Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete per MER-C. Deizio talk 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break a Leg (SitCom)[edit]

Mkdwtalk 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - webcontent with no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Show[edit]

My Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article describes a low-budget show featuring an aspiring talk show host named Matt Chin. An example is available here: [1] My view is that the show or the host could eventually achieve sufficient popularity to be included in Wikipedia, but that at the moment there is little to distinguish it from many other programs on Youtube and elsewhere. Arsene 3:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Clearly this does exist but I think deletion would be a little harsh. It appears to be an actual TV show and the page does cite its sources and references. I see no reason for this pages deletion but the page itself needs a little bit of cleaning up... Debaser23 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)--C.lettinga 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Is on the internet, but also Category 2 cable TV in canada. May not be the most notable show, but is available on cable so I think it should get a chance. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't want to be overly stubborn about this, but does its appearance on Bite TV really offer an argument for its inclusion here? From what I can see the channel isn't particularly selective about its content, maybe more so than a public-access station but not a great deal more. It seems like a public access program (unless it were an especially noteworthy case) would be deemed insignificant for Wikipedia, and so what I want to ask is whether this program really has enough at this point to distinguish it from the former case. Arsene 4:44, 8 December 2006
  • Delete. It's short on reliable sources and full of original research. Youtube is not a reliable source for anything (moreover, these are primary sources, there aren't any secondary sources). ColourBurst 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. Danny Lilithborne 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Abstain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hotentot (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. --Sable232 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. Even though it's also on cable, there are literally thousands of ephemeral cable-based shows, and there is no assertion of notability for this one. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. Existence ≠ Notability. Chovain 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Colourburst. Good point, I completely agree. --Kyo cat¿Quíeres hablar? 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. TSO1D 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ColorBurst.--John Lake 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--C.lettinga 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Colourburst. SkierRMH,06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable, third party sources, as far as I can see. WilyD 14:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A Train take the 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Chan[edit]

Milton Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being mentioned once or twice on the news doesn't make one article-worthy. Two other similar articles (Emmanuel Morin and Sheryne Morcos) created by the same user have already been deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Vice president of the largest political youth organization in Canada. Also did some newsworthy things. Delete Just vice president of policy not an actual leader--M8v2 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's vice president of policy for the Young Liberals, not an outright vice president (as in second-in-command), according to the article. Also, the president of the organization doesn't himself have an article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Has been the subject of non-trivial coverage (including on the CBC national news), as has his "Election Prediction Project" website. Plenty of relevant Ghits as well. Agent 86 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless there's more evidence of notability. He's not even the current VP, Policy, and that (basically a board position isn't really notable enough of a position. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per User:Agent 86, and the Election Prediction Project, which could use it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.lettinga (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete, the minimal coverage & junior position in org don't seem to meet WP:BIO. SkierRMH,06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chooserr 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:BIO with flying colours. WilyD 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is maybe one independant news story of any substance about him, and it's only for handing out condoms at a Catholic church. That does not meet WP:BIO. Mus Musculus 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry things are not available on-line, but google can at least point to some of these, but this person has featured on both CBC and CTV national news, and a number of other media sources, not just for his church activities, but also because of his election website and political activities. The election website is extensively referred to by many election-oriented websites.Agent 86 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the recent Liberal leadership, several Young Liberal articles were created, probably so that their articles could be linked from the Liberal leadership endorsements article. I nominated several for deletion but I left Chan because I felt that he had some notability. At the time I would have been fine if somebody else had deleted the article. But having thought about it, I think that this is a keep for me (I'd say a "weak" one if I used those terms). He's certainly no Andrew Tanenbaum but his website has been around longer than electoral-vote.com and is probably more important on the Canadian scene than EV is on the American one. He was possibly the most prominent liberal Catholic in Canada when the Pope came, which was a huge news story day after day for weeks. And then there's his Liberal Party activities. No single thing really distinguishes him but taken together he seems notable enough to me.--JGGardiner 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the minimal coverage and completely mundane bio information does not add up to a totality of notability. I have school board councilmen that have a stronger rap sheet than passing out condoms and fifteen seconds of fame.--NinjaJew 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. It's been claimed that there are more sources of notability, but that they aren't online - they don't need to be. If multiple media sources are available to cite, offline or on, doing so in the article might change my mind. Without those citations, an assertion that the media mentions exist doesn't help me see the increased claimed notability. If someone gets around to writing an article on the Election Prediction website, he certainly should be mentioned there. --Krich (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", or "Political figures holding or who have held [...] office" or "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." or "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and so on Darkov 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotacracy[edit]

Lotacracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. voldemortuet 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. It would probably suit better use there Jamesbuc
  • Keep and improve. There is enough material available to develop this in to a full encyclopedia article, by discussing the history of the term, and history of lotacracy in Pakistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barastert (talk • contribs).
  • There is already an article named Floor crossing. The term is nothing but a regional synonym. There isn't any need for a redundant, parallel article. voldemortuet 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after hearing everyone arguments, I think it makes sense to have this article in wiktionary or somewhere rather than here. So change my vote to delete. --Barastert 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per voldemortuet. A local neologism referring to a globally occurring political phenomenon. No prejudice against someone who can find enough sourced material to fill an article about Floor crossing in Pakistan. Pan Dan 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Abstain per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotentot (talk • contribs)
  • Move to Wiktionary and Delete. --Sable232 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Floor crossing. Zarquon 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pan Dan. More like political slang than an actual phenomenon. --Dhartung | Talk 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete. Either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwicki and let them fight it out... it's really just a political neologism. SkierRMH,06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: If it can pass their standards, then it's the exact sort of thing that belongs on wiktionary, when someone does a scholarly analysis of the trend it might be wikipedia material, but as it is it's a substub with nothing more than a brief definition. Wintermut3 08:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced neologism. JIP | Talk 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Wiktionary. WP is not a dictionary. Mr Stephen 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced definition. Mus Musculus 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tzaquiel 16:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --NinjaJew 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be a definition of a word. More appropriate for Wiktionary. WMMartin 13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hudson[edit]

Rachel Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neither Rachel Hudson, nor her murderers' trial, has encyclopedic importance. Yes, the trial is the subject of multiple news articles. But, while media coverage is necessary for inclusion at Wikipedia, it's not sufficient. One of the rationales for the primary notability criterion is that we rely on the editorial judgment of reputable publishers as to a topic's importance: if they think it's important, we consider it worthy of inclusion here. But importance is not the only reason things get published. In general, when sources exist on a certain topic, we have to look at the reason the publisher decided to publish on that topic before we conclude that it's appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on the topic. We should ask, did the publisher consider the topic important or consequential in any way? In this case it should be clear that the BBC and other news organizations decided to publish articles about this trial only due to its sensational aspects: Rachel Hudson's brutal treatment and death at the hands of her own family was truly horrific and attention-grabbing. The trial had no importance, or consequences; as far as I can tell, it engendered no widespread discussion on crime and punishment or on the human capacity for cruelty (that's been around for a while now), and had no impact on the legal system or on society at large. In 100 years (even 10 years? even now?) this case will (has been?) surely and rightfully be forgotten, and almost surely not included in any history books. Rachel Hudson herself should, of course, not be forgotten, but that's no reason to keep the article here, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Note: De-prodded with comment "seems like there are reliable sources... perhaps it should be renamed, since it was the trial rather than the victim who was notable, but not deleted" -- as I have explained, I don't think either the victim or the trial has encyclopedic notability.) Pan Dan 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I hadn't even herd of this case, granted I do live in the US, before today. While the story is sad, heart-wrenching, and sick it still has not notability as the nominator points out. This is the kind of thing that, sadly, happens often enough that a brutal, cruel, terrible murder such as this doesn't raise an eyebrow once the commercial break starts. wtfunkymonkey 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak Delete It is always amazing how people writing in deletion debates can read the minds of publishers and decide what they were thinking when they published a story. To become encyclopedic, such a case would need to have a longer shelf life than "crime-arrest-trial-imprisonment." This might include a prolonged debate about the actual guilt, a retrial, and books and movies about the crime, such as In Cold Blood (book), In Cold Blood (film), Sam Sheppard, Charles Starkweather, Leopold and Loeb or Hawley Harvey Crippen, which focussed mostly on the thrill killers, or spree killers, not the victims, and some of which have passed the 50 year test if not yet the 100 year test. This is a horrible murder, following torment. Sadly, it is far from unique. If it becomes the subject of books, movies, scholarly analysis, etc. as did the other cases cited, then recreate the article. Edison 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It has ever been my understanding that crimes, criminals, and their victims form a partially unwritten exception to WP:BIO. Though many times they can easily be verified, and are the subjects of non-trivial news coverage, they nevertheless are routine and unremarkable. Only a few causes célèbres jump the hurdle of being things that people next year or a hundred years from now will be interested in. This case may be one of them, but the article does not make that case yet. Cheerfully open to revising my opinion if further evidence is mustered; from reading one of the BBC reports, this may go beyond a situation involving a violent family of degenerates and raise issues of bureaucratic incompetence as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not a proper criterion, verifiability is. Wikipedia is not paper (and lots of paper was spent on this case). dml 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is turned into a biography. WP:BIO can't hold unless the sources actually provide biogrpahical information. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be fair, the argument on the other side would be that the article (if expanded) would be about the trial not the woman, and that therefore, what you say about WP:BIO is a reason to rename not delete the article. (Of course I disagree with that: as I said, neither the victim nor the trial is encyclopedically notable.) Pan Dan 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Both sides raise valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotentot (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete. Non-notable bio, this is not of encyclopedic importance. --Sable232 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not everything verifiable is notable. This article certainly doesn't in present form make any assertion of real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I can see both sides of the issue. Perhaps more discussion is needed. (Liveforever22 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Delete Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for article inclusion. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. This case doesn't seem to have generated exceptional levels of media coverage anyway. Bwithh 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, Here's the apt essay from Orwell in response to Edison and Smerdis' comments... Bwithh 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable case. frummer 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and expand The story here, of course, isn't so much the the murder victim herself, but the bizzare circumstances of her death, the fact that her abuse apparently continued with no intervention from neighbors or authorities, and the British public's reaction (or lack thereof) to this incident.. WP:BIO is pretty specific, Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated , qualify. Whether that is due to sensational aspects or not is not part of the criteria, neither is anyone's opinion on the notability of the person in question, or the case they were involved in. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person There's 4 separate BBC national news reports referenced, and there are certainly plenty of print reports... this is a pretty open and shut speedy keep case. Also, the perps have actually taken the distinction from the Sheriff as the most cruel person(s) ever from Nottingham. (Football fans excluded) That in itself has to have some notability. Tubezone 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability - the BBC, the New York Times, The London Times, CNN whatever... these are mainstream news channels which cover much non-encyclopedic material, including serious matters, on a daily basis. WP:BIO is a guideline. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and not to be a news report archive. And there's no evidence that the murderers have displaced the Sheriff of Nottingham as a local icon except short-lived tabloid headlines. To be encyclopedic, there needs to be substantive evidence that this case has lasting social/political/cultural impact beyond personal tragedy/police log/media sensationalism e.g. if this case brings about a new law; if it inspires a movie; if it leads to creation of a significant charitable foundation etc. Bwithh 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to assume good faith here, but it seems like you and some other British folk are engaging in some vanity denial, same way Richard J. Daley had the garage that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place in plowed under (there's no historical marker for that or the spot in Chicago where John Dillinger was gunned down, either, but if you ever visit, I'll point the spots out to you). WP:BIO states Subjective evaluations are irrelevant to determining the notability of a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Same criteria is why Elvira Arellano has an article... yes, I know about WP:INN, but her article survived an AfD based on the that criteria. The fact that it's embarassing to some folks or others would like to subjectively minimize the newsworthiness of the subject by declaring the news coverage to be sensationalistic is not part of the criteria. Fact is, much material in WP is decided to be encyclopedic by WP standards based on mentions in the same mainstream media, and plenty gets deleted due to lack of mentions in the same media.. because that's the standard set by WP:BIO. And, honestly, I think one could safely assume that books and other media on this weird crime will appear in the future, probably because it's embarrassing and sensational... and it's a fairly good wager some law might turn up to prevent a similar incident in the future. Now... how'd I get involved in two British related AfD's in one day? Oh, yeah, the other one was in the hoax-article category... Tubezone 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your points about sensationalism, notability, and "subjective evaluations" -- I explicitly acknowledge in my nom that this story passes the primary notability criterion. You, on the other hand, fail to address the main concern of the delete voters here, which is that this story is not encyclopedically notable, due, in the opinion of most of the delete voters, to lack of any indication of legal or long-term significance. Whatever you think of these arguments, none of us is making "subjective evaluations" as you claim. We're making an objective and reasoned judgment that this story doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Pan Dan 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep While not every murder victim is notable, that is because not every murder victim recieves extensive coverage in independant, reliable sources This one does. Merely wanting murder victims to not received such coverage does not make it so. Where references exist to write a neutral, extensive article on a subject there is no compelling reason to delete the article. The sources exist. Not wanting them to exist does not make the subject non-notable. The existence of the sources and the depth of coverage means enough information can be used to write an article. Thus keep. --Jayron32 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tubezone. John Lake 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tubezone good arguments C.lettinga 06:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What possible benefit could come from deleting this? I really don't understand the deletionist mindset. --Zerotalk 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand- the horrific and unusual circumstances in themselves make the crime notable. Rob 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and seems important due to its sensational nature. Mus Musculus 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When WP:BIO states that being assassinated is notable, it means being assassinated, not being murdered. This is a footnote in an article on familial abuse, not an encyclopaedic subject. We can review the decision if a non-trivial book is ever written about it, but Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment such as by being assassinated, not specifically being assassinated. Actually, WP:NOT doesn't say "WP is not tabloid journalism", either, that's not to say it is, but there's no rule that tabloid journalism can't make an event or person notable enough for a WP article, eg: Paris Hilton. Tubezone 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the article is expanded. Right now there is no useful information on the page to read, its just a bunch of links and a dictionary sized entry. There is no context and details. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. --SECurtisTX 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Meets basic notability criteria. Let's watch this one improve and we can reconsider in the future. I will help fix. i expect same frm all keep voters :) Obina 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. This event is bizarre, out of the ordinary, and has received moderate media attention due to its nature. Things like this don't happen often, much like assassinations, and because such receive notoriety. --NinjaJew 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand per dml- wiki's not paper, Tubezone, and Jayron's reasons.--Xiahou 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Nominator's argument is a prime example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Yes, says the nominator, it may at first seem as if the BBC considered the story important, publishing 4 stories on it, but they didn't really consider it important. I am impressed by nominator's abilities to look deep into the hearts and minds of BBC writers. Our Wikipedia: Notability criterion, however, lacks such abilities (thank God) so until it does, keep. And, of course, expand - devoting more space to the references than to the story is a prime sign on a stub ready for expansion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my nom again, because you misunderstand it. I explicitly acknowledge in my nom that this story passes the primary notability criterion. You mischaracterize the basis of my argument as "What the BBC publishes is notable, except when it's not." On the contrary, the basis of my argument is a distinction between notability and encyclopedic notability, i.e. "Some of what the BBC publishes is encyclopedically notable, and some of it's not." Finally, you completely ignore the delete arguments of Edison and others. Note that Edison, like you, challenges my remarkable ability to see into the hearts and minds of BBC writers, but nevertheless comes to a conclusion that this article should be deleted because there is no indication of wider significance. Pan Dan 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read again. Still stand by every word. You are waving your hands at the well defined criterion of notability, which you concede this meets, and replacing it with "encyclopedic notability", a tautology that apparently means whatever you want it to mean at any give moment. "Some of what the BBC publishes is encyclopedically notable, and some of it's not." That's No true Scotsman all over. Just replace it with "Some Scotsmen are true Scotsmen and some are not." The cure is the same - define what you mean by "encyclopedically notable", and we can argue about that. We may even get that accepted as the defining criterion in place of Wikipedia: Notability. But meanwhile, we haven't. I happen to disagree with Edison's criteria, "wait for the book or the movie", because I see Wikipedia's ability to react quicker and cover more than a publishing house or movie studio as an important strength, but his, at least, is well defined. Yours isn't. AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC is not an encyclopedia. There is clearly much published or broadcast by mainstream media which is not encyclopedically notable (which is not a tautology by the way - see WP:NOT which clearly excludes a variety of notable forms of knowledge, information and discourse from Wikipedia as it detracts from Wikipedia's primary purpose to be an encyclopedia). Bwithh 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, "... we have look at the reason the publisher decided to publish" is even worse, since you are requiring psychic powers. If the articles says somewhere "this is not an important case", yes, I'll listen to that. Some do, saying: "this is just one of five hundred similar cases, we're detailing this one as an illustration of the trend." Do these? Others say "this case has not drawn any attention outside of Nottinghamshire." Do these? If not, then, unfortunately, lacking psychic powers, I have to assume that it is being covered as something the BBC did, in fact, consider important enough to be covered by multiple articles. As did the Telegraph. [2] As did the Mirror. [3]. As did the Scotsman (ironically enough). [4]. As did Clarin (in Argentina). [5]
  • You've got the wrong end of the stick with those sources. These articles do not support the idea that there is a wider social impact of this case - they merely place the case within a broader social context. It's like any drunken spree by teenagers can be said to raise the question of the wayward behaviour of kids today. Or any time there's a major traffic accident, it can be said that this shows that we should all be more careful drivers. Bwithh 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Hudson is not current news. The trial ended a year ago. Also WP:BIO does endorse a little crystal balling, see "Alternative Tests". Also, your or anyone else's judgement of the overall social impact is not part of the notability ciriteria, besides WP:BIO, you might want to read User:Uncle G/On notability, which is not policy, but part of what WP:BIO is based on. As to encylopedic notability, where in WP is that defined? If there's no WP definition, it's subjective for the purposes of this discussion, right? Tubezone 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Rachel Hudson is not current news." Well, of course. Nothing stays current news forever. The point of Bwithh's citation and comment (I think) is a distinction between news that has fleeting interest, and news that has lasting significance. If we apply WP:BIO's crystal ball test, which you seem to favor in your comment, it is clear that the article should be deleted, because there is no sign of lasting significance. Pan Dan 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're still here discussing here a year later, aren't we? But that and Alternative Tests don't apply in this case as the subject already passes other WP:BIO criteria. If you want to discuss notability criteria, there's a place to do that, discussions on notability, which are ongoing. The guidelines have been explained, even an admin explained them. JMHO, you're beating a dead parrot here. This AfD is 10 days old and should already be closed. Tubezone 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Re: "guidelines have been explained" -- Guidelines are not policy. I, for one (can't speak for other delete voters), acknowledge that this story passes the guideline WP:N. You continue to ignore our arguments that there is good reason to be stricter than the guideline WP:N in this case. Note that the guideline template says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (2) Re: "even an admin" -- There's at least one admin who has opined to delete above. (3) Re: "a year later" -- The only reason we're still discussing this a year later, is that I came across this article in an alt-x search. A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the last mention of Rachel Hudson (in Headline, Lead Paragraphs, or Key Terms) in European papers was in March, in two local papers; there has apparently been no mention of Rachel Hudson in the BBC since the last family member was sentenced. That's a very good indication of fleeting interest, not lasting significance. Pan Dan 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D-Analyze[edit]

