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment: existence confirmed, minor artist, listed on askart.com [36]. I am not familiar with our notability standards for sculptors, but it would seem jarring to delete this just because we are more used to Trekkies, Tolkienists and Pokemonists than to art buffs. dab (ᛏ) 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he illustrated a popular Bennett Cerf book, as confirmed by Amazon. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - seems adequately notable and verified not to breach WP:Bio--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Author of several books many years ago is enough for me. Shanes 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful article on a minor artist, but nevertheless one who had a part to play in culture. I suggest more caution is exercised with regard to the arts, as verification of notability is often less forthcoming than with those of equivalent stature within other fields, e.g. sport and music. Tyrenius 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as the primary author of the piece my vote is probably not surprising but for me to discover that any athlete who has played professional sports, any song recorded by the Beatles,and a host of lesser acts for that matter, and any character - and probably any actor from any TV show is okay here but an admitedly minor artist is not is mildly disturbing, since much of my wikipedia work involves minor sculptors who did great work and who should not (opinion) be forgotten. Carptrash 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Oh yes, I have a lot of pictures of Barrett's work, along with his poetry that I was on my way to add to the article when it showed up missing, but am not going to post it until this tempest is resolved.

• Keep. If Conor Barrett had been a drummer for a grunge band in Walla Walla in the 90s, deletion would not have come up, would it? --Wetman 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment I bet you it would, and it would get deleted pretty quickly too! Ohconfucius 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You both show a shocking lack of knowledge of Walla Walla 90s grunge culture. Tyrenius 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, well-referenced article, solid claims to notability. Please do not speedy delete articles like this in the future. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sculptors generally get less press than other artists, and he seems notable enough to me from the references. His papers in the Smithsonian makes him plenty notable. Ohconfucius 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Rap on knuckles to admins involved. Catchpole 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a wider issue than just admins involved, as contemporary values mean in a play-off between minor rock stars or minor cartoon characters and minor artists, the latter can't compete to the same PR standards, although they hold an equivalent place of repute in their own field. The new edition of the reference work Artists in Britain since 1945 will be published in the Autumn with 14,500 entries, so if wikipedia wishes to compete with that, there's going to have to be a bit of a cultural rethink on what makes artists worthy of inclusion. Let's not give admins a hard time over one decision, when they've doubtless done hundreds of unnoticed, unthanked, worthwhile tasks. Tyrenius 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree, this was a minor speedy-deletion accident. I am more uneasy about the fuss raised at its correction. Imho, this would have been a simple case of 'sorry, my mistake, thanks for fixing'. If we can get pages of debate over a case like this, it is no wonder issues that are genuinely controversial are bogged down as they are. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's the wonderful world of wiki! It gets there in the end, but it just takes ten times the amount of effort it should. Ah well, it's a glorious venture. Tyrenius 08:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: With due respect, the version of the article that was speedied was significantly different from what it's like now. Can you specify which of the speedy keep criteria it meets? Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above reasonings. ShaunES 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment: Can you specify which of the speedy keep criteria it meets? Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep recognised twice by the Audubon Society, numerous other marginal claims to notability, the sum total is certainly sufficient for my standards. Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason to delete. TacoDeposit 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. When a deleted article is made again or undeleted, rather than redoubling our deletion efforts, we should be open to the possibility that maybe it shouldn't be deleted after all. Friday (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article establishes notability pretty clearly. Lack of notability is not a speedy deletion business. Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't appear to be a speedy candidate. This article is an excellent example of the massive failings of A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am stunned to learn that a newly created article such as this can be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The cited books and references are an implicit account of the notability of Barrett. Maybe administrators who do not understand this should not delete articles. --JWSchmidt 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JzG -M^ask 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Speedy deleter should WP:AGF when an article lists solid reference books like this one did. Not even a plausible WP:AFD candidate. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't consider a joke book a solid reference book, especially when nothing in the article explained its significance. Nor do I need to be lectured on good faith from someone who violates it as you did. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • He illustrated the joke book. It isn't being used as a reference other than he is the illustrator. Illustrators can meet notability guidelines.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that the book was being used as a reference, but nothing in the article said that he illustrated it. I am not denying that illustrators can meet notability guidelines. I am contending that the references were not explained. Calling the speedy deletion bad faith is bad faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I have made it clear that I am not myself accusing anyone of bad faith, and I think the less that is mentioned the better. However, in the light of remarks on this page, it is only fair to the article creator to show the books and references that were on the page, when the article was deleted, and it is clearly shown that Connor Barrett was the illustrator (my underlining). Tyrenius 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you specify which of the speedy keep criteria it meets? Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Selected books