3D-Analyze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Original reason was no notability within WP:SOFTWARE. However, I found a third-party user guide at http://www.3dfxzone.it/dir/articles/template.php?id=5, implying some notability (even if shaky). --Sigma 7 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I selected the right category. If possible, can you change it? --Sigma 7 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Original Research. 84,900 google hits. Maybe vanity Conflict of interest--M8v2 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've used this program in the past and it is definitely a unique piece of software. Considering its widespread use, from positive (allowing modern games to be played on older hardware) to very negative (cheating at 3DMark), it should not be difficult to find sources covering this piece of software to satisfy WP:V. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs
  • Keep Seems all right to me (Liveforever22 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete or clean up. Seems to have POV and remotely possible COI issues. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per User:Dark Shikari--C.lettinga 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails any reasonable interpretation of notability for software, including WP:SOFTWARE. Most of the "keep" reasons given here have nothing to do with why we keep or delete articles. Mus Musculus 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. About half of the keep reasons here refer to mine or are mine, which bases its reasoning off WP:V, which is the primary reason for keeping or deleting an article: verifiability. Of course, you could prove me wrong by demonstrating there are no/almost no verifiable sources, in which case I would change my vote to delete. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the WP:V standard can be met. Currently it isn't. --SECurtisTX 19:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:V is met with the link that I originally reported on, and just included within the page, and in my opinion, there may have been other pages as well. WP:NOTE may be an issue, since there is only that single guide available. In my opinion, the product does have notability, as a third party did write an article about it - if it isn't notable enough, then you may want to create a redirect to something concerning TnL emulation or otherwise merge the information into the List_of_computer_games_that_require_pixel_shaders. --Sigma 7 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. Quick googling doesn't come up with anything but forums and fan sites. It did help me find it though. =/ Kotepho 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, no substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. Sandstein 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah Griggs III[edit]

Hezekiah Griggs III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. This is vanity. - crz crztalk 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vain vanity in vain... er, coi! Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete. It's the lack of sources that bothers me most, followed closely behind by the majority of the content being positive comments. Also, Google doesn't get a whole lot of relevant hits. PullToOpen 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Abstain. Clearly vanity, and poorly written. On the other hand, I dont know anything about him so I dont know if he is notable.
  • Delete, mostly per WP:COI. Also, a majority of the comments cannot be sourced, and the information that is available (interviews on the local news, etc.) don't seem to meet the multiple non-trivial sources quota laid out in WP:BIO. Essentially a puff biography of an apparently non-notable C-level individual of a non-notable company which does not meet WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Abstain Seems vain, but if it is added to a bit more, might come around to being ok. (Liveforever22 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Have no fear, abstain strongly! - crz crztalk 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. --Dennisthe2 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete re Dennisthe2 jaydj 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails per WP:COI,WP:BIO and [7].--John Lake 05:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:John Lake--C.lettinga 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayeth Quoheleth. SkierRMH,06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa! You're going biblical on me? (It's Kohelet.) - crz crztalk 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lovely Dickensian name, though; but the fictional biography you begin to imagine upon hearing the name Hezekiah Griggs III is almost certainly more interesting than the actual person's. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Right Records[edit]

Orchestra Right Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a record label that currently represents six bands. [Check Google hits] Ghits total 12 for "Orchestra Right Records" and even searching for "Orchestra Right"+label" brings very few relevant articles in the first five pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding two of the label's clients:

Herowin - Music available on MySpace only; record not released yet. Few relevant Ghits for the name, and none of them indicate that the subject meets WP:MUSIC.
Paperfilm 67 - No album released yet, but his friends (including Herowin) like his music. 55 Ghits for the name, 17 of them "unique".

... discospinster talk 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray Sucks[edit]

Rachael Ray Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A prior debate was speedily deleted, a decision which in turn was overruled at deletion review, and is now back here for a full run. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This article is fluff. A non-existant footnote, mentions of notable papers but no links or references to back up such assertions, and a quote without sourcing of any kind. Until sources can be found this cannot be verified and merely asserting notability does not mean it is notable. Should have been speedied the first time under G11 or A7. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article about a Livejournal page that makes unsourced and unfounded assertions of notability. Apparent vanity article. Dragomiloff 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge and redirect to a brief mention in Rachael Ray. Many celebrities, firms, etc. now have a "...sucks" attack site about them (it's a sign of the high culture and politesse of modern civilization, I suppose), and they don't warrant articles. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oddly enough, wikipediasucks.com is being held in Iceland. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable LJcruft. Statements such as "[t]he community is one of the most popular on LiveJournal" do not seem credible without anything to back it up. At best, if the mentions in the publications indicated can be sourced and verified, this may be worth an extremely brief footnote per merge and redirect at the Rachael Ray article, per Newyorkbrad, but not in its current state. --Kinu t/c 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, as blogs are not inherently notable. Note, 160 ghits if you search ("Rachel Ray Sucks" -livejournal). --Dennisthe2 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - OK, I spelled Rachael wrong. Still, spelling it correctly and eliminating myspace from the equation still turns up less than 800 ghits. Mostly mentions in web fora. --Dennisthe2 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Elaragirl's comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Runescape Junkie (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete should have stayed deleted. Danny Lilithborne 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Delete Just what is the use of this? This is an insult to Rachel Ray. And I agree with Elaragirl, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyo cat (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Unverified and non-notable. TSO1D 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elaragirl, the claims of mentions in Slate, NYT, etc are not backed up by references. The LA Times link given as a reference for the Rachael Ray quote is a dead 404 error, and the quote should be removed posthaste if no reliable source can be found. Besides, while Rachael Ray ain't no Julia Child, she doesn't suck, at least not in public. Tubezone 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an attack page masquerading as an encyclopedia article of an attack website. I can't believe that the DRV people overturned this following a speedy. There is no way this meets any encyclopedic criteria. DRV was generous that day... --Jayron32 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why exactly was this overturned? Valley2city 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above--C.lettinga 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Attack page - no possibility of V; not encyclopedic at all... SkierRMH,06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rachael Ray - this is a real thing, after all, and while existence doesn't automatically get you an article, it seems like it could get a (brief) mention in the parent page (if it's not there already?) There was a sizeable thing in the NY Times Magazine about it on Nov 26.--Dmz5 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which you can read if you have a subscription - it is, therefore, technically verifiable--Dmz5 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - per Elaragirl. Non-notable, and unverified. Moreschi 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Speedy Delete - this didn't even need an AfD. should have been speedily deleted. And what's wrong with Rachel Ray?
  • comment-I really don't have much of an opinion here, but I think it's strange that so many of these votes have said stuff like "there's nothing wrong with Rachael Ray" and "she does not suck!" etc. Obviously you are all sockpuppets of Rachael Ray.--Dmz5 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Rachael Ray wants me to be her sockpuppet, she'll have to do more than cook and look cute on TV. My old lady can cook circles around Rachael Ray, but Rachael Ray's looks and cooking abilities are not at issue here, this is about notability of the the RRsucks web site. So far, we have one verifiable NYT article, one unverfiable LA times quote. Keep digging, what else you got? Tubezone 10:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Super Delete - per Elaragirl and others. IMHO, Rachael's a hottie too. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to be bold and add a passing, well-sourced reference to this in the appropriate place on Rachael Ray. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted in thirty seconds. --Dmz5 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that it's still there, I'm all for simply deleting this article.--Dmz5 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per TonyTheTiger, this LiveJournal was apparently the subject of a human interest story in November in the New York Times, and that is its claim to notability. I remain unconvinced that this is the sort of news coverage that has enough legs to keep this site interesting after a few more months have passed. And personally, I think the pendulum has swung too far, and editors are becoming too timid about making decisions which might be called subjective. I don't think that this news story makes this journal noteworthy enough. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article - well, sucks. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trollfluff. Tzaquiel 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLP - WP:RS.Bakaman 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge My first impulse was to delete. However, wikipedians should be in favor of informational availability. A small footnotes about her opposition could be included in her main article. TonyTheTiger 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no worthwhile content. Deb 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Absolute drivel. Why are we wasting our time here?--Anthony.bradbury 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Article Posted on Discussion page at 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) TonyTheTiger 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though I have frequently heard of this community its a pure cruft article that would only interest certain people. There could be a small tidbit added to the Rachael Ray article if it is not listed there already but I'm still hesistant to even consider that as a beneficial edit.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete their 15 minutes are just about up --Infrangible 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Hey, guys, WP:WEB. That's the overriding guideline here, and this undoubtedly meets it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Def agree WP:WEB. Strong presence on the web and info deserves to be here. RayNay 22:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Raynay — RayNay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep. Strongly Agree WP:WEB. Just because the "Rachael Ray Sucks" site is an "insult" to Rachael Ray does not mean it should be deleted. Should we delete the article on the Ku Klux Klan because they are an insult to black people. No. Wikipedia is a repository of information, not a place for personal vendettas. The Rachael Ray Sucks site has a strong prescense on the Web, and therefore deserves to stay on Wikipedia. GeneralChi 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD was blanked to remove all the "delete" recommendations. I think I've reconciled to the correct version. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone in the "keep" camp explain which of the WP:WEB guidelines this article meets? I personally cannot find satisfactory reliable sources (plural... as in it was mentioned once in NYT Consumed column, and that's it). I'm willing to reconsider my recommendation if more sources are found. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Fact, this group DOES exist. Fact, it has been written up several times in various publications. Fact, the owner of the group has done numerous interviews. Fact, there ARE people who dislike Rachael Ray. You can't change the facts. You can only try to hide them. michelle 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Recipe addict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: Mere existence does not make this encyclopedic, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it Google. Where are the "several" references of which you speak? Several editors have asked for these, but these requests are simply met with generalizations and commentary about "Rachael sucks, don't mask the truth!" Personally I don't care one way or another for her, so I suggest that those in the "keep" camp stick to the facts rather than perceiving this as an outlet to classify those who seek deletion based on policy as Rachael Ray minions. --Kinu t/c 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It should be noted for the benefit of those people commenting on this who have never been to wikipedia before, but wikipedia is NOT merely about "facts" or "the truth". It is about verifiable facts. Please click the blue link to learn more about this important concept. Mere existance is not enough to qualify an article for acceptance at wikipedia. Anyone can create any website at anytime. It does not mean that one can then use Wikipedia as a means of advertising that website. There does not seem to be any compelling reason that Wikipedia needs to keep this as an encyclopedia article. Perhaps as a single-sentance mention in the article Rachel Ray. But not as a complete article on its own. --Jayron32 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I agree that it needs to merge with the Rachael Ray article. The mention in the NY Times alone gives it enough presence to at least be mentioned on the RR Wiki-article. Nico2001 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fact: Wikipedia is (intended to be) an encyclopedia. —Encephalon 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic has Already been added to Rachael Ray, just so people who don't want to read this entire debate are aware. --Dmz5 10:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R G C Levens[edit]

R G C Levens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion for lack of assertion of notability was overturned, so Mr. Levens gets a full run at AfD now. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now to allow a reasonable time for expansion and establishment of notability. There's a big difference between a clearly non-notable person and a potentially notable one. Newyorkbrad 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable published author. The listings for the books do not include ISBN because they were first published before the introduction of the ISBN. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that ISBNs are 100% reliable proof of a book's existence anyway, but at least one of the books mentioned does have a ISBN[8][ Bwithh 05:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, maybe it should be moved, either to his full name or to R. G. C. Levens. —EdGl 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Spaced initials without periods is per typical British usage, as opposed to American English which would include the periods. I have located nothing in WP:MOS speaking to this issue, though there appears to have been a tentative proposal to include the periods and most articles do. In notable cases both conventions are supported, e.g. J R R Tolkien redirects to J. R. R. Tolkien. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stubbiness is not evidence of non-notability. If all past article stubs had been deleted on the basis that they didn't yet assert notability, Wikipedia would have almost no content today. dryguy 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure of WP:PROF and failure to assert substantive encyclopedic notability (even stubs should do this). The only insubstantive attempt made is the claim that he edited a classroom version of a speech or speeches by Cicero. A search of the Oxford library catalog turns up only the two books mentioned in the article plus a brief Greek translation of a Shakespeare scene he did as a student to win a student prize. Google Books (Oxford University Library is one of the 9 library partners of this project) returns 37 hits but no books by him. Of the 37 hits (some of them are inaccessible), I can only find one which is more than a passing mention or footnote[9] (no hits for his full name) Bwithh 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So many people are involved in writing textbooks it isn't funny, and it definitely doesn't make them notable. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROFC.lettinga 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:PROF as well as BIO... SkierRMH,06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vicarious 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SkierRMH Akihabara 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there is no coverage of subject by reliable, third-party sources, the contents of this article cannot be properly verified. -- Satori Son 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think some of the earlier contributors have been labouring under a misapprehension. Levens certainly didn't write textbooks. Editing a classical text is a substantially more complex and academic procedure, involving consideration of sources and careful analysis of documents over several years. That the edited text was then widely used in schools is a red herring: editions of classical texts are typically used by scholars at all levels of the discipline, and his work in this area was not like that of a "textbook hack". In addition to his work as an editor, it appears from a cursory google that Levens also researched in classical studies, and published papers in such academic journals as "Greece and Rome" and "The Classical Quarterly". Because almost all of this work was paper-based, it's difficult for us to track it down quickly: google-hits are not a good guide to notability in this case. Note that Levens was a fellow of Merton College ( for many years perhaps the most academically prestigious college at Oxford University - see the Norrington Table ): this, on its own, is a pretty good indicator of academic distinction. I've adjusted the article to reflect these points. As it stands, the article is too brief, but it's not clear to me that deleting it is the way to go; rather, we should keep and expand as time and information permit. One final thing: to say that Levens was a Mods tutor is to misunderstand the way classics are taught at Oxford, so I've deleted that as misleading. Roughly speaking, at the time that Levens was working at Oxford, his teaching load would have been largely in Literae Humaniores: Mods would have been concerned with the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, and Greats with the related history, philosophy, historiography and related disciplines. Levens would have taught whilst researching: the Oxford system is built on the principle of putting smart students in the company of leading researchers, and hoping the genius will transfer from one generation to the next ! I hope all this is helpful. WMMartin 14:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should also add that I think he passes WP:PROF. As noted above, editing a widely-used edition of a major text pretty much guarantees that he passes "Criterion 1", and this is before we get to the academic papers. WMMartin 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books project includes the digital archiving of old book texts from Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, New York Public Library, and several other major libraries[10]. I ran a search through it and specifically looked for references to his work mentioned in other books - not simply books that he wrote. I also ran a search through the Oxford University library catalog, which even threw up a prize essay he wrote as a student. So I didn't base my conclusion on a cursory use of normal google. If he was a prolific scholarly paper writer and that hasn't been shown by searches so far, that still needs to be verified (WP:V) and not simply assumed. btw, I graduated from an old, venerable college in the Oxbridge system too - but I don't see why simply being a teacher at a place like this is a supporting reason for justifying a encyclopedic article. Bwithh 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Bear Camp Road. Cbrown1023 01:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt Finley[edit]

Dewitt Finley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable / Wikipedia is not a memorial -- a sad story, to be sure, but not every untimely death is worthy of inclusion. Pop Secret 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Undecided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hotentot (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. Despite references, seems non-notable. Touching story though. "Weak Undecided"? What the heck does that mean? And how is it useful? —EdGl 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EdGl--M8v2 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Redirect/merge to Bear Camp Road. Article is not a memorial, but is instead a short bit of historical perspective, with some literary merit. Worth keeping as a stub.Yaf 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that article be merged into Bear Camp Road article. Yaf 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could co-sign a redirect. Pop Secret 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely sad... but otherwise non-notable. Wikipedia is not a news site or a memorial site. jaydj 03:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The story is sad, but nonetheless, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The RSJ 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete biography of a non-notable person. I feel no sympathy for him whatsoever, but that's another story. Danny Lilithborne 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Certainly an interesting memorial, but, by policy, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. (see 1.8) Crystallina 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--C.lettinga 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obit. SkierRMH,06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Provides historical perspective and is notable.--69.110.15.149 08:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Edison 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is neither an obituary or a memorial site, and the details of this tragedy are already covered in Bear Camp Road. I'm alright with a redirect.-- danntm T C 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Possibly wikinews if current. Seems like an old story. Merge into Bear Camp Road. TonyTheTiger 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bear Camp Road. Moncrief 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bear Camp Road. Its notable material in the debate whether to stay with trapped vehicle or try to walk to a town. --MarsRover 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The attention drawn by the plight of the Kim family on the same road makes it relevant. Pjbflynn 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect With Bear Damp Road. Not notable in of itself, but details of the incident in the other article would be worthwhile. R.E. Freak 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Parkway West Longhorn Baseball Team[edit]

2006 Parkway West Longhorn Baseball Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable; high school team which didn't even win a state title, just a local championship. MisfitToys 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll add that as the article mentions that the coach is a Missouri Hall of Famer, he perhaps merits an article. One could also start an article on the 2006 Missouri high school baseball tournament, I suppose, though it's not something I'm going to rush to do. MisfitToys 02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially a non-notable organization. Anything encyclopedic and worth mentioning can be done so in about one sentence at the school's article. The schedule, roster, etc., are extraneous for this level of team. --Kinu t/c 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable van- er, conflict of interest. Maybe give a little mention of this "dream team" in the article Parkway West High School. Nothing really to merge. —EdGl 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Completely and utterly non-notable. And as a side note, please, nobody create a page on the Missouri high school baseball tournament. That would just be terrible. -- Kicking222 04:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. perhaps a ref. on hs page--C.lettinga 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn team. Don't see any mrege as utile. SkierRMH,06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the existence of the team on the Parkway West High School, then delete as an externally unverified article on a barely remarkable high school sports team. -- saberwyn 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of the Albanian Crown to Victor Emmanuel III.[edit]

Offer of the Albanian Crown to Victor Emmanuel III. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is just a string of two long quotes. Overall, useless by itself (very trivial), and useless for the article Victor Emmanuel III as well (I checked, and I don't think anything can be merged). —EdGl 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Sable232 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is nothing but sourcetext. Pop Secret 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. MER-C 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource--C.lettinga 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and PLEASE DO NOT TRANSWIKI! This isn't source text - it's a horrible translation of the document. Also, the Italian Wiki article on Vittorio Emanuele III di Savoia [11] does not list or cite this document (ergo,nn for them, nn for us!)E basta cosi! SkierRMH,07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I agree it is useless. JIP | Talk 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Just H 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaxiVista[edit]

MaxiVista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page is about a generic commercial kvm product and should be merged into the kvm page. The page is only used by the company to advertise their product. References to competing products, alternatives or even the general kvm page are frequently removed by company officials and thus this article does not bear any encyclopedic value. Qdr 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Keep 1. Maxvista is not just "a generic commercial kvm product". If you review the specs carefully, you will find that it rather consists of two different features while the major feature is rather the screen extension to another computer by using a virtual video adapter. As far as I can see, this is a quite unique functionality. The links to other software programs do not have this major feature and cannot be compared to Maxvista at all. The particularly mentioned program "Synergy" is frequently considered falsely as an alternative to Maxvista. However, it completely lack the essential virtual video card functionality.

2. I cannot see any false statement or advertisement language in the debated article. It uses neutral description according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

3. I cannot see a compelling reason why a product description must include competitor links. If they are considered to give the feeling of objectivity they should be appropriate and as far as I can see the links which have been added and removed occasionaly do not have much in common with the virtual video function of Maxvista and can be considered as spam.

In conclusion I formally request to remove the deletion tag. 84.166.80.9 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Unless I've been dooped by for-hire reviewers, there appear to be multiple reviews of the product including [12] (though I'll have to say that review is suspiciously optimistic). Lots of blog chatter which isn't notable in and of itself for the purposes of WP:RS, but its always a good sign in my opnion. Needs to be re-written to be a bit more neutral, but squeaks by WP:SOFTWARE. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Fails to meet notability criteria. The history of the article shows a repeated effort to insert a link to the company's website and delete links to competitors, which suggests WP:COI. The content reads like a product brochure (see WP:ADS). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone comes up with multiple non-trivial references. Agree with Authalic about the WP:COI manipulation. --jaydj 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Virtual desktop article should be rewritten to include this type of software and the products such as MaxiVista, ZoneOS, etc. should be added to the list. Maybe I'll do that today.... --jaydj 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • nevermind. This concept is adequately described here. Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor and the product is already mentioned. --jaydj 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Authalic. MER-C 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. per User:CosmicPenguin's good points, but warry of WP:COI manipulation.--C.lettinga 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Authalic- really fails WP:CORPSkierRMH,07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Software notability should not be determined by reviews - there are many Web sites that review any and all software that comes down the pike. Most of it is completely irrelevant. A software wiki, maybe, but Wikipedia, no. Mus Musculus 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it seems to be a unique software concept. There seems to be any competition. I cannot find biased advertising language in the neutral description as well. Please quote evidence if you find any bias. I assume, that other entries (mainly 'Synergy' and 'Multiplicity') have been deleted as these programs completely lack the Maxivista core functionality of the virtual video port/screen extension. (Would this user 'Qdp' please stop removing my discussion entries and start accepting that my ISP (T-Online) is using shared IP addresses for approx. 50 Million internet users here?! All T-Online users use IP addresses like mine. It is amazing to see how aggressive you are trying to manipulate this article. What is your motivation here, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.88.56 (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Mr. 84.166.* Your IP space does just allow 65535 addresses. Also your style of discussion and your way of arguing gives away your identity easily. You already voted twice in this discussion, while adhering to WP:COI would require you not to take part at all. Please abstain from further attempts of manipulation. You may also notice that nobody cares whether your software is unique, if its wikipedia entry violates WP:CORP and WP:COI. If you want to erase any doubt in manipulation, please get an account and sign your comments. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future. --Qdr 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qdr: 1. Your initial deletion request is showing that you fail to understand the actual purpose of Maxvista at all. 2. Regarding your false accusation that I would be associated with Maxvista please finally aqcuire some basic skill about dynamic IP provision for dial-in internet accounts: Such IP addresses are temporarily assigned to millions users of ISP clients. If you would visit the makers website you rather find the IP 82.165.99.90, so finally stop making false accusations. 3. It is not my software, but I am a user of the software. I hope that this does not prevent me from defending this article 4. I have not manipulated anything. Rather YOU have erased MY vote. 5. I have not doublevoted (See 2.) 6. Sign your comments with full name and address before you try to teach me about id. Your Wikipedia participation does not show significantly more contribution than the continuous attempt to delete this article. 7. Refrain from false accusations in the future where you can provide no evidence. Regarding IP addresses, see #2. 8. Provide reason for your aggressive motivation to remove this particular software entry. Why not promote to delete Acronis_TrueImage or acdsee (Just as random examples) as well if you try to use WP:COI/WP:CORP as a vehicle to justify deletion of a software listing? 10. Regarding WP:SOFTWARE: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.115.119 (talk • contribs) 4:36, 17 December 2006
  • Update - I have updated Multi_monitor and feel that it adequately covers this functionality (in Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor ). Cheers. --jaydj 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaydj: How does the reference at Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor cover the two embedded Maxvista features of remote control plus extended screen? Maxvista is not only a multi monitor tool but also a remote control tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.92.150 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2006
    • Fixed. --jaydj 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Fatman[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Original closing statement seems to be closing this out of order:
The result was Speedy delete, spam at worst, no assertion of notability at best. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems somewhat notable plenty of sources and awards.--M8v2 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many (if not all) of the sources recently added seem not to meet WP:EL. Andre (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such as? That vague and unspecific comment is blatantly untrue. Which ones fail what rules? From WP:EL: "What should be linked to? 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." and none of the sites I linked to fail any of "Links normally to be avoided" list. You claim that there are lack of references applies to your own comment! --Amaccormack 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Andre (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And which of the references is a personal page or blog? You're still not answering the question. Why? BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE! --Amaccormack 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I was mainly referring to the websites like Mr. Bill's Adventureland, amateurish fan pages. I guess a personal page is slightly different from a fansite, although I think it's fairly applicable. However, what I really should have pointed out was WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources. Andre (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I've removed Mr Bill's. Any others? Because you did say "most, if not all". You still haven't backed that claim up. --Amaccormack 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I might make a similar claim of basically all the links (except O'Reilly and HOTU), which are hardly authoritative or well-known, seem like glorified versions of Mr. Bill, and O'Reilly appears to be a trivial reference at best. Andre (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just Adventure and AdventureGamers I have described below (see comment starting "Lower standards?" and proved their own notability. Did you actually look at the sites before you said that they are glorified versions of Mr Bill? Perhaps you should tell that to all the adventure game companies who keep sending them review copied of all their games... --Amaccormack 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spammy article about game whose claims to fame are 1) won independent adventure game of the year award from a review website that has 2 writers and an editor[19] 2) won a couple of lesser awards in a contest that is based on voting from an online forum on the website of the company which makes the obscure create-your-own-adventure-game software that the Game uses.[20]. Bwithh 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Bwithh--C.lettinga 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my gut tells me this article should be deleted, however this article does in my opinion meet WP:SOFTWARE. My personal tipping point was that at least one of the websites that reviewed this game is itself notable (Adventure Gamers), and the content of that page is a non-trivial discussion of this game. Vicarious 07:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GameTunnel, Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure all seem like perfectly acceptable critique of the game. It isn't WP's fault or problem that the indie/freeware developing community doesn't receive critical review in printed sources or the major gamesites, it's up to the indie community to club together and generate websites that can do that. On the other hand, when that is accomplished when will WP stop rejecting review sites because they're not Gamespot? The adventure genre is not widely covered by the published gaming press, this includes 'proper' games sold through stores, not just web-distributed ones. That's resulted in a far stronger online presence from smaller sites reviewing these titles, some of which are featured in this article. Whilst I don't accept AGS awards as being sign of anything in terms of articles belonging to WP, honest reviews are another matter. QuagmireDog 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, in my eyes this is a clear pass of WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy but certainly makes a good start. The sources seem perfectly reliable which passes WP:V. QuagmireDog 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any references to print articles on the AGSwiki page linked. The AdventureGamers website is not obviously a significant source. Getting a passing mention in an O'Reilly Book as an example of an AGS game doesn't prove much. Roger Ebert has won a Pulitzer Prize for his review work and is the first film critic to have been awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and has his work published in 200+ newspapers. If the people behind DIYGames can claim a relatively comparable level of recognition, that would make up for their being few in number Bwithh 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the corrected media link that Amaccormack sent me. My opinion of AGS is not that it may not be very obscure, but its is still peripheral to games culture. Bwithh 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn webgame. Web content is not subject to lower standards of notability, even if "It isn't WP's fault or problem that the indie/freeware developing community doesn't receive critical review in printed sources or the major gamesites". Deizio talk 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower standards? No less than 8 rival adventure sites have reviewed it! WP+SOFTWARE does not state that the non-trivial need to be in print. Since anyone can make a print-on-demand book via BookSurge these days, the printing doesn't really add very much in notability IMHO. Just Adventure, one of the reviewing sites has been described by USA Today as "an editorially rich destination for adventure gamers on the Web. It prides itself on pulling no punches and digging for scoops." PC Player touted Just Adventure as "the ideal meeting place for adventurers old and new." JA have been quoted on box covers, in magazine advertisements, and in newspapers. Adventure Gamers built a solid, dedicated readership over 7+ years, owing to its reputation for high editorial standards. The website has been quoted in magazines and on box covers, has been cited in game-related books and appeared on television several times. Adventure Gamers has over 20,000 unique visitors every day. gametunnel.com have been on G4TV in February 2006, September 2005 and January 2005. etc. etc. if you care to look. Please, if you are going to deny the validity of the references in the article, please specifically denounce each one, with evidence, until there are less than 2 left and the article then fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Amaccormack 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Mus Musculus 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, commercially-released indie games are rare, and this one was reviewed on HOTU, which is one of the major game sites and only rarely covers indie. (Radiant) 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this isn't true, HOTU covers many indie games. Andre (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have worded that better. My point is that most indie games are not, and will never be, on HOTU, because Sarinee only adds good games (per the site charter). Thus, I would say that any indie game covered on HOTU is notable for that, moreso if it earned a Top Dog rank. (Radiant) 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any evidence that the awards are in any way significant, or that the coverage is in media considered authoritative in any way. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you didn't look very hard then. Four fat chicks, Quandryland, Adventuregamers and Just Adventure ALL feature as respected critics in metacritic and gamerankings, sites run by CNet. If that;s not enough for you, then nothing ever will be. For example, see the Sam and Max reviews here and here. With the HOTU review and this evidence, anyone who denies these links as evidence of notability is just burying the head in the sand and needs to go and re-read WP:SOFTWARE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaccormack (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh (band)[edit]

Tanakh (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. A few releases on an obscure label. - crz crztalk 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Tagger fails to point out criteria by which subject is non-notable. According to the sixth criteria listed in the guidelines of WP:MUSIC, the entry is permissible:
"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."
Notable musicians which have performed as part of this collective include David Lowery and Mick Turner; the outfit's labelmates include Polmo Polpo and Tim Hecker. --Folajimi 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states they merely "collaborated" with the band. - crz crztalk 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit grasping at straws; members of any musical collective usually have to collaborate. --Folajimi 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Recury 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, looks just above the line for notability. - Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Folajimi. —EdGl 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois)[edit]

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was prodded and deleted but restored on request at WP:DRV, so it's now here for full deliberation. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing notable about this middle school. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Unable to find anything notable about this school. Searches in Google only pull up school web sites and google news only pulls 5 hits as of today. Nothing that justifies keeping article. Further research indicates that the author may have a COI based on his/her username and previous edits. According to WP:Schools, Structure nothing indicated meets indicated criteria. Rob110178 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can safely assume that 90% of school articles are started by their students. I don't even know if that counts as COI. ~ trialsanderrors 04:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Caim 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob. Nothing notable about this school. TJ Spyke 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely above the threshold of being considered a directory entry, and far below the threshold of notability. -- Kicking222 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, it's just a directory entry. MER-C 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, another nn school. SkierRMH,07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice school, nice people, nice town. Not notable Shermerville
  • FWIW, given the howling mob, this should be kept. All schools are inherently notable. I think a good criterion for "notability" would be whether more than a handful of people would notice if the thing in question was removed tomorrow. Grace Note 10:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Howling mob"? What an ironic thing to say, given that (1) the reason to delete is based on a guideline which is based on policy, (2) your reason to keep is based on an idiosyncratic definition of notability, and (3) at most school AFD's, the howling mob is on the other side, making arguments to keep that are not grounded in policy. Pan Dan 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, not notable enough. Sorry. --Jrothwell (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't even claim to meet the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Schools3 (which I support) or even the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Schools (which is too inclusionist in my eyes). No independent sources used, so no reason to believe that it meets the primary notability criteria. GRBerry 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD A7, nn group, no assertion of importance. Deizio talk 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis Interactive[edit]

Noesis Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:CORP and has no reliable sources. BJTalk 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete . Dakota 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coyle's Country Store[edit]

Coyle's Country Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Relatively small chain of stores in southern Ontario. Originally prodded as a nn company that does not meet WP:CORP. It is claimed in the article, without proper verification or reliable sources that a past proprietor of the store invented instant coffee. This runs contrary to the verifiable attributions of the invention to others. Absent the instant coffee claim, there is nothing encyclopedic about this company. (See also the AfD discussion on A.J. Coyle‎, the purported "true" inventor.) Agent 86 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Related AfD discussion on A.J. Coyle is here. Notability does appear to be absence unless a source corroborates the store's claim about the history of instant coffee–unless the bogus claim itself had such notoriety to be notable, which is conceivable, but is not the case here. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --Sable232 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that store meets criteria outlined at WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP, verging on nonsense. SkierRMH,07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent verification of instant coffee claim, they are NN. No reason to beleive they will in the foreseeable future otherwise categorized. TonyTheTiger 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this article is up for deletion, then wouldn't all the articles that are just as...boring...need to be deleted, as well? For example: Benton, Missouri, Broadview Heights, Ohio, etc.
Sorry. I forgot to sign my comment: Preston47 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preston47, I'll reply on your talkpage. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DaveApter 12:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Article is lifted straight from company website so there may also me copyright problems.Glendoremus 20:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Shen Gong Wu. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wudai Weapons[edit]