• Cerf, Bennett, ed. illustrated by O'Connor Barrett Anything For a Laugh: A Collection of Jokes and Anecdotes That You, Too, Can Tell and Probably Have, 1946
• Barrett, Oliver O'connor ; Illus. By Richard Scarry, Little Benny Wanted a Pony, 1950
• Barrett, Connor, Myself Emerging; A book of sculpture and poetry" 1980

References

• Barrett, Connor, Myself Emerging; A book of sculpture and poetry" 1980
• Falk, Peter Hastings, Editor Who Was Who in American Art, Sound View Press, Madison Connecticut, 1985
• Noszlopy, George T., Jeremy Beach, editor, Public Sculpture in Birmingham: including Sutton Coldfield, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. 1998
• Opitz, Glenn B , Editor, Mantle Fielding’s Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors & Engravers, Apollo Book, Poughkeepsie NY, 1986

• Keep, notable artist, referenced and verifiable article. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment -- seeing virtual unanimity, I think there is no need to continue this vote and I invite Zoe to close it. This debate has been most superfluous: the original article failed to make clear notability claims explicitly and was thus accidentially speedied, but it was a matter of minutes to fix this, and the present article is no longer an arguable AFD candidate. dab (ᛏ) 09:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It has, however, served a useful purpose as an overwhelming endorsement of the article and an assertion that minor sculptors are as valid as (perhaps even more so than) minor Pokémon characters, which I think some amongst us were beginning to doubt. Tyrenius 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Up to the closing admin, but I think it would be warmly welcomed if the strength of support for keeping this article were recorded on the article talk page notice. Tyrenius 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable artist, article is referenced and verifiable, as per almost everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is interesting and informative. TKFMPardus 19:36, 11 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Ashlee Simpson songs

See also Shadow (song) (VFD discussion), Pieces of Me (VFD discussion), Ashlee Simpson on SNL (AfD discussion), Ashlee Simpson on MADtv (AfD discussion), Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005 (AfD discussion), and Styles and recolourations of Ashlee Simpson's hair (AfD discussion).

Seems pointless. There is no new information here; it can all be found at relevant album pages Chillymail 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Ashlee is a notable enough, uh... music-related person that a reasonable amount of discography information is encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it's all covered in the articles on Ashlee Simpson albums and singles. -- Koffieyahoo 01:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A discography/list of albums page? Sure. A list of songs? That's a bit superfluous, sorry. - Thorne N. Melcher 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Change it to a list of albums and then put the songs underneath each album. Should be notable enough. Konman72 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Thorne N. Melcher. Sandstein 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Every other band has separate pages for albums with the tracklisting in the article. Why does she have this unnecessary page? Avenged Evanfold 00:53, 11 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 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Zombeast

Google hits refer mostly to a book - not sure of its notability. JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The band in question doesn't have a website aside from their myspace yet, but they are an established band on the horror high label and they are the number one hit on google--Nevermind138 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable band. From the article's entry (copied from the MySpace link in the page): "Zombeast signed to Horror High Records to release their as of yet untilted debut album to be released in the Fall of 2006." Signing onto a label isn't enough; IIRC, a band usually needs at least two albums from a major indie label to be considered notable. Maestlin 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:MUSIC gives notability standards. I don't see that this group meets any of the standards. The Horror High label was started in 2005, which is too soon to make it a major independent label. Maestlin 23:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC says nothing about being signed by a label, but actually having released albums (plural). Not there yet. Fan-1967 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy under A6 The JPS^{talk to me} 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pirate's Dinner Adventure

This article has been deleted several times before; little new reason to keep Subwayguy 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate's Dinner Adventure

• Keep. Assuming this is a legit dinner theater chain, it is no different from Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede and Medieval Times. -- Stbalbach 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete with reasons from nom. Also the links on for AfD on Pirate's Dinner Adventure need to be fixed. -Bogsat 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete this bad penny. WP:NN Two restaurants does not a notable chain make. Article fails to assert notability. Ohconfucius 06:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete apparent SPAM WilyD 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect against recreation. Gazpacho 22:18, 9 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. Remember this is not a vote. Petros471 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunderland Message Board

Seems to me like this message board is not notable. Author removed prod. You guys decide. Mattisse(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Talk page indicates it has been deleted and recreated previously, but I could not find any evidence of that. Mattisse(talk) 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• It was speedied earlier, when it had very little content. Fan-1967 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just having little content is not grounds for marking for speedy deletion - that's reserved for nonsense or vandalism as you know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.74 (talk • contribs)