Wudai Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is an exact duplicate of a section in Shen Gong Wu. Jay32183 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the concern has been addressed. MER-C 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does the exact opposite of what I suggested. This article doesn't have what it takes to stand on its own. If the article weren't a duplicate I would have handled it with a merge and a redirect. Jay32183 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come to think of it, its probably better to just make the page a redirect rather than deleting it. Jay32183 05:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. SkierRMH,07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jay32183.≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge Content per nom. Just H 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stunner at Staples[edit]

Stunner at Staples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, unclear writing, no articles link to it. Croctotheface 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom The RSJ 03:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. perhaps the author is in some sort of frenzy --jaydj 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dubious "event" with no sources. meshach 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of it. --Kyo cat¿Quíeres hablar? 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strange and unverified topic, probably OR or a hoax. TSO1D 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable event. Miracle on Ice it ain't. --Kinu t/c 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or WAY too much coffee one night. SkierRMH,07:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wait until the sportswriters refer to this game as the "stunner at staples."-- danntm T C 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete What a weird article!Coaster Kid 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Gone to Selkirk Delete.--Húsönd 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Go To Selkirk[edit]

To Go To Selkirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. prod removed by author with non notable source added. WP:NFT also applies. delete Aagtbdfoua 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company B (a cappella)[edit]

Company B (a cappella) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A student society with no claim to fame than being oldest a capella group at Brandeis University, and does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The article is mainly a vanity list of names. 0 hits on CDBaby, 3 hits on Amazon.cm - it's a girl group by the same name. Will they sue or be sued?? ;-) Delete per WP:ORGOhconfucius 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Teetering on the edge of a speedy. They've released some CDs but they seem to be DIY. Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike The Justice, I feel comfortable !voting on this one. They're a non-notable a cappella troupe. There are (I believe) twelve a cappella troupes here at 'Deis, and almost all of them have put out CDs. This one is nothing important (as far as notability is concerned; I don't think I've ever actually heard them). -- Kicking222 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND and WP:CORP. SkierRMH,07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete their picture too. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JDoorjam Talk 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hangovers[edit]

The Hangovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Collegiate a cappella group. Has released a number of albums but does not otherwise appear to assert notability. I suspect the albums are self-released, as they are not listed in Amazon.com nor cdbaby.com. I reckon the group fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Refer to the previous discussion when this article was brought up for deletion. The Hangovers, although perhaps not incredibly notable outside their sphere, are certainly notable in the realm of collegiate a cappella and Cornell University music. They are certainly far more deserving of recognition than many organizations and ensembles on Wikipedia. Referring to the criteria for a musical ensemble in WP:MUSIC, I believe The Hangovers meet the following to varying degrees:
    • 4: "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." - The Hangovers have toured extensively internationally and nationally for many years. Last year they toured Italy, and they will be traveling to Spain next year. Many of their performances have been for important individuals, such as their performance for South Korean President-elect Kim Dae-Jung in 1998. [21]. On their 2004 tour of Brazil, The Hangovers were shown on the Brazilian national television news, Jornal Nacional.
    • 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - The Hangovers spawned the Washington, D.C. a cappella ensemble, The Tone Rangers, about 20 years ago. The Tone Rangers were recently referenced in the Jennifer Aniston film, "The Break Up." [22]. Another group spawned by The Hangovers is The Breakers [23], which recently toured Malaysia. Musicians Brian Chu [24] and Alan Farouk [25] are merely two of the accomplished musical alumni of The Hangovers. Also, although not a musician, politician Alan Keyes was a member of The Hangovers.
    • 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." - The Hangovers have often participated in the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella (ICCA), placing in the regional competitions. In 2001, they placed in the Mid-Atlantic semi-final competition and won recognition for "Best Entrance."
    • 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." - I admit that the "independence" of this source can be questioned, but The Hangovers are the subject of a lengthy chapter in the book Songs From the Hill [26].
    • 10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - The Hangovers have performed on a variety of television and radio networks. As the article mentions, they perform in a PBS documentary.
    • 7: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - The Hangovers are certainly one of the pioneering groups in collegiate a cappella, and have shaped the a cappella environment at Cornell University and likely elsewhere.

I feel it better serves the Wikipedia community to strive for a broad coverage of articles than to cut itself down to only the most notable or impressive in some broad category like "music." I recognize that some organizations use this site for blatant publicity, but I think this article serves a broader purpose. Honestly, would a general encyclopedia have incredibly awesome articles like the Back to the Future timeline? Such articles only appeal to a small niche, but they are part of what makes Wikipedia great. (To clarify, I am not a member of The Hangovers.) CREarle 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whilst you may have a point with some of the arguments, I have just re-read the article, and now believe that if we trimmed out a lot of the trivial and POV crap, pardon my French, in the earlier part, I would have not got completely turned off by the time we got to the tours section. However, I must contest some of your arguments:
"backwards notability" is highly problematic, IMHO: the Tone Rangers may have came out of the Hangovers, but the fact is that group "became" the Tone Rangers, whilst the Hangovers "became" another group on their departure. Members have drift out of it by rotation on their graduation (sic), and the Tone Rangers does not equal the Hangovers.
I do not feel that WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO defines that being placed in a regional competition is noteworthy.
Songs from the Hill is a history of the Cornell Glee Club and not the Hangovers (which is but a later offshoot), Having said that, anything less than a chapter in the book on the latter would IMO be a death knell. It is indeed correct to say that it is not independent, nor is it multiple.
By (10), I'm pretty sure the drafters didn't really mean that anyone who has publicly performed "The Theme from the Rockford Files" or "Who Are You?" be notable. They were referring, inter alia to Trevor Rabin, Stanley Clarke, Stewart Copeland, Thomas Dolby, Bobby McFerrin, who performed theme songs "for" (and not "from") films and TV shows. Ohconfucius 08:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massive POV problems, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND; being notable in their own niche doesn't make them encyclopedically notable. SkierRMH,07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - POV is not a reason to delete an article (and I'm not really sure what you're referring to anyway), WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND are the same thing, and being notable in its own niche is absolutely a mark of notability for most things in most topic areas, including musical acts. JDoorjam Talk 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs work but I think I have to go with keep, the stuff cited above does seem to tip the balance in favor of notability.--Dmz5 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cornell University Glee Club. These are not notable unless they have won major competitions. Mus Musculus 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the same reasons it was kept last time the article was AfD'd. CREarle lays out a good number of reasons to keep this article. Ohconfucius: the Hangovers performed the theme song for the PBS special. It's them singing. It's not a cover. And, as ICCA is as major a competition as there is in this genre, they clearly qualify under criterion #9. They've had an original song that's been written up in college-related publications and has gotten airplay. They tour widely and have been featured in international media while touring. The article is sourced and the group has notable accomplishments. JDoorjam Talk 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry to be pedantic, but nowhere in the article does it state the group "performed the theme for a PBS broadcast" - that's a new piec of informaion you've imparted; I'm not deprecating the ICCA, but the group won competition at a regional level, whilst policy states this should be a major competition. In all the other debates I've read, the consensus meaning is competition at a national level. Ohconfucius 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This group meets many criteria for notability, beyond that, they are a part of the oldest organization at Cornell. Some members have gone on to produce other notable groups. If there are POV problems, I suggest they get fixed instead of deleting this otherwise good article outright. Pumeleon 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CREarle. This is a clearly a notable group, and if the article needs work then let that work get done. Cornell Rockey 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSTAIN Normally I would be all over deleting the hell out of an article like this, but I'm too tired right now to research it to back up a delete. I will, however, be happy to edit the hell out of the article, police it to get rid of the POV crap (no, I don't apologize for that remark...it is crap), and generally clean up the article. I will remove anything that is not cited or sourced so that should help clean up the article and clarify which way this AFD should go. --Brian (How am I doing?) 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CREarle --Xiahou 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this AfD began, a great number of references have been added to the article, including international news coverage of one of the Hangovers' tours. Further tags, most likely citing the chapter of Slon's book dedicated to the Hangovers, are likely to be added in the next twelve hours. As often happens, this has proven to be a good opportunity for article growth. I encourage those editors who have cited citation or POV issues to take the discussion to that talk page, where it can be addressed in a drive to improve the article. JDoorjam Talk 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous arguments, the group's history and achievements certainly merit an article. The article itself could be tightened to reflect those rather than focusing on recent and more minor issues, but should not be removed. I see it is being edited even as I write this. airbreather
  • Keep (but improve) they are notable, their site is visited often according to Alexa, and they have 636 listeners on last.fm (which only represents a small percentage, not many people use last.fm) Noteworthy, keep the article! But remember NPOV! Matt 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOR. Does not have any reliable secondary sources to back up any of the claims cited above as per its notability claim. It's "international tour" is a Cornell Univiersity press release, not a real third party news source. They haven't placed in ICCA, only participated and placed in much smaller local competitions. Even the keep vote above admits theres no idependent coverage of this group (i.e. non-members; not within the bubble of their university). Having been on television is not the same has having performed the theme for a television show. There is no evidence that they are any more notable than the average a capella group (i.e. having performed in front of a few famous people, been on tv once, 15th place at the local competition, paid BOCA to get on the cd). There is no way this article will ever be able to become substantial based off material that can be cited to reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources. If they only people who would want to write it (or who would be able to write it!) are members of the group, that is clearly indicative of a WP:V violation. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are already multiple non-trivial references to the Hangovers, including both a national newspaper article about them and a book with a chapter dedicated to the Hangovers. Yes, you're right: there are also university press releases, and references to the official website, but you're moving the goalposts here. Those are both reasonably reliable sources which add to the scope of the article; you're acting as though using them somehow weakens the content. I'm still not clear on the confusion about the TV show thing: they went into a studio and recorded a song, written by a member of the group, specifically for the TV show. It was then broadcast as part of the production of that show. Not incidentally, the reference to their participation in the production of that show is listed at PBS.org, which is certainly (yet another) "reliable secondary source." You are correct that they were also later on television performing, but that was an entirely different event (which seems, therefore, to further add to their notability). The article is well-referenced and only continues to get better-referenced. I'm not at all clear how deleting this article would be anything but a net loss to Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Based on the recent edits by savidan, he's gone on a crusade to delete 20+ collegiate a cappella groups. CREarle 04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Grandmasterka 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Paws[edit]

Hit Paws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group with very weak or no assertion of notability. I see nothing on their website which would indicate it passes WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Elizabethan era. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethans[edit]

Elizabethans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group. Article has little or no assertion of notability. Albums appear to have been self-released, and most likely fails WP:MUSIC 0 hits in Amazon.com, 0 hits on cdbaby. Delete Ohconfucius 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game-Spectrum[edit]

Game-Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable. Fails WP:WEB. MKoltnow 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question the article says "It originated from "Xbox Underground,"". Now does this mean that the XU changed their name to Game-Spectrum? If so then keep because the XU might pass notability. However, if it is just a fork of XU users, then it definitely fails notability. Koweja 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, the XU changed its name to G-S. XU appeared to be a personal project, hosted at tripod. XU is IMHO also NN. It is a fansite and blog. MKoltnow 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment perhaps I'm thinking of something else then, I'll look into it and remain neutral for now. Thanks. Koweja 04:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an article about a web site, ... online forum ... or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This is just an OR history of a website with not assertion of notability whatsoever. Being created by a single-purpose account and edited by anon IP's points straight to WP:AUTO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - {{db-web}} and {{db-spam}} per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - As spam. Blatant advertising, a quick check of the thread Solomon linked to confirms that. The Kinslayer 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humtones[edit]

Humtones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group. Article has some notability. Albums appear to have been self-released, and I hardly consider 7 gigs (in fellow universities) over 2 semesters a "nationwide tour" per WP:MUSIC. With the possible exception of two alumni listed, most likely not to be notable. 0 hits in Amazon.com, 0 hits on cdbaby. Delete Ohconfucius 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... it's no surprise that one can find a self-produced CD from a greater Philadelphia a cappella group at a record shop in Philadelphia. That being said, there's no evidence of it not being self-produced, or that WP:MUSIC is met in any other way. --Kinu t/c 05:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... fails WP:BAND and CORP and MUSIC...mmmmmmSkierRMH,07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete savidan(talk) (e@) 01:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitby Incident[edit]

The Whitby Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

From what I can tell, this is an old stale joke, (traditionally associated with Hartlepool in County Durham) restated to poke fun at Yorkshiremen (who supposedly think a chimp is Frenchman because of what they read in London newspapers). Google gives only 2 relevant hits: WP and the reference used in the WP article. The real Whitby incident involved the first Luftwaffe plane shot down in England during WW2. The joke is adequately covered under Hartlepool, although I'm pretty sure similar jokes predated the Hartlepool incident. Tubezone 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, I think several Luftwaffe planes had already been shot down in Scotland. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per nom and lack of any source. --Bryson 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Aagtbdfoua 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... and avoiding references to surrenderchimpanzees.SkierRMH,07:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - the source makes only a passing reference, and reads like the Hartlepool story misremembered – the two towns aren't that far apart. .. dave souza, talk 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurs in antiquity[edit]

Centaurs in antiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'll skip the prod since I'm sure it would be contested. POV fork from Centaurs as acknowledged in the page history. I assume the controversial assertion is that Centaurs actually existed and the article suggests (via non-reliable sources) they still exist today. One section outlines reports of centaurs in antiquity, which can be merged back to Centaurs Aagtbdfoua 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have added, I think this should be deleted Aagtbdfoua 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails verifiable sources. My apologies to Wikiproject:Paranormal, but UFO/Paranormal websites are not peer reviewed secondary sources, so do not count as valid sources for wikipedia. Footnote #1 looks like it may be valid although I'm not familiar with that site, but #2 through #5 are not. Lacking decent sources, this teeters toward either OR or outright hoax-Markeer 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the suggestion that they existed is POV without valid sources to back up that claim. Merge historical notes back to the main article, though. Quack 688 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does it really say something to the effect of "There's lots of historical evidence that centaurs existed"? -Amarkov blahedits 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax! And there's no references to their mermaid cousins. SkierRMH,07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Centaur. It needs a cleanup so as to not leave open the possibilty of centaurs having actually existed, but the sourcing doesn't seem bad enough to be deletion-worthy (one source that got lost in the shuffle is this book excerpt[27]). The only reason this article isn't just a keep and cleaunp case is that it's a POV fork. BCoates 10:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back per BCoates. If the information can't survive in Centaur, it probably doesn't need to be here. Tzaquiel 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hilarious! No seriously, do whatever. --- RockMFR 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it in the interest of the unknown truth. Don't be so arrogant, guys. - UserX
  • Delete hoax per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and having a brain in your head. Doczilla 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Centaur - that is if there is any content worth merging. Peterkingiron 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This definitely is a POV Fork, contrary to the applicable guideline Wikipedia:Content forking. The webpage that is source 1 claims to be notes from a book; Amazon.com's webpage for the book does have a review from Scientific American, and that review even notes that there is some discussion of centaurs in the book. The book should be a reliable and usable source; but I get the feeling from reading the webpage that it contains just portions of the book's discussion - which leads to questions of what is included. The other things don't seem to me to be reliable sources; or at least they should be discussed at Centaur, so I wouldn't merge. GRBerry 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the beastiality section Historical Evidence of Human-Animal Sexual Contacts as I'm afraid school children will find this as they research parts of Harry Potter, then merge a shorter section back to Centaur#In Antiquity SweetGodiva 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. --- RockMFR 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drivel. Reads like a drunken school essay. Anything worth saying here can be said quite happily in Centaur. WMMartin 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BOLLOCKS. Sandstein 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Dawg House[edit]

Out of the Dawg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I find absolutely nothing notable about this college a cappella group. Self-released CD (nothing on CDbaby). No assertion of notability otherwise. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH,07:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, and very weak assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 12:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group is only in their fourth year, so I think they deserve a chance. One noteworthy fact is that they are Butler University's first all male a cappella group. Isn't that enough for a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.178.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. The anonymous editor above unwittingly asserts the lack of notability by stating that they are only in their fourth year. WP:NOT a crystal ball for a cappella groups that may eventually have a lasting impact on the genre. And please note that no one "deserve[s]" an article on Wikipedia: if enough evidence is provided to meet notability standards and the consensus is to keep the article, then it gets one. As it is, this does not look likely. --Kinu t/c 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JDoorjam Talk 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Freeman[edit]

Bill Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(See also first AFD) This page was brought to the attention of WP:BLPN so I took a look at it. It is filled with nothing but rumors and allegations against the subject of the article. "By the late 1990s, allegations resurfaced that Freeman's wife, Patsy, had caused numerous divorces in different cities and mentally abused many different church-members." What the heck does that mean? She caused numerous divorces? That doesn't even make sense. The ENTIRE article is an attack page - it isn't just one or two sentences. I looked back in history and this article is basically identical to the first version [28] 1.5 years ago, so there is no good version to revert back to. The article was kept at AFD before, but the only question was notability. But we now have a new policy, WP:BLP which says that unsourced or poorly sourced information must be removed. I have no idea if the guy is notable or not, but this attack page ought to be deleted so that a decent article can be written, if desired.