• Comment You are misinformed. You may want to review the Speedy Deletion Categories. -- Fan-1967 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Speedy CSD7 would cover this club, especially if it had little content. Mattisse(talk) 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentBut it doesn't, because its importance/notability has been strongly asserted. If you dispute this, here is not the place to do it (refer back to CSD7)Cathd6 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - message boards are not generally notable. Outriggr 09:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentI suspect there's a misunderstanding of the nature of this group, which is a physical community, although its origins are virtual. Should be categorised under supporters' clubs rather than message boards.Cathd6 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not meet WP:WEB notability criteria guideline. Thanks/wangi 10:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Interesting to note that the article links to three news articles, however these are not what they initially seem. The first two do not refer to SMB at all, and the third refers to internet forums in general. Thanks/wangi 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentThe actual name is not mentioned in any of the articles but they are all as described - all originate from the SMB. A bit of research would establish that.Cathd6 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - one of the biggest football communities on the web, influential with Sunderland AFC and the local and national media (for full discussion of worth see article discussion where a convincing case has been made), and more importantly does not fall into any of the problem article categories in the deletion policyCathd6 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - SMB has helped a lot of good causes like 'give 4 strips'. just have a look at the charity board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.239.134 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-09T15:17:55

• Delete: Inconsistent Information. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.148.2 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-10T09:15:38

• SMB is part of www.readgtogo.co.uk and therefore fans news site, this should not be deleted as it is very useful and has more power than SAFC.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.70.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-14T13:42:09

• Keep - SMB has charital links and is in the same category as other supporters clubs forums on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.70.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-14T13:43:32

• Keep - the SMB has made very large charitable donations throughout the UK and Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.92.203 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-14T13:03:12

• KEEP - this is slightly more than your average message board. It has closer ties with its community and a greater influence over the club than most fans boards. Also, its charitable links, plus its ties with a published fanzine make it worthy of its place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaniardo (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15T16:41:40

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Phoenix Co-op

A short unsourced article about a non-notable building, only one link to it. ColinFine 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is just a building with 26 people living in it. Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Here's a link to their webpage: http://www.madisoncommunity.coop/house.cfm?HouseID=11 --Xyzzyplugh 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, please don't delete this. The Phoenix Coop his great historical importance to the larger Madison Community Cooperative movement in Madison, WI. The house is also registered with the State of Wisconsin's historical buildings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.134.167 (talk • contribs)

I tried finding evidence of this at http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/hp/buildings/ but didn't find anything. Do you have any link demonstrating the historic importance of this building? --Xyzzyplugh 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to do and advanced search under Dane County, then type "636 Langdon" under the address. That will bring up the record, showing that it's part of the Langdon Historic District in downtown Madison. More importantly, while I agree W.P. is not a directory, nor is Phoenix Coop just a building with 26 people living in it- it is a community. Nottingham Coop's article wasn't much more developed than this one when it was started in February, and now it is fully developed, showing its place and value in Madison. A previous 2004 Nottingham article was started and deleted- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nottingham_co-op- Nottingham's entry arguably lost a year or two of potential development in that. I will try to get Phoenix members interested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.62.247 (talk • contribs)

I've tried doing that search every way I can think of, and can't find anything. I don't think "advanced search" is the right option, but I tried that as well as the other search options. Ok, I found it. It lists some info about the building, and then says, "This inventory card is merely a historical record of a property and may have inaccurate or misleading data. Inclusion in the inventory conveys no special status. Please read our Disclaimer for more details". The disclaimer includes the following text, "Inclusion in the Architecture and History Inventory conveys no special status or advantage; this inventory is merely a record of the property. Many properties are included merely for comparative purposes. Such included properties are not automatically eligible for any funding or other assistance". Link to the disclaimer: http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/ahi/disclaimer.asp

In other words, inclusion on this website is not evidence of notability, merely evidence that this building exists on this property, and little different than a phone book entry. Wikipedia is not the white pages.--Xyzzyplugh 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not a directory, not the white pages... if you don't want to believe Phoenix is a historic building, fine- it is, there's a plaque outside the building that proves it, but I won't go out of my way here. As I said, more than important than the building is the community, the hundreds of members they've had over the years- I've sent word on MCC's listserve to see if anyone wants to develop. Let's see what happens...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Molybdenumtop (talk • contribs)

• Do not delete this page. Phoenix has played a notable role in Madison Co-op house history, but the article stub needs time for this to be entered. There are simply not enoiugh housing co-os in the world to say that any one of them is non-notable, and Phoenix has, in fact, survived not one but a few crises that reflect on the history of madison co-ops as a whole (again, give this time to be typed in. It will be. I will have to stand in line to get my bit in, if anything). Also, as far as madison campus life goes, this is the most immediately viisble co-op of them all--the otehrs hug the lake, along the tangled mess of streets that exist in that place--not invisible, but not daily sites like 636 langdon either--and the Co-ops that are not along lake Mendota are generally along less-travveled thoughourfars and are not buildings that stand out teh same way)--which touches on one valuable thing that Wikipedia does in the long run--it is npossible, at times, to undserstand how notbale things in a town appear or are known to people who are really in that town. I haven't even touched on the subject of notable alumni... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clown in black and yellow (talk • contribs)
• Delete. As currently written, article does not provide sources, online or otherwise, that satisfy WP:V. --Satori Son 04:24, 18 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 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great North Run Pub Crawl

non-encyclopedic article of non-notable event. Completely lacking in any information to provide verification, importance, notability, or even what city or country this takes place. Pub-crawls are a dime-a-dozen. {{prod}} removed without any explanation or improvement in the serious deficiencies in the article. Agent 86 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete sigh, pubcrawls and drinking games should have their own speedy rule Yomangani 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I thought it might be this: Great North Run. But probably not, as my link is an actual world famous race with 50,000 runners, while the pub crawl one features men drinking a pint in each pub. Perhaps someone has named this pub crawl thing after the well known notable race. --Xyzzyplugh 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course they have. Both events are in Newcastle. Piccadilly 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 08:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thanks/wangi 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per failure of WP:V WilyD 12:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no such thing as a notable pub crawl. Piccadilly 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete on the grounds of being silly vandalism (CSD criterion G3) and an attack page (CSD criterion A6). It's reasonably obvious that someone thought that it would be a grand wheeze to attack someone named Nic Frost by writing a Wikipedia article about a fictitious university position and filling it full of both subtle and blatant references to Mr. Frost's sexual activities. I had a look to see whether I could find anything real to write a stub article about. I couldn't. Uncle G 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Additional discussion on the extent of the hoax is at Talk:University of Adelaide#Possible hoax. --Elonka 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've temporarily restored the page history at the request of those investigating a possible pattern of hoax articles. Uncle G 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wood-Bright Professor of Women's Studies

This appears to be a hoax, there is no mention of it anywhere apart from WP, including the websites of the University of Adelaide and Pfizer. — Dunc|☺ 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom... appears to be a hoax? That's very charitable phrasing. Yomangani 23:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. Kevin 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: '"...his dedicated servicing of some of the most desperate women in Australia..."? Obvious hoax! --Canley 09:40, 9 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 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Newcastle Online

Sirs,

Howard T. Sturgeon believes that Newcastle Online is simply not notable. Howard T. Sturgeon believes that it is certainly less notable than the currently-listed-for-deletion Sunderland Message Board. Howard T. Sturgeon supports the Quinn régime 100%.

As ever,

Howard

Howard T. Sturgeon 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a link to the website, which was originally in the article but was removed sometime since then: http://www.newcastle-online.com/ --Xyzzyplugh 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
    
    Sir,
    
    Howard T. Sturgeon values your contribution. Howard T. Sturgeon considers a link to the website to be an integral piece of evidence in ensuring that Newcastle Online receives a fair hearing. Howard T. Sturgeon is grateful to you; as an inexperienced Wikipedia user himself, he values your wisdom and sagacity. Howard T. Sturgeon supports the Quinn régime 100%.
    
    As ever,
    
    Howard.
    --Howard T. Sturgeon 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: interestingly this site is included as a news source for Google News. Thanks/wangi 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sirs, Gazpacho believes this article should be merged and redirected to Newcastle United. Gazpacho 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That, however, is not and has never been a criterion for notability. And sicne I don't see any content to merge: delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks to me like it fails WP:WEB. If someone can find the citations for "is sometimes cited by the media to gauge the opinions of the fans on various issues concerning the club", then it'd probably be a weak keep. --james^(talk) 10:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Simply not notable. At all. --DavidShankBone 16:20, 14 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pediasure

advertisement CPAScott 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per WP:SPAM Ohconfucius 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While an article about this item would not warrant deletion (to me) this particular article is written as an advertisement. Konman72 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• For the love of God, Delete this flagrant advertisement. But why go straight to AfD rather than proposed deletion? I renew my plea for a speedy tag for this kind of malarky. VoiceOfReason 06:34, 10 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. This is already mentioned at the Garfield article, and what isn't, is original research. - Bobet 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Garfield Halloween Strips

I recommend that this page be deleted and the material, minus the silly, unsubstantiated "starvation" rumors, merged back into Garfield. These strips do not merit a standalone page, and the rumors and "theories" which, for all we know, originated on Wikipedia, need to be purged. Thunderbunny 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Although the starvation rumors are unsubstanciated and seem to have already been removed, the story deserves its own entry because of the controversy it has caused among fans. I would go as far as to say that the entry should contain a reference to the starvation theory but mention what the author has said about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.7.143.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 65.7.143.249 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.x

• Definately don't agree, it is a legitimate, web-based theory that stands an equal right to be shown. POssibly merge the whole article into the garfield thread, under a heading of "theories" or some such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.76.152 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 80.7.76.152 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• These strips provide legitimate and interesting theories. Do not delete this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.86.200 (talk • contribs) .
  • 68.202.86.200 has made numerous edits, all (but this one) to Carlos Mencia.