  • Speedy delete as attack page. So tagged. MER-C 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree with you ... I just think it seems strange to speedy a page that has survived an AFD and been edited by three administrators I recognize. By all means, though, I am in favor of a speedy. BigDT 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure I agree that the "entire article" is an attack page -- seems to me about two sentences could be removed and two others trimmed, and you have a basic history of the group. The "Whitworthian" coverage is certainly WP:V to that extent. I'm less convinced of the WP:N side of things, because the controversy seems to all be local and minor (of the church kerfuffle variety). They don't cause controversy in the community, that is. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the Whitworthian is a school newspaper ... if it's like our school newspaper was at Tech, I'm not sure I'd believe it if it said the sky was blue. The content of the article seems mostly to come from an opinion piece written by the editor of the school newspaper. The other two references are anti-cult sources. Googling, I couldn't find anything else out there except for other anti-cult publications ... so I'm not sure that there's anything out there to even attempt to write a neutral article. At any rate, an article that is just a rehash of allegations is, in my book, an attack page, even if someone else has made the allegations too. BigDT 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an attack page, per Dhartung. But the sourcing fails WP:V and the subject(s) fail WP:N Bucketsofg 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Balance The two anti-cult sites are clearly relying on the Whitworthian coverage, and are effectively just reprinting portions of it. (The Apologetics Index is more honest about it; it uses quotations and cites its source.) At this time, there is one book he edited with Amazon sales rank above 150K, and three he wrote with sales ranks between 500K and 1 Million. Amazon shows that he wrote some books back in the 1970s, so somewhere in the past 30 years there probably have been multiple independent reviews of his work, causing him to pass WP:BIO. But the article doesn't demonstrate it, or even say anything about his writing books. So I'm comfortable with deletion as the article really only has one source, and that one is inadequate for writing a NPOV article. GRBerry 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletion for violating Wiki policies on biographies of living persons. This article is highly biased. When blatant POV statements are removed, the author promptly reinserts them, making a neutral article about Bill Freeman's life and work as a Christian speaker and writer impossible. Additionally, the article is factually incorrect. For example, it claims that the Freemans own SIX houses, which is not accurate. It is apparent that the author of this article has a personal vendetta against the Freemans. The "sources" are nothing more than published personal attacks which do not constitute a factual biographical article. This article needs to be deleted entirely to prevent the propogation of misinformation.Wh4ever 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletion for obvious attack article. The author uses and maintains incorrect facts to support a personal agenda. Ckmnstr
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Although a current student at MIT myself, I must agree with the conclusion that Resonance isn't that notable. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance (MIT)[edit]

Resonance (MIT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second nomination for deletion (see first one here) The article only asserts notability weakly, as having been "recognied by the Contemporary A Cappella Society". They play on campus and do not seem to go on tour, and their albums are self-released, so it fails WP:MUSIC. The article has remained in this state since March. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No encyclopedic notability asserted. Fails WP:Music. It was asserted in the first afd that inclusion in the 2006 Best of College A Capella CD (as one of about 20 tracks from about 20 different groups) indicated that the group had won a major competition. I'm not sure about this. Here's an excerpt from the contest's FAQ[29]:

Does it cost anything to appear on BOCA? Yes. Groups are required to pre-purchase 50 CDs at $5 apiece, for a total of $250, in order to appear on BOCA. Note that you are not limited to 50 CDs; some groups have bought many more and sold them on campus for much more than $5 each. What do we get out of appearing on BOCA? Bragging rights for one. More than 100 CDs are submitted each year for BOCA, of which we will choose fewer than 20. You can sell your copies at any price, though you only pay us $5 for them, so at $15 per, you make a 200 per cent profit. You also get international publicity, and we include contact information in the liner notes so people who like what they hear can order your disc.

Well, the "international publicity" sounds nice (though all the groups on the 2006 CD were from the US, and the organization running the contest is taking, rather than giving money away...) Bwithh 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, any mergers remain an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hash Bash[edit]

Hash Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think that this article does not establish notability for the event that it describes. The second paragraph does not seem to have anything to do with the event. Delete unless material is added to establish notability. I prod'ed this but the prod is contested, so that's why I'm bringing it for discussion. It does return a lot of google hits, but there does not seem to be a lot of national coverage. The most pertinent guidlines for notability on this might be WP:ORG and it does not seem to pass those.TheRingess 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without some proof of notability. I'm convinced from the refs below that it's notable enough to stay on Wikipedia in some form - Merge into Culture in Ann Arbor, Michigan seems like the best choice. Quack 688 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - doesn't seem to pass ORG, not much non-local coverage.SkierRMH,07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a UofM alum, the Hash Bash is a huge event (if you can't tell by the photo). The google hits are indicative of its significance. If deleted should be merged more fully into Culture_in_Ann_Arbor,_Michigan. TonyTheTiger 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with the idea to merge, I simply don't think this event is notable enough for its own article.I simply think that the article does not provide enough context to establish the notability of the event. I just read the culture article and it is already there. This article says nothing more than the brief blurb in that article. To me, that's another reason for deleting this stub.TheRingess 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Hash Bash was/is a distinct footnote in American social history. I had heard of it before coming to Ann Arbor.--EricaAckerman 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thank you for contributing to the discussion. Without sources, we have no way of determining the accuracy of your statement, and this is really what the discussion is about. If you can, please edit the article to include sources that show the national/international notability of the event. For example, coverage in a national newspaper/magazine might help, but articles in alumni newsletters/magazines or magazines that do not have a broad readership, probably wouldn't. Thanks again for your desire to contribute. TheRingess 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge No sources providing notability, but if they can be found, I certainly wouldn't be against mergine into the approrpiate UMich article. -- Kicking222 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detele per nom.≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perplexed. As a Michigan alum I know this gets tons of coverage in the local press each year, but I cannot seem to find any of it with a quick search, with the exception of some articles in the Detroit News [30]. Merge until we can find some reliable sources that discuss the event. JChap2007 00:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ummm, the PRODer notes that there are many hits, some of which I note are the result of the Ann Arbor historical society, yet these are dismissed because they are largely local? The vast majority of the hits for CN Tower from from Toronto, so that criterion seems extremely weak. There's also mentions of caselaw at what appears to be the State level, which seems to nullify the argument, and a large number of link-ins from various "pot" related sites that are not local. And given that the "zeroth" bash (1970) included John Lennon, Yoko Ono and Alan Ginsberg [31], it would seem the justification for inclusion based on historical notability is more than obvious. Maury 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that comparing this to the CN Tower is a good analogy. According to the article the CN Tower is listed in the Guinness book of records as the world's tallest building. That fact alone qualifies the CN Tower for an article in Wikipeida. John Lennon and Yoko Ono must have played lots of venues in their time, does that automatically qualify every venue for inclusion in Wikipedia? I simply think that this is fine as part of the culture in Ann Arbor article, but does not qualify for a separate article. Lots of universities have street fairs, carnivals and parades. Should wikipedia have an article for each one? I change my vote to redirect to the culture article and if an interested editor wishes to expand that section (for example, to include a history of the event, notable performances, coverage in national media, etc) to the point where a separate article is warranted, then great.TheRingess 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide examples of other "university street fairs" that are quoted as legal precedent, I'm all ears. You ask "Should wikipedia have an article for each one", but that's a non-sequitur, whether or not it should (and I say "sure") is no argument on whether or not this one should be here. It seems more than notable, which pretty much ends the argument IMHO. And it's not like merging it into some other page would save resources or anything, all that would do is make it more difficult to find. Maury 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but I agree to disagree. A merge would not make it any harder to find, it would simply redirect them to the culture article (which as pointed out) already contains pretty much exactly the same material.TheRingess 15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is of broader historical/cultural interest for several reasons, including: A.) its catalyzing role in broader battles over marijuana legalization in left-leaning U.S. college towns in the early 1970s (see, for example, Marijuana laws in Ann Arbor, Michigan); and B.) its creation as part of the widely noted struggle to free poet/activist John Sinclair from prison, which drew support from a number of nationally noted figures. I do agree that the article could use quite a bit of improvement at this point. Ropcat 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy on Figueroa[edit]

Frenzy on Figueroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, no references, unclear writing, no articles link to it. Croctotheface 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discounting the last comment as rather unhelpful (see WP:ILIKEIT). Sandstein 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antistatic (band)[edit]

Antistatic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neutral bump up from contested speedy. A claim that it meets WP:MUSIC is on the article's talk page. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kchase T 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I placed the speedy since it did not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, but the author has clarified and the band seems to meet the criteria. --Walter Görlitz 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article/author asserts that they have performed nationwide, received independent coverage from multiple independent sources, and been placed on rotation by a major radio network. However, these have not been supported with a citation as of yet. Delete unless one of these can be supported with a reliable source. —ShadowHalo 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Article does not provide reliable, third-party sources and I was unable to locate any. -- Satori Son 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added three sources now, which I believe to be reliable (they are from well-known Australian music websites). A-Thousand-Lies 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - its a small article and it seems like the band will be GREAT someday68.6.66.11 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Johns Hopkins Mental Notes[edit]

The Johns Hopkins Mental Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The weakest assertion of notability. 3 self-released albums. No indication at all that it has toured. The group is known, presumably to the University only, for "exhibiting wild, deranged and often depraved qualities for the sake of being funny" Delete Ohconfucius 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Notes[edit]

Ransom Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second nomination for deletion (see first one here). The article has remained in this state since it was nominated for deletion in March 06. It only asserts notability weakly, as having won a regional ICCA award for a song arrangement in 2001 . The group does not seem to have gone on any serious tours, and the albums are all self-released, so it fails WP:MUSIC. CDbaby search shows up 1 article, a Texas a cappella group, and I don't think this is a case of mistaken identity. Delete. Ohconfucius 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Satanic Edition[edit]

Ubuntu Satanic Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Just a desktop theme, no more notable than anything on freshmeat. Twinxor t 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think this desktop theme is notable enough. TSO1D 04:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. NN web content. Pop Secret 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. Wouldn't qualify as web content, I don't think. MER-C 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB. SkierRMH,07:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think specific desktop themes are notable. JIP | Talk 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a desktop theme as of right now, but it will become a distro of its own later. It's a new project, give it some time. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:28, 15 Dec, 2006 (UTC)
    • Things that might become notable in the future are rarely appropriate at the moment; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it becomes notable, the article can always be recreated then. --ais523 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just a desktop theme that's wandering around on the net. Though I agree that if it becomes a distro it should be recreated.--Jonnylinuxnerd 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on its userbase and unique features, of course, but I wonder what would be notable about such a distro. Right now, I could distribute a version of Ubuntu with this desktop theme included, but it not seem to be significant. Twinxor t 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Dragomiloff 22:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See if it evoles to be a good article, it's unfair to delete something based on a stub. This has gotten alot of attention in it's lifespan, and is certainly noticeable. And it may "only be a theme" on the site, but that's because there's nowhere to host a 666Mb file, so donations are being taken for a server, etc. It's not doing anyone any harm, it should stay. Matt 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, there's no evidence of a significant community or notable features in the distro. Twinxor t 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Doczilla 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems tp be popular within the Ubuntu comunity, and it's still a stub. - CchristianTehWazzit
  • Delete It isn't notable right now. Maybe it will be at some point in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —ShadowHalo 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in oppose to Ubuntu Christian Edition. Duality is what Wikipedia needs for a better NPOV. --Ragnarok Addict 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a case of false balance. A topic is not notable because it parodies something notable. Twinxor t 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This smells strongly of censorship on religious grounds. The fact that it's very existence has generated this much debate justifies it's inclusion - Cathbard 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. No evidence of notability in the stub. A "censorship on religious grounds" in an AfD discussion itself does not give notability.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future software.' How many articles are there on Wikipedia with this headline? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.176.89 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • No one's suggesting the article is to be deleted on that basis. Twinxor t 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One sentence plus an external link to the releasers. With only one link, it just escapes WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, but it appears to be spam. There isn't enough content to be a valid stub. GRBerry 04:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely non-notable. Keeping solely because we have Ubuntu Christian Edition is entirely invalid. --- RockMFR 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ubuntu Christian Edition. I'm boldly adding a sentence to that article noting its existence. WMMartin 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niche RMS[edit]

Niche RMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Only mentions in the media were reprinted press releases. Contested prod. MER-C 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, was going to urge merge into parent company, but doesn't seem to be an article for them!SkierRMH,07:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete product is not notable per WP:CORP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neco-Arc[edit]

Neco-Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor vending[edit]

Outdoor vending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and obscure department of Disneyland. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete especially since the Indoor vending department doesn't have its own article! :) SkierRMH,07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete while I realize that all subjects related to Disneyland and Walt Disney World are of at least some interest to families, this reads more like a how to guide to employment opportunities at the Anaheim site. If people wish to know what jobs are available, they can visit the Disney Corp's HR website. -Markeer 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The employee department for outdoor vending at Disneyland doesn't seem encyclopedic in itself. Subject maybe rates a one sentence mention in the Disneyland article. Dragomiloff 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. The word "cruft" was invented for this sort of stuff. WMMartin 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Jewellery Shop[edit]

My Jewellery Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This business is a small jewlery shop in Mexico. There are insufficient, third party references availible to expand this article to a fully encyclopedic article, and thus it fails the Primary Notability Criteria as spelled out in WP:N. Additionally, there are problems with violations of WP:NOT specifically, Not a directory of businesses. Jayron32 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just too small to meet CORP, no matter how much rewriting. SkierRMH,07:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not notable per WP:CORP - Justin 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the reasons stated already.--Lucifer 14:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sad but it's got to go. Deb 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reasons stated above, particularly the fact that it's going to be very unlikely to expand into an article that has a purpose on wikipedia. Bungle44 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages, poorly written and given the assertion that "it has been considered like one of the best in town by many customers" it is likely thinly-veiled spam. --Kinu t/c 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro (company)[edit]

Centro (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-g11}}. Looks like the author did quite some improvements since it was tagged. It is not a clear cut advert in my view. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even with lots of re-writes still fails WP:CORPSkierRMH,07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company is notable for receiving the Red Herring award, and is listed on the RH page as a recipient (notable recognition per WP:CORP standards).(talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to the prior claim, the source in the article only shows them as a finalist, not a recipient, and says no more about them than their name and city of operation. Of the seven links in the "article", six are to the company's site. None are to independent coverage by reliable sources primarimarily about the company, so we have no reason to believe they meet WP:CORP. GRBerry 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the three criteria for sufficient notability set forth in WP:CORP. -- Satori Son 15:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable to me. The award is of the "How can we fill fifteen pages of our magazine ? I know, let's invent an award" species. WMMartin 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Reilly[edit]

Thomas J. Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was tagged as speedy delete and contested, but meets no WP:CSD. Still, I fail to see how this person is notable under WP:BIO. Sandstein 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at quick glance gets about 10 reltive ghits. SkierRMH,07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. The creator of the article, User:Findyouranswer, appears to have added information about this individual to other articles, and has created redirects and disambiguations. These, which lead me to believe this is also a WP:COI issue, should be tended to as well. --Kinu t/c 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm still not clear how this isn't a CSD A7. Perel 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, A7 —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:28Z

Newcastle Tango Society[edit]

Newcastle Tango Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn Tango society, deprodded without comment. Possible speedy candidate Hornplease 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 06:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barrida Delete calecita Delete parada. SkierRMH,07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging (disambiguation)[edit]

Teabagging (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

original research, unverified, dicdef, and oh yeah, only links to one actual article on the topic Vicarious 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. I'm unsold on the utility here, most of the definitions are too long for a disambig page. But I'm not sure if these other definitions exist that teabagging is the best place to put the Wiktionary jump. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the word teabagging appears in Wikipedia 53 times [33]; so there is possibly a need for a disambig page - this just needs to reflect Wiki content better. SkierRMH,08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numerous references to teabagging imply a need for the teabagging article, not neccessarily a disambig page. Also, I skimmed through those 53 pages and didn't find one that referenced anything but the sexual act. Vicarious 08:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this is a list of dictionary definitions, not a true disambiguation page. Move to Wiktionary. Koweja 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary might not want them if they're not ... uhm ... true, which I don't believe they are. WilyD 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if they aren't true then speedy delete as patent nonsense with no need for a discussion. Koweja 15:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not patent nonsense. All of these appear to be tiny minority uses (ie. non-notable) of the term. Without verification, they don't belong on either Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Nick Graves 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it's properly sourced. MaxSem 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with teabagging, the "genital" example is the only one that seems sources or even notable.Bakaman 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The dab page sounds like a frat prank or something. I have never heard of any of these alt defs. Without verification, delete. TonyTheTiger 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Teabagging is definitely a frat prank (and is yet notable), but the other defs seem like cruft.Bakaman 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they're all neologisms. The sex act is the only one that has reached a sufficient level of common usage to be notable, and that already has an article.--Kubigula (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Carter[edit]

Cameron Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy, there is an assertion of notability here: "the youngest pilot to ever attend a Chicago Public School". However, this seems a fairly standard case of WP:BIO failure and probably WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Youngest pilot to ever attend a Chicago Public School? What does that even mean? And, so? --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BIO - COI? - V & WTF. SkierRMH,08:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - there needs to be some standard for what counts as an assertion of notability. If I make a page that says, "Dave is known around the world as the coolest guy ever to exist", that is speedied even though it is an assertion of notability. The "youngest pilot" line sounds almost like it was added soley for the purpose of getting around a speedy. BigDT 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are standards. Your "coolest guy" line isn't a real assertion of notability; "Dave was cited by the Amateur Pilots Association for his cool head under pressure" would be. Unfortunately, false assertions do require extra work at AFD to keep the admins honest. --Dhartung | Talk 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, more than likely a WP:COI. Possible CSD A7 candidate per above. --Kinu t/c 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Celorio[edit]

Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

contested prod (removed from article); reason given was "InstaBook PR ad and non-notable bio". Google search backs up assertion that he's NN. Dave6 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had added the prod after tracking the contribs of editors who were adding InstaBook spam to articles. This seems to be a commercial agenda. Dicklyon 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this seems to be the guy self-advertising and spamming articles. --Orange Mike 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typical BIO/SPAM combo. SkierRMH,08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete This article pass the search engine test , and the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field and has not spam. 11:10, 15 December 2006 user:BadBull
    • Comment: Please make your recommendation only once. --Kinu t/c 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. A Train take the 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication from WP:RS of any notability per WP:BIO, possible WP:COI and/or WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Based on what I'm seeing, it appears that Instabook itself may be notable per WP:CORP, and an article on that should be judged on its own merits. However, I've seen nothing indicating that this individual is notable outside of that, and very few of the references cluttering the article currently are about the individual, but rather the company. --Kinu t/c 13:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's primarily an issue of notability, not spam. If he's in the historical record, then references to that record would help establish notability. Dicklyon 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's I'll try to fix it. User:BadBull 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Multiple recommendations by User:BadBull struck again. Per WP:AFD, no more than one recommendation per person, please. --Kinu t/c 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self published writer with no apparent notability Dragomiloff 11:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, a person is notable if there have been articles and other bibliographic references about him or her that can be verified. Victor Celorio meets that requirement with hundreds of articles about him and his invention. If his invention is what made him notable, this in no way diminishes his accomplishments and/or his notability.