• This page should not be deleted since it does have merit to be hear as much as anything else on Wikipedia. If we let others tell us what we can and can't see than we'd be in Nazi Germany and not the USA!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.37.115 (talk • contribs) .
  • Eighth edit from this IP.
    • All which have been deleted/reverted/marked as gibberish, I might add. Thunderbunny 06:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• • delete and disregard above unsigned comment, please 24.9.10.235 05:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with the request to delete this page. There is nothing 'silly' about the 'starvation theories' as they are just that; theories. Never once is it stated that any one of those theories are fact, and I like the idea of having alternative viewpoints available to read. Babywiththepower 00:05, 9 August 2006 (CST)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Babywiththepower (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..

• I frankly have to wholly agree with Thunderbunny for the reasons he has stated, and would also like to vote for delete/merge. It was perfectly fine in the Garfield article. 24.9.10.235 05:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I vote against deletion - either keep the page or merge the content back into the original Garfield article. The dead/starvation theories arise quite convincingly from the Halloween strips themselves. The similarity to the animated short ""Feline Fantasies" is also provocative and Jim Davis' comments about the strips provide an interesting insight that would be lost with deletion. Keep the page. Jhurlburt 06:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Either provide reliable sources for 'some people' or reduce and merge into the main article (a single paragraph should be enough). Mr Stephen 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands, the article fails WP:OR - if some suitable references can be added, I'd switch, but I canna find any. WilyD 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Do Not Delete". These strips stand alone as an urban legend of sorts, and merit their own page. Odenkirk 10:20, 9 August 2006 (EST)

• "Do Not Delete". There are a number of fan sites that have posted the comics in question discuss some of the theories mentioned in the article. These theories are not unique to Wikipedia so I hardly thinks it's OR.... however.... I doubt fan sites are considered suitable references (are they?). 128.192.56.189 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Do Not Delete". Why would anyone want to delete this? I think it is really interesting and hardly controversial. Maybe incorporate into the regular Garfield entry, but do not delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.56.222 (talk • contribs) .

• Do not delete agree with above Subwayguy 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Original research removed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Gazpacho 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tommy Westphall. It strikes me as similar - an interesting and fun way of interpreting a fictional work which was almost certainly not intended by the creators. Plus it didn't violate WP:OR when it was just a paragraph in the Garfield article. Alternatively, merge with Garfield. 67.10.175.242 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Who is Tommy Westphall? Thunderbunny 05:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• *****Why is this such a big fuss?!***** It's his own theory... I'm sure theres tons of stuff in the dictionary that is controversial. So why is this different?? gosh! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.239.194.101 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 167.239.194.101 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Do not delete. If you don't like it, don't view it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.7.45 (talk • contribs) .
  • — Possible single purpose account: 66.168.7.45 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • That would be a valid argument if Wikipedia were intended to be a "free speech" sounding board, where absolutely anyone could sign on and post absolutely anything they wanted without fear of deletion. It's not. It's an encyclopedia. Thunderbunny 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Jim Davis has spoken on the matter. http://www.ratioanalysis.biz/?p=1890 128.192.56.190 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: 128.192.56.190 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • So? Thunderbunny 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Garfield Halloween Strips" returns three hits on google, two of which are Wikipedia. Thunderbunny 04:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Is Garfield dead?" brings in a bunch of related links. Are you recommending we change the title of the page to something more Google friendly? 68.190.48.20 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the strip's article. —tregoweth (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I hadn't looked at the current Garfield article when I commented; change to delete. —tregoweth (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't delete, it is a part of Garfield, even as a rumor. Clean it up and have it renamed to Garfield Rumors. It is still worthy to be an article 86.137.56.98 21:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: 86.137.56.98 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Delete. This article is nothing but original research and unreliable sources. Of the five references, three are primary sources (the actual strips) and two are blogs (which are not reliable sources). Are we to take a blog author's word that someone else met Jim Davis and Jim Davis laughed about this? There's no reason to doubt it, but that doesn't make the material suitable for Wikipedia, either. Also, I'm not sure what Tregoweth wants to merge to the main article; there's nothing verifiable here that isn't in the main article already. Powers ^T 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Delete" For what it's worth, I'm the one who posted the Jim Davis quote on BoingBoing. Though you have nobody's word but my own, if you click on my link in the posting, you'll be directed to my listing on creativehotlist. There, you can see my resume and some of my licensed work. Though this is hardly rock-solid verification, it does give you some reason to believe that I at least work at Hallmark (in the license design department) and there is a possibility that I went to Muncie and met with Jim... which is quite true. He said what he said and I repeated it as accurately as I could. Of course the theories are more fun, so continue to believe what you like. Cabooglio 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not that we don't believe you, Cabooglio. It's that we have no way of showing readers that you're telling the truth. That's why we have the policies we do. Only part of it is making sure our information is accurate; the big thing is making sure our information is verifiable. That means being published in a reliable source, and a blog just doesn't count. Powers ^T 23:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A situation very similar to this is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's nothing personal, Cabooglio. Mr Stephen 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. The interest in this odd, yet interesting, subsection of Garfield has become larger and larger--arguably after the creation of the garfieldisdead.ytmnd.com/ Garfield Is Dead page. Wikipedia can do what no other encyclopedia can--hold an infinite number of articles on highly specific information. For my two cents, there might be an entire article on just Garfield criticism.

Additionally, the "home" entry is very complete and well-written; I think merging would detract from its comprehensiveness and clarity. Gorjus 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This storyline seems to have proven semi-notability, and as Jim Davis has already refuted the theories, the article can have an accurate and resolved viewpoint. The lack of Google Hits on "Garfield Halloween Strips" is not meaningful, as I have seen these strips referred to under many names, none being "Garfield Halloween Strips", which simply constitutes a rename of the article. Tom 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not the issue here. Verifiability and Original Research are. Powers ^T 23:09, 14 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: currently redirected to Liberal theory of economics - with no-one supporting the existence of this page as a separate article, this AfD appears to endorse a redirect somewhere, though where it should redirect is not AfD's remit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal capitalism

Original research and neologism. It's not clear if the author means that this term "is rarely heard in the United States but is used in other countries" or if he's admitting this is a neologism. eaolson 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• merge anythin useful to Classical liberal. Article fails to differentiate or justify its separate existence, instead says "But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new." Undesirable to have more than 1 article on the sub-topic. Ohconfucius 04:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Disambiguate to laissez-faire, neoliberalism, Keynsian economics. Gazpacho 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• On second thought, redirect to Liberal theory of economics. Author redirected to neoliberalism, but that ignores the 19th century. Gazpacho 23:06, 9 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

SinglesCruise.com

Non-notable advertising. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox. Company not notable Ohconfucius 10:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam - I love deleting spam in the morning WilyD 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. —tregoweth (talk) 19:43, 12 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 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bends (Novel)

Self-published, advertising -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to nominate Shadow's Bliss, the other novel (with identical content) --Wafulz 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The author, who has only written articles about himself and his two novels, didn't even bother to change the content of this article to separate it from his other book: Shadow's Bliss. --Wafulz 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 07:58, 9 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 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Printakid

Non-notable advertising. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between that article and the others in the Commerce websites category. --Vercasso 03:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference Printakid isn't eBay. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and fails WP:CORP from what I can tell. Yanksox 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, the delete per nom, but the weakness due to the fact that it gets 6.5k Google hits. That doesn't ensure its notability, and most of it seems to be directory listings and advertisings anyway, but I figured I should offer the evidence as a means to ensure non-biased decision-making when reviewing this article. - Thorne N. Melcher 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response and time. I understood that this site was not Ebay, but I saw Zopa and Venus Envy (sex shop) in the encyclopedia. Printakid is a pionner in its domain (children litterature on demand), but I was wondering if the issue was with the article or with the notability of the site. However, if you go in the category Book publishing companies of Canada, the notability is even lower. Anyways, thank you for your response M. Melcher. --Vercasso 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment' I'm all for deleting those, too. Wikipedia isn't a repository of links or random information. Printakid isn't unique to this, there are probably dozens of web sites advertising here right now. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I looked again carefully at the Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)'s Criteria for companies and corporations, and I think that the article is not subject for deletion, even if some wikipedians are averse to articles about companies.

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

I think the article Printakid respects those criteria:

• Printakid is the first and biggest company in North America to create personalized books in which illustrations change. This allows the company to make books for groups that are normally less represented in traditional literature (mixed-race children, children with Down's syndrome, etc.)

• Because of its innovative concept, Printakid (and the French version of the company Alphakid) was featured in many newspapers, including:
  • the Montreal Gazette (first page of the business section on July 13, 2004.)
  • CyberPresse - La Presse's website - Montreal's largest circulation newspaper. (See article)
  • Canadian Press (that article was reprinted nationally in many newspapers)
  • the Journal de Montreal (a full page on February 7, 2004)
  • the Ottawa Sun (on December 10, 2004)
  • the Montreal Mirror - see the smaller mention at the lettre P, they put on their web site)
  • Mixed media watch - article and discussions about the vocabulary used to describe different ethnicities.
  • The Record - Kitchener
  • Elle Quebec, Clin d'oeil and other women's magazines

If needed, I could scan and provide proof of many other notable articles.