The genesis of the main article was the inclusion by somebody else of Victor Celorio in Wikipedia on a List of Notable Mexicans. My article specifically didn't mention the trademark name (InstaBook) to avoid the appearance of promotion. While it is true that a search of InstaBook will provide more hits, the fact remains that a search for Victor Celorio pulls a significant number of hits as a leader in Print-on-Demand technology, which is a growing segment of the publishing industry.

Therefore I believe that the entry of Victor Celorio meets the criteria set by Wikipedia and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) — Llambert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. I change my vote, now that evidence of notability is included in the article. Now if Victor and his friends will take the time to learn wikipedia editing style (start with WP:MOS, and stock deleting the editorial suggestion tags before acting on them, this article can be rescued. And if they refrain from putting commercial external links on pages other than the InstaBook article itself (if there is one) or the PediaPress article, we shouldn't have much problem about it. Dicklyon 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete. He is notable as a pioneer in the fledgling 'Books on Demand' field. He has patents as well as business operations in that arena. A google search turns up a bunch of hits on him as well as his company. The article is neutral and does not violate any copyrights that I see. Please keep it.--JustKeith 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Kperkins411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep. Changing my vote as well, as the sources seem to establish verifiability and notability for InstaBook, and Victor Celorio founded the company. My concern, however, is that the articles don't seem to say much about him other than "Victor Celorio founded Instabook", so perhaps we should be putting this information into InstaBook and redirecting this page there. (By the way, I'm not convinced that his books are at all notable; they all have Amazon sales ranks over 4 million, and that's the ones that even have a sales rank. I would imagine it's not hard for the founder of a company that prints books on demand to get his books published.) Dave6 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Fellows[edit]

Lulu Fellows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Curious one, but I'm not at all certain about notability. Young girl about whom little is known, who died in 1883, and whose grave is slightly enigmatic. The article is unencyclopaedic, poses as it does more questions than it answers. Created by User:Lulufellows ;-). Make of that what you will. Ohconfucius 06:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cut down and Merge to Rosehill Cemetery Appears to be a minor local graveyard ghost story. 7 hits from Google Books[34]. Single Factiva hit (passing mention in article about the cemetry) in a Chicago newspaper. Born Heller track claim seems to check out okay[35] (the ultimate party track). But minor ghost story mentions plus slightly weird gravemarker plus obscure track by obscure though legit minimalist folk musicans plus no details on her life except that she died of TB (according to Factiva hit) at a young age is not enough for a separate encyclopedia article. Non-encyclopedic content needs to be removed before merge of course. Bwithh 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge simple mention, a sentence or two at most, to Rosehill Cemetery. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bwithh. SkierRMH,08:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bwithh. Graveyards.com is a cool site, but not every interesting trivia story on that site deserves a WP article. Tubezone 09:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bama bangs[edit]

Bama bangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Probable nn haircut. Prod removed, references added of debatable RS status. Neutral listing. Hornplease 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn haircut, only 136 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 07:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn haircut; just a bowl cut for guys who won't take off their baseball hats. SkierRMH,08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: What do you guys think the most appropriate definition of notability for a haircut is, lacking a N:fashion list or anything? I'm inclined to say that when it's a cultural phenomenon that's been reported on by a third party (IE a croydon facelift) then it's notable, or if it's associated in an important/visible way with a notable subculture (IE the "Flock of Seagulls" haircut that typified 80s new-wave bands). Wintermut3 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say Delete as non-notable/non-encyclopedic. But then what do we do with tellum, reverse mullet, and who-knows-how-many-other stubby articles describing bad ill-advised idiosyncratic hairstyles? - Eron Talk 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only significant coverage of this hairstyle comes from Clay Travis, and that's not enough to establish notability. Nick Graves 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. —ShadowHalo 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Abbot[edit]

Article has been a stub for three years, little hope it'll ever be more than a stub. -- RosemaryPark 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - no reason put forward for deletion. MER-C 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's a bit more information out there on him, especially in re establishment of VA, just needs someone to include it. SkierRMH,08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepperSkierRMH--Xiahou 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- no valid reason given for deletion. SWAdair 06:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No reason for deleting this article. The problem is that this article has contained stub for about more than 3 years, so It should be speedy kept anyways. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Rampersad[edit]

Taran Rampersad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Digital Divide or Linux Gazette. Individual does not meet WP:BIO. Seems to not have any media coverage beyond the one BBC article in which he just interviewed and not the actual subject of the article. The Digital Divide works seem to be primarily promotional as he is associated with that. Doesn't meet WP:BIO on his own merits but could be an inclusive part of other articles. Strothra 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment By Carbon Based Subject of AfD Hello again, happy campers. It appears once more (there was the speedy delete too)... here's the deal. I could add more content to the entry, and there is plenty on the talk page - but people are more interested in deleting this entry than actually fleshing it out.

    The articles on me ABOUT the Wikipedia were seen as self-referential - and there were some that I know of, one being Associated Press. Any stuff I put on the talk page doesn't get added, instead the article is put up for deletion. Further, there has been more media coverage through Reuters references to my writing.

    Screw it, I'm tired of this. Is this a personal attack? It's a possibility, it's the same person who tagged it for deletion before. So here is my thought: If you're going to keep it, fix it or allow me to work with someone to fix it. If we're going to see this deletion notice again, delete it - it's boring me. If it's to be deleted, then the reason should not be POV. It should be solid, and it should take into account all information available on the Talk page since the first deletion notice was placed on it (by the same person, come on!). I will not write about this on my site until the process is completed, and even then it may not merit a writeup. But be advised that I have been participating in other deletion discussions. I do believe assisting in post-tsunami efforts is a little more notable than the Naked Cowboy, but perhaps less than Zanta.

    A suggested way to handle this would be to redirect to my user page, where I could put the stuff up that relates to me without conflict of interest concerns (it's a User Page). Then someone can put my user page up for deletion and we can all have a good laugh. :-)

    I'm now outside of the debate, but I will point out that data is available if there are questions related to that. --TaranRampersad 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that I never even stated POV as a reason. I stated that it failed WP:BIO guidelines. The reason I mentioned the Digital Divide articles is because they are cited in the article and the policy states that a criterion of notability is being the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I know that you have not edited the article and thus the article does not have any self-promotional characteristics or POV per se. --Strothra 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, well, you responded to me. Putting an article up for deletion is a matter of POV, mi amigo. You make judgements based on guidelines and your personal beliefs; that you are now trying to delete this entry again with the same facts available (and no attempts to assist in fixing it) does lead me to believe that you simply think this entry should not exist and that you're not interested in contributing to it. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, including your commitment to delete it. The talk page has plenty of stuff, but - shucks - it's easier to delete than contribute to this article. Trust me, I understand. :-) --TaranRampersad 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that I had nominated the article because it had POV issues. All I've seen are bios of you and a BBC article in which you are interviewed. I cited the exact policy above. There are no results when doing a GoogleNews search [36] A regular Google search mostly returns the above bios, no published works in which you are the primary subject and comes from sources with which you are not affiliated. --Strothra 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you visited the Talk Page of the article, do you know the affiliations I have? *Some* are on the talk page, so hey - I did what I could. Do you know some of them are related to the Digital Divide and may not be on the web because of the nature of the work (bridging that divide)? We've had this discussion before. Of course when you do a Google search with someone who writes often, you will find a lot of stuff that isn't used- but if you sift through them, you'll find a lot more, Strothra. Again, nothing has changed since you posted the first AfD, apparently. If you track my history, I stopped contributing for a while after the last AfD because I found it distasteful. I start contributing again, I see this again. Deja vu gets boring. Put me out of my misery, one way or the other, but for Pete's sake - be done with it. I'm quite tired of this, please don't respond to this. Save it for the debate with the people below. --TaranRampersad 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree the individual completely fails WP:BIO. One interview with the BBC does not constitute in and of itself notability, and nothing else here seems to qualify. Fail delete, I would support merge and r/d to Linux Gazette. Eusebeus 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per before. What is this now, the 5th chapter in Strothra's campaign against Taran? Get over it - holding a grudge and waging vendettas against fellow editors is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Guettarda. Possible bad faith nom. --Oakshade 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a bad faith nom, I haven't had any interaction with the editor or the article in many months. I recently came across it again and it clearly violates WP:BIO. Guerttarda had a grudge against me when I placed the last AfD and so I can perhaps see why he may think that now. Look at WP:BIO and you will see that it clearly fails to meet those guidelines. --Strothra 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be the person all the magaizes go to for an interview on the digital divide, and as such seems to be one of the top experts in his field. As such no reason to delete --T-rex 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? What evidence is there for this? I don't see any to justify such a major claim Bwithh 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this is a classic case of having a two-cent article on a million dollar subject. If this is rewritten less as a resume and more of an encyclopedic article, there won't be yet another AfD in its future. Expansion of the explanation of the activities that make him notable would definitely not hurt... including a little bit on the details and effects of his ingenuity. The external links overwhelm the stub tags below. B.Wind 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Sorry, but I'm not seeing any evidence of encyclopedic notability here at all. Or even news media notability beyond passing mentions. Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites, but nowhere in the article or in the references do I see a convincing claim to encyclopedic notability. The strongest claim is the editorial position at the Linux Gazette, a free Linux webzine. The Gazette website currently lists 6 individuals in various editorial roles[37]. On Taran's own resume, it is explained that for 9 or 10 months, he was the editor/forum admin/website manager for the site - he was not editor-in-chief or anything. Not seeing any other claims to encyclopedic notability on the resume (there is a very vague claim to have been "published widely on the internet through technical and information technology related websites and news" but nothing specific to back this claim to reputation up aside from being a contributor to a blog and also uh... contributing to Wikipedia).

The volunteer work assisting disaster relief project is of course admirable, but I'm not seeing how that is exceptional - I have friends who are working in development/aid programs (one of them is an engineer too) and come up with original schemes; it's not that unusual... there are many (though not enough) people who volunteer for this kind of disaster relief effort. In this case, the Alert Retrieval System is a great idea, but not groundbreaking - as I understand it, it consists of ARS receiving SMSs and then posting them on a website and in a mass email bulletin in order to circumvent cellphone reception problems in an affected area. (Incidentally, the article suggests that Taran proposed the idea for the Alert Retrieval System but the ARS website says someone else came up with the concept and Taran is the "project coordinator"[38]).Ran a Factiva query on him - 17 hits breaking down as 1 letter to the editor by him, 1 passing mention in a list of people speaking at a conference; 1 question posed by him in a transcript of a public online chat by User:Jimbo in 2006 in which various people asked Jimbo questions; 14 reprints of a 2004 newswire story about this newfangled invention called Wikipedia, in which Taran is used as an example of a typical non-US Wikipedian who creates articles, including one on his hometown. Is every Wikipedian who creates an article to get a Wikipedia article about themselves now? Bwithh 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I was Editor in Chief, Community Facilitator, etc at LinuxGazette.COM. A reading of the history of LinuxGazette is necessary for that. I tend to agree with many of your other points, but I take issue with this statement: "Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites". Why? Simply because of my work on digital divide issues, which by the nature of them requires someone to write them. As a human being, Bwithh, I don't appreciate that statement. I have *never* written of myself to portray myself as being larger than I am, and that one line is something I find offensive. I'm a writer. I write. No one else covered conferences in the Caribbean. That said, I can go with a delete based on present Wikipedia policy, but I find fault with a policy which enforces a digital divide. I didn't write the bio in the first place, and I have problems with the way it was written and the manner in which it has been dealt with on Wikipedia. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I don't really have anything to add, Bwithh pretty much summed it up right there. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BwithH. Akihabara 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn person. An WAY too much chit-chat about editors, their personalities, their personal lives, and their grudges. Take it to each others' talk pages or to RfC. Talk here only about the article, please. Edison 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get This Done Delete it or not, tarrying further is not productive. That this has been relisted on the Second AfD demonstrates how little people seem to be concerned about the PERSON that is being discussed here. Why isn't this done yet? First a speedy delete, then an AfD, then another AfD drawn out with it hanging over the bio. More than sufficient time has passed. 9 days? Come on. Delete it and be done with it. I'd rather no entry at all, and if this article is still in AfD process within the next 12 hours, I will write about it. Holding someone's reputation hostage is not very nice. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Bwithh's research. --Kinu t/c 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Immediately - I didn't ask for the article, I find fault in the way the entry has been handled, and I find fault with Wikipedia policy as related to those who are the people who do communicate about issues related to the digital divide. That most of my work is not verifiable on the internet through sources other than myself isn't self promotion, it was because I was and am the only person who writes about the things I have. Along with this delete, I would like the article 'Taran Rampersad' to NEVER be added to the Wikipedia without my explicit permission. As the subject of the AfD, when I say delete it should be done. So do it. Now. --TaranRampersad 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, for obvious reasons. El_C 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Halakha[edit]

Orthodox Halakha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • NOTE: This is a fruadulent vote, read on... This article was created by User:FrummerThanThou [39] and then within ten minutes he nominates this, his own article, for deletion [40] [41]. So what is he up to? He is upset that his nomination for deletion [42] of the well-established article Conservative Halakha (a label he does not like) is going nowhere, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Halakha (and about which he admits that he lacks intelligent information [43]), so he creates a bogus article about "Orthodox Halakha" (not needed since we already have two articles Orthodox Judaism and Halakha that cover this topic in great depth) and says openly "this page has been created over ambig regards what halacha is in the Conservative Halakha discussion. please help with creating reform halakha, reconstructionist halacha, mesorti halcha zionist halacha!" [44] and to add insult to injury he slaps a {{humor}} template on the talk page [45] (is that his idea of a "joke"? -- when these are serious matters.) The problem is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to know if he is serious or joking because he is acting as a law unto himself at this point, and I for one, have had to correct his disruptive editing in articles relating to Judaism too many times recently (he seems to feel he can change anything at any time any way he wants...), and his antics are now going over the top. He then flies off with the bizarre request at User talk:Crzrussian: "Please block me and my IP for 7 days, i've got some importnt things coming up and I don't trust myself to keep off totaly." [46]. Now this is a very serious matter, it reveals erratic behavior and irresponsible attitude for editing an encyclopedia, and it clear shows that User:FrummerThanThou is not just deliberately in violation of WP:HOAX but he is also in violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and perhaps it is time to consider blocking him for this pattern of disruptive behavior. Thank you. IZAK 10:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE 2: Seems that User:FrummerThanThou has now gone totally beserk, see his wild and crazy comments: "DHUH you are jew! ha! how uncool! anyways i just though i would stick that fact in YOUR face!! This template is all about that yeah!!... check out that massive star of david there, yeah!! cool isn't it?! so TOTALY superjewish!!!! oh please dont run away you confused soul! soon you will find your wiki self and i'll show the template i was realy going to welcome you with! Check history, this template used to be normal, untill it was suggested it wasnt." [47] "Hey! where you running off to!??! join our wikiproject.... hey!! come back!! join!!" [48]. This was all in response to him being upset about Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 14#Template:Bruchim. He is spinning out of control and must be stopped ASAP. IZAK 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orthodox Judaism, and discipline User:FrummerThanThou with an official Wikipedia:Requests for comment or more, because he is not only wasting other editors' time but also disrupting Wikipedia, as this (un) "humorously" contrived (non) "vote" proves. I have notified a few admins about the problems with User:FrummerThanThou and request that they take the appropriate action/s ASAP. Thank you. IZAK 10:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination and violation of WP:POINT. We shouldn't drop the content of the article just because of the creator. Someone should go through it and see if the article is worth keeping or anything to merge into Orthodox Judaism. Unless you've already done that, IZAK, in which case leave it as it is. Koweja 14:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Canceko[edit]