• Again, because of its notable concept, in the last 3 years, Printakid and Alphakid have been featured (not paid publicity) in over 10 Quebecer and Canadian television and radio shows:
  • on TVA Television, six times
  • on TQS Television, two times
  • on Global Television
  • on City TV’s Cityline show, in partnership with Style at home magazine (see smaller mention put on their website)
  • CKMF radio show
  • CKOI radio show
  • Mix 96 Montreal
  • CBC Radio
  • 940 News (Montreal)
  • Radio-Canada - the National station
  • CHFI Toronto Sheila Walsh show

If needed, I could transfer and provide some Mpegs or mp3s of the actual shows.

In the smaller Quebec market, any book that sells over 3000 copies (in its lifetime) is considered a best-seller (all categories of books included). Half the books of the company have surpassed that number, and the others will in the next six months. I don't imagine that notability, in that area, has to be comparable to Ebay or Amazon.

I am willing to change parts of the article that would seem too much "advertisement" to some wikipedians, because I understand their concerns. However, on the notability criteria, as defined by the actual rules, I see less ground for exclusion. --Vercasso 16:56, 12 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 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Phobish

Ephermal neologism. See also WP:WPINAD. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WPINAD, and probably WP:NFT. Mr Stephen 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NFT. Google has 79 hits. --Porqin 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. `'mikka (t) 01:56, 12 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 keep. - Bobet 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gerber/Hart Library

Non-notable library with 14,000 books. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Though libraries are not merely judged on size, their website claims that they are "Midwest's largest LGBT circulating library," which is significant and notable. This library also seems to have historical and cultural significance. Haiduc 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are four modifying words here "Midwest," "largest," "LGBT," and "circulating." Should we also have an article on Scranton's largest voodoo circulating library? Fiji's largest heavy metal music collection? These aren't siginificant. Of course on their own web site they'll claim they're important; look at the web site of any NGO, church, Masonic lodge, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sure that if we look long enough we could find a bubble gum wrapper library somewhere. It would not be significant either. But a library that holds materials on a topic that is of critical interest to a sizeable proportion of the population because they are being discriminated against, and to another sizable proportion because they deeply believe in the rightness of the discrimination, and that started gathering such materials when they were still relatively rare and even banned, is anything but marginal or non-notable. Haiduc 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a subjective judgement, not an evaluation of notability. Notability is not subjective. The reason that the hypothetical bubble gum wrapper library will not be notable will be because no-one independent of that library will have published non-trivial works of their own about it. And the reason that this library is notable, is that such people have. The fact that it has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. The primary noability criterion doesn't require editors to make subjective judgements of what is important to, or famous within, any particular community. Uncle G 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, good point - and good resource on notability. Haiduc 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found over 14,000 hits on Google using "Gerber/Hart Library" (with quotations). That seems fairly notable. I don't see the harm in keeping it. Even if it were a non-notable library, I can see tremendous value to having comprehensive information on all the libraries of the world. This is, after all, a project devoted to giving everyone in the world the sum of human knowledge, and that is also the role of libraries. Someone looking for academic resources might find this useful. -- Samuel Wantman 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research. A search for me by name garners (as of today) 16,000 hits, and I'm not verifiable. Research involves reading the pages that the search tool turns up. Research involves looking for sources. Demonstrating that this library is notable involves finding a source other than its own web page. Please learn and always remember the lessons of Jamie Kane (AfD discussion) and Aladin (AfD discussion). The subject's own web site is not to be trusted. Uncle G 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Really, do you think we are being duped into believing this is a real library? I went to Google to check out what this library was since I knew nothing about it. Every hit I looked at confirmed that it is what that article said it was, and it reinforced the idea that it was a notable library. That is more than enough for me. I am of the opinion that notability is over-sold as a reason to delete articles. I think articles about less-notable topics have to be shown to have no value to the project. So I've stated why I think this is of value. We can make judgements weighing many factors. -- Samuel Wantman 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Really, do you think we are being duped into believing this is a real library? — Please don't use straw men. Every hit I looked at — As I said above, research involves reading the pages that the search tool turns up. Now read what you actually wrote, and the argument that you actually used, in the first paragraph. Uncle G 09:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, Sorry I wasn't more descriptive in my first post, I tried to explain it in my second. I went to Google and at first did a search and found 171,000 hits. Then I narrowed down the search by using the quotation marks and found over 14,000. Then I looked at and read all the hits on the first few pages that convinced me it was real and notable. It was you who assumed that I only looked at the Library's own website. I'll take responsibility for misleading you about what I did. -- Samuel Wantman 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course - ill-thought-out nomination to AFD. Davodd 08:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Snarky again Excuse me - what is the point of directing this at me? Why is it keep "of course?" Why and how is it "ill-thought-out?" Why do you refuse to respond to simple and direct questions on the Talk page? Leave me out of it, and vote on the merits of the article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of avoiding angry mastodons, I apologize if you believe I attacked you personally. That was not my intent. I believed that the article was rushed to nomination for deletion without adequate research into the nomination or the concept of notability of LGBT-themed articles. It was the process of nomination that I was criticising. I mean we have articles such as Convent Station (NJT station) - random commuter train stop - as well as Kathy Caraway Elementary School with an enrollment of approximately 500 students. What is the differentiating factor that makes this library less notable than these established WP articles? As a library, it is ho-hum, but as a resource of the LGBT community in the Midwest U.S., the library is a big deal. Finally, if you leave a note on an article talk page without response, you may want to prompt the user you want input from with a message on his or her User:Talk page. Because some apparent refusals to respond may be honest ignorance that a discussion is happening in the first place. - Davodd 01:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep libraries are important cultural markers. I would say it is not the size of the collections per se (& before you slam me, yes I agree that there is a minimum size/circulation below which this doesn't count . . . I don't know what that would be but I'm sure someone can figure it out) but it's importance. Also its availability to and actual use by the community. In this case all three criteria seem to be met.
• Comment: It is my opinion that with cultural institutions of various sorts there importance (and therefore notability) cannot always be measured by size. I would give the examples of two US museums, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston MA and the Frick Collection in NYC, both smallish (especially in relation to other cultural institutions located in their respective cities) but important.

I would also like to point out that a cultural institution's raison d'être doesn't have to be to the particular taste of every Wikipedian to make it notable. I for instance think a many of the painting in the MoMA are idiotic (the ones where the canvases are painted all black using what appears to be a paint roller suitable for painting interior walls for instance). But this doesn't mean I'm going to put the MoMA up for deletion.

So I would say that, yes if there was an important circulating library of Vodou religious texts & thought in Scranton PA it should be included, (I realize that someone THOUGHT they were making an absurd joke, but Scranton PA is a heavily Catholic college town and in the Western Hemisphere for historical reasons the Vodou religion has developed ties to Catholicism, so QED . . .). Thank you CyntWorkStuff 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - interesting and relevant subject, don't see why ew should delete it.--Aldux 11:13, 12 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. - Bobet 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

BlaxTV

Non-notable, mostly a rambling biography. Also, don't go to their site. It performs "illegal functions" according to Firefox. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• strong delete per nom. WP:NN 42relevant Ghits, mostly to myspace or other dead links. If we removed what was solely about BlaxTV [in the article], there would be only 2 lines left. As for "celebrity entrepreneur JayCee James", similarly NN - only 454 Ghits. Unreferenced and also fails WP:NPOV Ohconfucius 05:08, 9 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 keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pax warrior

Upcoming game, apparently. Non-notable. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm pretty sure the article was just started today because the game was given a mention (its own paragraph) in the most recent issue of TIME Magazine. Whether or not this alone confirms notability is open for debate. -- Kicking222 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That makes some more sense (note that there are no sources in the article itself...) But, per WP:NOT, this article and the site are not a crystal ball. That having been said, if you decide to keep it, the name should probably be changed to Pax Warrior. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I must respectfully disagree with your decision to propose the deletion of the Pax warrior article. I do so because I disagree with you labeling it as non-notable. I feel IMHO that it is notable enough to warrant its own page. I say this because the reason I started this article in the first place was that I noticed it in TIME Magazine (8/14/06, pg 20), a highly circulated news magazine. However this is not reason enough, so to further my argument I quote the article in which it states that this program is "incorporated into thousands of curriculums in Canada, Britain, South Africa, and will hit the U.S. this fall." So those students who take the curriculum and the teachers that teach the curriculum all know about Pax warrior. I also would direct you to the PeaceMaker (game) (which is similar to Pax warrior) page, which is very similar to the Pax warrior page and has not been deleted. In closing I would remind you that I am still a bit new to Wikipedia and if this makes no sense to you, then you may ignore it. I will however be reposting this post on the Pax warrior discussion page. (repost from Koavf's User Talk page)Cpuwhiz11 01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I've now, after seeing this BBC TV mention, this Radio 4 story, and this article from Edge (magazine), along with the TIME paragraph and being featured at the Games for Change conference six weeks ago, that my vote is officially strong keep. -- Kicking222 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Even more press: a mention in The Globe and Mail; a feature on games focusing on social reform from MTV News; another feature- this one huge- from BBC News. -- Kicking222 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And here is the TIME article itself. -- Kicking222 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The press coverage is sufficient to prove its notability. The article itself is very poor though, and needs significant expansion by someone familiar with the subject so that the game's importance is evident.--Mako 06:49, 9 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.