Lyle Canceko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The subject scores 28 unique Ghits, all of which were "trivial mentions" as part of the nominations of the Gregoire's team. I find nothing substantial among the hits, no articles about him. Ohconfucius 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotarian[edit]

Idiotarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism

Please see: Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms - F.A.A.F.A. 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To wit:

Articles on neologisms

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

  • The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
  • The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

Reliable sources for neologisms

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As nominator. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - clear neologism. SkierRMH,08:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite notable neologism: 1.4M google hits. Neologisms of such popularity are notable Alex Bakharev 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idiodeletearian - Ghits do not make a neologism not a neologism. Especially when such ghits are from blogs. I suspect the unusually high hits are due to the fact that it's simply a merging of "idiot" and anything ending with "-arian". It's like "Democrap" or "Retardpican". --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, non-notable, obscure term not known or used outside of the warblogger subculture. Dragomiloff 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Far, far more notable and more widely used than "Fitzmas," which the nominator and his ilk would fight tooth and nail to keep (despite the fact that Fitzmas will never, ever come). Jinxmchue 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd vote to delete Fitzmas in a New York Second. Go ahead and nominate it. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, Fitzmas needs to go too. As does any other use of Wikipedia to give unwarranted promotion to agenda-pushing neoblogisms whether from the left or right. Dragomiloff 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable term in widespread use in the community and worth keeping. References to this phrase on Google News Archive [49]

Google Books [50] and Google Scholar [51]. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, Wooty; self-explanatory neologism, nothing more to say here. Transwiki iff Wiktionary will take it, but don't hold back on sending this to the bit-bucket. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To quote the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." There are no reliable secondary sources mentioned in the article. GRBerry 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF--RWR8189 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has asked that this article be deleted, but is defending the much less known "santorum" neologism article. This brings up serious questions about the motivations behind this nomination. Jinxmchue 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Keep" voter/commenter Jinxmchue has voted against keeping "santorum"; which brings up serious questions about the motivations behind this comment. WP:AGF, and all that, yes? -- weirdoactor t|c 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes muster just barely, but it clearly needs work on the sourcing. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lymph node biopsy[edit]

Lymph node biopsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Excessively specific article/title. There seems to be no discernable difference between this and any other type of biopsy, only the target cells. The article could feasably be merged to Biopsy. Ohconfucius 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Different tests, different indications, different procedures. A lymph node biopsy differs from a bone marrow biopsy, which differs from gastric and colonic and liver biopsies. Not excessive whatsoever -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems OK to me. A merge to biopsy, which would be the best logical alternative, would unbalance that article. Grutness...wha? 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does have some parallels in biopsy - but makes specifics clear.SkierRMH,08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - definatly not excessive, a unique test that differs from other biopsy. Has important clinical applications in diagnosis and classification of cancer, which alone makes it significant enough. -- JE.at.UWOU|T 07:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to WikiSpace and Delete. Cbrown1023 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek[edit]

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There have recently been several Star Trek rank articles brought up or deletion, most of which were far better sourced and referenced than this one (like this one). This article is pure original research, with broken image links, and little or no sorucing except material taken from private web pages. Should be deleted as unreferenced and unsourced Husnock 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and fix the picture links. It does appear to have sources and looks pretty decent. I would also suggest expanding the page to have actual comparisons (i.e. talking about how they compare). TJ Spyke 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- lack of sources for the ranks themselves isn't the problem. There are no sources (and IMH can never be) for the cross-species comparisons of ranks which are the article's purpose. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR/synthesis, not to mention non-notable. --EEMeltonIV 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis, since the table format makes claims it can't prove. By this table, for example, a Cardassian Gil is strictly higher than a Romulan Centurion, when there is absolutely no evidence to make this claim. The Klingon ranks claim to be sourced, and the Bajoran insignia look familiar - if some sources for these can be verified, I'd like to move them onto the appropriate articles before deleting this one. Quack 688 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pre Quack 688. The proper place for listing the rank insignia is at the articles of those various Star Trek races. How a rank in one species relates to ranks of another is some of the most ridiculous OR Wikipedia has ever seen. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An interesting and informative article for anyone trying to understand the subject, although it could certainly do with some clear up and expansion. --Hibernian 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if this were properly sourced, this is going into too much detail for a fictional subject. Recury 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No support in reliable sources for the notion that the ranks the article calls comparable in fact are, so this is classic OR synthesis. JChap2007 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Star Trek or Keep. Just H 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason given for this 'keep'. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion - please provide a reason for your argument. Proto::► 11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR/synthesis & cruft. btw, the edit button for this section on the main afd listing is not working properly Bwithh 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Quack 688, WJBscribe and WP:NOR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no original research, thank you. Proto::► 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userified. All those ranks did appear on the show. Same ridiculous OR nonsense. I'll work and clean the article over time which will happen when I feel like it. --Cat out 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem isn't with the ranks. They have a place on the articles concerning each race. The OR problem comes with the comparissons i.e. this rank for species A is equivalent to that rank for species B. That has never been said on the show, and is pure speculation... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes damn it. I will rewrite it in such a way it wont be a comparasion chart anymore. It will instead be "other ranks and insignia" as in ranks of klingons and romulans and etc. Just let it rest on my userspace and close this afd. Speed up the process. --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment: Coolcat redirected the main article to his user page, breaking the link and now this AfD is actually an orphan. I think Coolcat wanted to establish a project page, but in doing so broke all the links. Can someone repair this? -Husnock 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I userified it, what MORE do you want? --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Move reversed. Coolcat, if the article is deleted, I can provide you with a copy, but please do not move pages in this manner while they are at AFD. Proto::► 11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot (and will not) work if you delete the history. People who write articles NEED the page history. --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about deleting the history? I'll undelete the entire thing including its entire history, move the entire thing to your userspace, and delete the auto-created redirect from article space. That's what providing you with a copy means. Giving you just the latest copy for you to work on would be a breach of GFDL. However - userfying the article before the AFD is closed means that no community decision would be reached, and you could just move it back if it were deleted, wasting everyone's time and sidestepping the deletion process. This is not acceptable, so it will stay where it is until the consensus is reached. Proto::► 12:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have simply said 'I will userify it after the afd is closed'. Rather than complicating it. --Cat out 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - OR or not, this is unencyclopaedic Trekkiecruft. Beam it up, admins! Moreschi 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and Delete per Husnock and Cool Cat above. Eluchil404 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing here is quite poor. Sources are only cited for the Klingons and Starfleet ranks. The source for the Starfleet ranks is not adequate, because it cannot have described the cadet insignia, because they did not exist in the real world in 1988. Furthermore, no sources are presented for the Romulans, Cardassians and Bajorans. I think the Bajoran militia ranks in particular were never as firmly established as this, and seem to be speculation based on existing traditional british/us army ranks. Morwen - Talk 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Media Scandals[edit]

Major Media Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article appears to be a disparate collection of items of what may be called fraudulent media reports, although none of the terms have been defined. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Ohconfucius 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - too vague, ultimately a POV list. SkierRMH,08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and POV issues that would result from deciding what was a major media scandal.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear criteria for what is considered "major". —ShadowHalo 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup and change the name to "False media allegations". I find the article useful, it just needs to be formatted properly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Article also suffers from POV. No inclusion of FOX, Weakly Standard, etc - F.A.A.F.A. 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irreversibly POV --Infrangible 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might work as a category with a different name and for well-sourced balanced articles specifically on media reporting scandals. But this version isn't working out as per all above. Bwithh 03:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaitainable as a fair list. Currently I belive that the "major" used in the title means "fairly recent and that I've heard about reported in US news media". A category with the same sort of content might be useful since it would more transparently reflect the inherent incompleteness. Pascal.Tesson 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sultans of Sulu[edit]

List of Sultans of Sulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a tough one. While I in principle think a "list of the sultans of Sulu" can be a good subject for an article, this isn't it. SInce its creation in september 2005 (i.e. more than a year ago), it has been tagged for cleanup, and for months it has been tagged for NPOV and lack of sources as well. The article is a mess, and is one big POV list. It seems unsalvageable to me, and none of the editors (over a 100 edits so far) has done a serious try to improve the article (wrt Wikipedia standards and policies). As it stands and has stood for over a year, it is POV, WP:OR, and heavily lacks WP:V sources, and I think it would be better to just erase it completely, and if needed start again from scratch, with a sourced, neutral article (neutral meaning: if there are disputes, show both sides, with their sources, and without taking a stance). Fram 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - That is one ugly (and POV) page. Nothing can be salvaged from that. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although I am quite tempted to salt the earth of this as well, it is likely that since it is a legitimate topic the article that arises from its ashes will be very similar (i.e. lots of all-caps and pov-ness). Honestly, though, what we have is so bad that just deleting it might help. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How about just deleting unverifiable material and starting (basically) from scratch? JulesH 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - OK, I've just read it. That's the entire article. JulesH 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments given for deletion are actually arguments for cleanup (which is badly needed). This article could be useful if it is reformatted and given sources. --Zerotalk 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User_talk:Zero0000RaveenS 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I worked on this today some, while I was at work, and I think if you someone goes through and deletes with extreme prejudice everything they can't find a source for -- which will be a lot -- it will make it at least an acceptable article, if a short one. Good luck. Deltopia 00:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per Zero cleanup and deletion 2 different things.--Xiahou 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know nothing of the subject, but there is a lot of material here that is not in the Sultanate of Sulu article. It certainly does not conform to WP style, but thant can be amended. I suspect the problem is that we lack users from that part of the world who could mend it. Peterkingiron 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind keeping it, but I do feel that in this case, since there isn't nothing really salvageable in the history, it may be better to just get rid of all the heavily POV history (never mind the terrible layout, just look at the contents) and start from scratch. I think cleanup has had more than its chance (over a year!), so saying that we should keep this because it needs to be cleaned is basically saying that any article, no matter how bad, can be kept indefinitely. I wonder where the benefit is in that, and if we in those cases aren't better of without an article than with a bad one. But anyway, I would be happy if the result of this AfD was a much improved article, then it hasn't been for naught. Fram 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York minute (abuse)[edit]

New York minute (abuse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page was split from New York minute (time) more than a year ago, and I'm not sure why it needed a split, or why this info wasn't deleted in the first place. This page, apart from the definition of the term, is pure original research, and I cannot find any verification that this term is commonly used in the way this article claims it is. (I certainly have never heard it used this way. Any New Yorkers care to comment?) Even if this term is widely used in this manner, which I doubt, this page should be nuked anyway for being virtually all original research. Grandmasterka 08:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Either neologism or dicdef. Take your pick. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary! Electricbassguy 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY (okay, no such subject link, but there should be...) -Markeer 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, dictionary definition, POV fork, and attack page. Koweja 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unverified neologism and dicdef.-- danntm T C 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lived in NYC, never heard this. Sounds more like something said outside of New York if it exists at all. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced neologism/dictionary definition. —ShadowHalo 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this in a New York nanosecond. SkierRMH,07:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GigaFrag[edit]

GigaFrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming event - unsourced, Google hits are from some blogs but nothing in the press. Most likely not notable outside its community. 125 people for the event is not a lot. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Only about 2,200 entires for "GigaFrag.net" on Google total, half of which are from blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by electricbassguy (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. BJTalk 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough. Koweja 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article needs fragging fast! The Kinslayer 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Press article which has since been deleted. If anyone can find a cache for it, there's an (albeit small) reason to keep the article. The press generally ignores gatherings like this because they happen all the time, and only the largest in the world are noted nationwide. This event, however, is a big part of gamers' lives in the Central Valley and I believe that simply because of its uniqueness, the article should stay. 206.78.5.172 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - And the local Punk night at the Penrhyn Old Hall is a big part of alternative music fans lives in the Colwyn Bay area, but that doesn't mean it warrants it's own article (and incidently, the local punk night regularly tops 200 people.) The Kinslayer 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At best has local interest to a few people. Geoffrey Spear 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • fragDelete per nom... SkierRMH,07:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I speedied this, but allowed recreation because I don't know the topic well enough.MERRY CHRISTMAS . Jimfbleak.talk.07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


I have considered the AFD discussion below, and decided to redirect the page to AMC Theaters. Regards —Encephalon 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Sounds[edit]

Cinema Sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

All information in this article is already in AMC Theaters. It adds nothing more, it appears to me as though someone just wanted to make an article, so they lifted the Cinema Sounds section from AMC Theaters and made it its own article. Electricbassguy 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 11:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahtzee Takes On The World[edit]

Non-notable webcomic which fails WP:WEB. No references to support notability. Andre (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: STFU NOOB! Andre dont you have anything better to do then undermine yahtzees work?Tons of people read the comic just because youve never read it doent mean its not good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.108.146 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete, no suggestion of notability, no reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 07:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speedy" delete - {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 09:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since this was previously listed using PROD, and the PROD tag was removed, I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy deletion under A7 which states: If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. —Doug Bell talk 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable webcomic. Speedy tag removed - let's let this afd run its course. NawlinWiki 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:WEB--none of the 86 ghits met WP:RS. Darkspots 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & WP:WEB, no notablity. SkierRMH,07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian james colmer[edit]

Ian james colmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This unreferenced biography of a non-notable person is "By Akane Yoshioka, publicist". Contested prod. MER-C 09:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non notable: crew roles, no major awards. Wrong case! (note: added imdb template to article, for better discussion) - Cate | Talk 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tech crew doesn't make it for notability. Fan-1967 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: really is artistic crew, but don't change a lot. Cate | Talk 10:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep; as such, I also withdraw my procedural nomination. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakulla Volcano[edit]

Wakulla Volcano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Was originally prodded by TheRingess (talk · contribs) with reason:

"The article is about a story that is not notable outside of Florida. There are only local sources, not national"

I personally feel that the two "reasons for deletion" listed by the prodder are flawed, and I am listing here as proscribed in the steps for deletion (contest prod means AfD, in most cases). Currently a procedural nomination - there may be some good reasons to delete this, other than those listed (which I have given my opinion for). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason for delete. Local sources are fine and notability in Florida will do. I find the story interesting and worthy of inclusion and am British. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason to delete this... it was taught in local history classes here and occasionally makes it way into the local paper for debate. Not only that but people have gone on expeditions looking for it within the past 10 years. It was even noted in the book Weird US books.--Napnet 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found a geology book which has a good treatment (and firmly attributes it to peat fires, rather than the "myterious" origin that the article apparently advanced). --Dhartung | Talk 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Maury 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just needs a little work (like most articles here), but seems to be notable and sourced. -- Satori Son 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The delete voters seem to agree it'll be OK if it is sourced and cleaned up. Majorly (Talk) 13:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of German Nazism[edit]

Consequences of German Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contains a lot of information that is available elsewhere. Title and structure implies a very linear view of history and the article verges on counter-factual in places. In my view, framing the information in this way constitutes original research. This is especially true of the information in this article which doesn't fall under the umbrella of Aftermath of World War II (e.g. the assertion that Nazism reduced racism worldwide). savidan(talk) (e@) 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, but first merge any unique information merge into the relevant country articles and Nazism. Honestly, if this can be cleaned up, sourced, and expanded, I wouldn't object to having a separate page on it. Koweja 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information is available elsewhere part of the nom is clearly nonsense. The article is in fact good, but unsourced (and I suspect, will be difficult to source). If sources are added, I'll be thrilled to switch to keep - the lack of sourcing is really the only problem. WilyD 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if sources are added I'll join WillyD Alf photoman 20:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subject can be cleaned up.RaveenS 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It would be a good idea to relist each individually. Majorly (Talk) 22:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDEN TV Tower[edit]

KDEN TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corridor TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinity Broadcasting Tower Conyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmis TV tower Topeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raycom National Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saga Communications Tower Mitchellville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSDK Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Young Broadcasting Tower Knoxville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omaha Great Empire Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Dayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cowskin Broadcasting Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southeastern Media Tower Beech Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cox Radio Tower Newnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KDNL TV Tower 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmis TV Tower Ledgeview Township (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpectraSite Communications tower Glenmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSHB/KMCI Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KTMD-TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of North Carolina Tower Brinkleyville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WDAF Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSMO Candelabra Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of North Carolina Tower Farmville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montgomery Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greater Dayton Public TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western New York Public Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NYT Tower Figure Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CHCH Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pappas Telecasting Tower Lowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briarcliff Property Tenants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scripps Howard Broadcasting Tower Sand Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cox Radio Tower Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prairie Public Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are below than that 360 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 10:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Hooperbloob 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom Akihabara 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. SkierRMH 07:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CHCH Television Tower - was tallest Canadian structure on completion, and the notability within Canada and the Commonwealth was added to the article. As for other towers listed, some could be reviewed for notability by height and purpose, particularly within nation or region. Dl2000 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CHCH Television Tower per D12000. No vote on the rest, as there is no easy way to go through so many articles at once to determine what should be kept and what not. This AfD should have been broken into smaller chunks, as DRV has a history of overturning such mass nominations. Resolute 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CHCH Television Tower per D12000, but no vote on the rest of them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CHCH Television Tower was not only the tallest structure in Canada at the time of its completion, but it's still in the Top 5. If that isn't sufficiently notable, I don't know what could be. Unconditional keep on that one. As for the others, since a "no vote" doesn't get factored in against delete or keep votes, put me down for the following: temporary keep all, kill the batch job, and renominate individually so each can be considered on its own merits. Bearcat 06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CHCH Television Tower and Delete the rest. Vegaswikian 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the nomination, I had not intended on deletion of non-US masts at this point. Furthermore, the article has been dramatically improved by User:Dl2000 since nomination. I withdraw CHCH Tower from above. Ohconfucius 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bostonians of Boston College[edit]

Bostonians of Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a capella group that does not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Their only claim to fame is having won two non-notable awards as well as "slowly building into what would become their greatest success in 2006" savidan(talk) (e@) 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & prior discussions on similar groups.SkierRMH 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Varsity Vocals runs two of the three major college a cappella competitions, the ICCA (for live performance) and BOCA (for recorded a cappella). Being chosen for BOCA is a significant accomplishment for a collegiate a cappella group; being chosen multiple times means they have won a major music competition (WP:MUSIC criterion #9) multiple times. The article is crappily written, I definitely agree, but the group is notable in the genre. JDoorjam Talk 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no independent sources vouching for the BOCA as a reliable independent "award" or "contest", let alone a "major music competition". As you can see on their website [52], their submission criteria is mainly composed of the submissions not having tuning problems or poor production quality. There is no indication on their website that they reject a significant quantity of the reasonably recorded songs that they recieve, as would be indicative of some kind of competition. In fact, you can hardly call it an award when you have to pay them! You have to buy 50 of their CDs at $5 a piece to get on their CD! It's a glorified self-produced CD. If winning the National Merit Scholarship required you to pay them $200, I doubt anyone would put it on their resume. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete - about just notable enough... per above comment. Insanephantom 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanmail.biz[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
Fanmail.biz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy, article and talk page make assertions of notability and large userbase. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:30Z

  • Delete - alexa = 115,076: [53]. Probably fails WP:WEB. MER-C 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - artice describes site with over 7,100 members, lists 91,500 addresses. One of the few free autograph collecting sites and it is by far the largest. Lutherjw 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor Alexa rank and few members, and more importantly, no references that confirm any notability. -- Kicking222 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of the biggest celebrity fanmail websites online, thousands are members in a great community where anyone can ask the moderators for help in collecting. It is totally free, a huge database of addresses is provided, and volunteers help out anyone in need.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.72.14 (talk • contribs) 15:19, December 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. Unimportant website. -IceCreamAntisocial 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing external to the website suggests its notability, and the creator hasn't supplied anything other than internal numbers. Mytildebang 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB and no verification of notability outside its own site. SkierRMH,07:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Popular website. Contains thousands of feedbacks posted by fans and autograph collectors. Example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.37.29 (talk)
  • Keep - Great website with tons of members and lots of good info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.78.229 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Offers plenty of high quality FREE! information on collecting autographs. The vast majority of similar sites now charge, but this one does not. PeterCarrig 18:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High quality useful website which is well reknowned for its reliable address information for celebs. Is mentioned frequently in the media, most recently in the Boston Globe newspaper. TheCollector 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC) No such user; this comment by 86.130.20.202 (talk · contribs)[reply]
  • Delete, no third party sources, no reliable sources, hell, no sources at all. Sandstein 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DownTown Mafia[edit]

DownTown Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:31Z

  • Delete - 116 ghits and alexa = 821,674: [54]. Woefully low for an award winning MMORPG. MER-C 10:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: "Downtown mafia" gets 15,000 Google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 11:00Z
  • Delete - so-called "award" seems to simply be a listing in a directory of games. The other references are forum posts, nothing to assert particular notability. JulesH 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WealthWars gets 723 Google hits yet it has its own page and is listed on the List of free MMORPGs.--ParalysedBeaver 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per MER-C --Mhking 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and the relevant ghits (not total) seems to be under 100. SkierRMH,07:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Discounting a listing on Top Web Games, which doesn't seem like a notable independent aware per WP:WEB, there's no assertion of notability. Mytildebang 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coskel University[edit]

Coskel University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Doesn't seem particularly notable but asserts that it is in national newspapers and major fashion magazines. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:34Z

  • Keep I've just added a link to the article in the Trinidad Guardian. It sounds like other articles could be found. JulesH 11:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep For Many of us outside the Caribbean Coskel University represents more than just clothing, it’s about representation. There is a certain amount of pride that comes from seeing our culture portrayed in a positive light, this brand entry are as important as anything else on WIKI

--Bassman17 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep new york has been mainly famous for hip-hop culture, but there is such cultural diversity and new movement happening. --Sweethands 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have said G11, as it's just an ad. I respect Carribean culture, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. JChap2007 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remarkable. qualified under WP:CORP , featured in national newspaper, major magazines and TV network —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaz14 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strongly Keep Hi, I am not too sure if I can leave a comment here...I am not a Wikipedia member or anything...but I would like to say something so I came back. Well, recently I actually looked up the word "Coskel University" in Wikipedia and ended up here...please keep the word...Thanks in advance 124.255.171.23 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Casati[edit]

Cristina Casati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Suggest merge to Luisa Casati or keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:37Z

  • Delete for failure to satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost reads like a "begat" Bible verse. Danny Lilithborne 02:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I checked for possible original article in Italian - nothing clear came up. That aside, the Marchessa's daughter faded into obscurity and did nothing notable. SkierRMH,07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hamlets College[edit]

Non-notable further education college. Contested prod. JulesH 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All post-secondary institutions are notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. First, I missed this policy decision. Can somebody point me to where it was discusssed? Particularly with reference to the British education system where secondary schooling ends at 16, rather than 18 like most countries, with the result that there are over 200 such colleges in the UK. Most of these would have nothing interesting to say about them. So why have articles on them? JulesH 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Notability of all post-secondary institutions was in a previous draft proposal of WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3, it has been removed in the last few weeks. In general, each further education college will either have a local monopoly over the A-level curriculum, or will be one of very few institutions offering the qualifications. I suggest this may satisfy the local aspect of criterion 2 of WP:SCHOOLS. For a large city like London, this is less obviously so than in more rural areas, so I defer to editors with local knowledge and decline to vote. Eludium-q36 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should stay. Tower Hamlets College is actually quite well known and respected in the East End. Sam Blacketer 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as above. Peterkingiron 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real post-secondary institution. Well known in London area. --Oakshade 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Vanburkleo[edit]

Sandra Vanburkleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 11:41Z

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtorrent[edit]

Xtorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable bit torrent client. JDtalk 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I know it is used by a small minority... I have to tend to agree that it isn't widely used enough for its own article. MrMacMan 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SOFT FirefoxMan 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's not widely used yet, it just launched and is still in early beta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.147.169.5 (talk • contribs) 21:42, December 12, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If Wikipedia went by the proposed rules of WP:SOFTWARE, most of the articles on software titles in the encyclopedia would be subject to deletion. But Xtorrent has been the subject of a number of articles and a great deal of blog hype in the Mac community due to the notoreity of its developer, so I would argue that it passes even that stringent test. Xtorrent is also notable because it is one of the first attempts to commercialize a Bit-Torrent application on a large, mainstream scale, which has already stirred some controversy. // JoshKagan Jrkagan | talk 10:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your rationale for keeping is that WP:SOFTWARE isn't applied enough and thus, shouldn't be in this specific case we are looking at? Why use logical fallacies? Just because the person next to you was driving 100MPH and you were only driving 80MPH doesn't mean you can't be pulled over and ticketed. Furthermore, if there are 'a number of articles and a great deal of blog hype' why aren't they listed as sources or cited or linked... or 'anything'? The proposed guideline asks for several independent sources of coverage for an application -- you see only MacDailyNews has been linked and even then it may only barely pass the 'article is more then a recap of download link, report version release' -- but I'll say that MDN article passes that standard. So your argument comes down to 'don't pick this app to delete when others might have problems', there is a lot of hype but there are no links that I can post to the hype and there is controversy that I also can't seem to cite or reference. When you have a actual rational for saving this article like multiple reviews, a userbase or something noteable -- please post it on wiki but right now it fails. MrMacMan 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick Google search for the application's name yields over 140,000 hits, including a link indicating that over 1200 people dugg the story on digg.com http://digg.com/apple/BitTorrent_Done_Right_Watanabe_s_Xtorrent_Previewed when Phill Ryu reviewed it, and Ryu's blog is one of the most popular Mac blogs in existence. So, my actual rational [sic] is that the application is notable, and it is improper to delete an article about a notable application by a notable author. Definitely Strong Keep. // JoshKagan Jrkagan | talk 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that the software covered by the article is a beta. Xtinguish. B.Wind 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 11:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key songs of the New Wave and Synthpop scene[edit]

Key songs of the New Wave and Synthpop scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completely, unsalvageably original research. Added to without any real consideration for verifiability. Eyrian 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even a whiff of a source. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope OR never lets you down again...: Sadly, though it's an interesting read, I don't think this can be saved from ORdom, I'd be willing to make a go at fixing it or merging or doing something with it, because it looks like an informative list if nothing else. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is probably also prone to the "hey! you forgot <insert obscure one-hit-wonder here>!" unmaintainability issues. Any ideas on something constructive that could be done with the list? it's obvious someone took a lot of time on this and it's a musical genre I'm a big fan of, so if something could be done with all or part of it (IE transwiki, a music site, ect.) I'd like to try. Wintermut3 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something constructive would be tracking down culture mag references that say each and every song on there is important. Not just chart placing, as that hardly denotes the sort of lasting influence that "key" implies (and then the list might as well be titled "Chart topping new wave artists"), but also claiming some sort of other effects. --Eyrian 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - abolutely POV as it stands - better as a category? SkierRMH,07:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Eyrian: The problem is I don't think that most of this *can* be sourced as written, because it's such a subjective criteria, heck even 'new wave' is a subjective criteria, I know some people that would object to lumping The Cure in with synthpop... I guess I'm wondering if there's a better place to move this or something we could do to save it from unmaintainability and heavy POV issues without nuking it utterly.Wintermut3 08:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear criteria, original research. —ShadowHalo 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Nibart-Devouard[edit]

Florence Nibart-Devouard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think Florence is far less notable than Angela Beesley, who herself is barely notable. Google returns about 1,000 hits by searching for "Florence Nibart-Devouard" and around 470 hits if searching for "Florence Nibart-Devouard" -wikipedia. — Canderous Ordo 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try searching for "Florence Devouard" instead of Nibart-Devouard. Angela. 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to fail WP:BIO, only 4 news ghits which seem to be trivial mentions. Self-referential. MER-C 12:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am relieved. Angela told me she had 5 AFD; I felt a little bit neglected :-) Anthere
  • Delete. Being the Chair of the Board of Trustees doesn't establish notability, nor does being a genetics researcher. Wikipedia should not have an article about every Wikimedia-related individual, as this might be very self-referencial. I believe Angela does have some notability as a Wikia co-founder which is a much higher position. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, I just ran a Nexis search, and found only three distinct articles, all related to WP, and two of those are passing references. In my opinion, that is not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Successor to Jimmy Wales who wasn't all that well known in 2001. There are some reliable sources for her [55] and given her new position the number of reliable sources will expand rapidly. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Michaelas10's and Danntm's explanations. — Canderous Ordo 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chair of the Wikimedia Board is notable. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she photographed the flower in the MediaWiki's logo which is very famous. 16@r 13:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't see how this makes her notable, you might then as well create an article over the designers of the Wikipedia logo. Could you please explain yourself further? Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh well excuse me, I wasn't enough accurate, I mean this is another reason among many other to keep this article. It's just show that she has an important place in the Wikimedia & Wikipedia community and will probably become more and more important. But I agree with you, we're not gonnna make an article about all person who designed a famous logo... 16@r 09:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chair of the Board is a notbale position. Coverage on her will expand. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really no assertion that she meets any part of BIO. Instead, the assertions to notability are that she's notable as chair of the board or successor to Wales. While it's true she's chair, Wales is still far more the "face" of wikipedia for all intents and purposes. (For example, it's his quasi-likeness that appears here.) After him is Brad Patrick, who has a higher profile in day-to-day operations as the Executive Director, but his article was redirected.--Kchase T 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Also, none of the keep arguments made here are appeals to this or any other notability guideline. Claims that she meets some subjective, personal standard is insufficient grounds to keep an article. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, a guideline is just a guide for those who can't make a decision without it, it's not a policy and it should never supersede simple common sense. Personally, I consider any guideline which would deny notability to the chair of the Wikimedia board to be a stupid guideline, which I'll happily ignore. Just because she's new in the post and is no media whore doesn't change the fact that she's the head of an entity which controls a top-20 website. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I suspect notability to WP:BIO standards will become clear before the next year is out, but it will also be easy enough to recreate the article at that time. With neither the ability to read French nor the willingess to pay for archived New York Times articles, I have no opinion on whether WP:BIO has been met yet. GRBerry 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's the chairman of Wikimedia now, isn't that notable enough?

Terence Ong 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:BIO is a guideline. It fails in certain areas, such as key people in highly notable businesses/companies/charities/etc. WP:BIO should be amended. WP:BIO also states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list" for cases just like this. Royalbroil T : C 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think she's enough known, and outside of the Wikimedia projects. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Bramlet Abercrombie; WP:BIO specifically says that failure to meet the criteria does not warrant an automatic deletion of an article. Lesgles (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is poor in the corporate world. At least lets be thorough with the prople behind this business. -- Beardo 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she is very notable now as chairperson of wikimedia no need to erase this at all Yuckfoo 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is chairperson of the organization that manages one of the ten biggest websites in the world. bbx 07:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay stereotyping[edit]

Gay_stereotyping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- (View AfD)

Gay stereotyping is hardly a valid article for wikipedia. It consists of only a few very vague sentences, which amount to not everyone who has "gay traits" (with no explanation or example of what gay traits are) is gay. Also wikipedia doesn't seem to have any articles for any other races such as Scottish, Norse, Irish, Frech, or Italian. Chooserr 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant groups not races. Chooserr 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Homophobia and delete. The article is a stub, and says it is part of homophobia. Would be better to put the info there. Jeffpw 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at the moment it's an okay stub - but needs more sources. Though I was leaning towards merge as well, let's see what develops here - so long as there are highly reputable sources presented in the future. Smeelgova 13:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep the reason that there is only a few sentence is because I wanted to remove the crap content immediately but didn't have time to expand the article. It is probably going to be the next LGBT collaboration projects so why not wait and see what can be done with it. Koweja 15:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was reading it and asked myself WTF? This is a dicdef - did someone delete all the content? Turns out yes, yes they did. Seems like a reasonable article idea, but right now it's a dicdef and an unsourced assertion that gay stereotyping come from homophobia (a dubious assertion, given how frequenty non-homophobes stereotype gays as well) and is completeley unreferenced. I hope someone will bring it up in quality. That said, I can't bring myself to argue delete, given the obvious worthwhileness of the subject. WilyD 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at the history; there used to be a lot more information here. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above. VegaDark 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: It does appear that someone stubbed this, whether it should be deleted, restored or expanded I have no idea. Wintermut3 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As Koweja explained, the content which was unsourced and POV was removed pending the article being rewritten from the ground up if it passes this AfD. The question here is whether there should be an article on Gay stereotyping (that is neutral, well referenced etc.) or not on Wikipedia. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expansion on WJBscribe's comment You can see the page before I stubbed it here. I was attempting to clean it up a bit but then realized that by the time it became a decent article nothing of the original would remain, so I just trashed it. Koweja 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment': Thanks for clearing that up Koweja, looking at both versions I have to agree with you that it needed stubbing and a fresh start, the only issue is whether that can turn into something encyclopedic I guess Wintermut3 08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BrenDJ 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable commercial enterprise, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GradeSaver[edit]

GradeSaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

a non-notable business Civilizeme 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korki Buchek[edit]

Korki_Buchek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Not a notable enough character. Never appears in the film or TV show and is simply mentioned ocasionally by Borat. This is the second time this article was created, the first time it was agreed to merge it with Da Ali g show page, now i beleive it should be at most merged to the borat page or simply deleted as it stands now.

Duhon December 14th 2006

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bing bang, bing-bing bang! El_C 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should we start a page for every fictional kazakh Borat has mentioned? Maybe a "Johnny the Monkey" page then. User:Duhon 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH,07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and fix humor tag to it, or there is not point in having the {{humor}} tag! frummer 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see Duhon Chuyelchulo 00:52 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the page is not kept, I think it should redirect to Borat rather than be deleted outright. --Lph 13:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This article extends WP to an under represented part of the world.H Bruthzoo 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- to much to delete outright, if delete, then merge content into Borat. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This page verifies that Korki Buchek is a fictional artist for the movie Borat. I looked at the page to check and see whether Korki was genuine or not. I feel that it serves a genuine purpose.Phuzion 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unyielding Keep -- notable and associated with the Borat movie. --McBakedbeanshire 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — McBakedbeanshire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • comment I just find it strange how Azamat who was feature prominently in the movie does not have his own page (it is re-directed to actor ken davitan's page), but this character who has never had any screen time (aside from an MTV Europe promo) warrants his own page. i say merge with the Borat page. .Duhon 03:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edgar181. (aeropagitica) 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lane Appreciation Society[edit]

Thomas Lane Appreciation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

unnotable facebook group Valley2city 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWF at Royal Albert Hall[edit]

I believe this should be deleted as it covers a tour that wasn't shown live all over the world, although it came out on DVD, it was not a Pay-Per-View. Davnel03 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it, like the others was not a Pay-Per-View and not shown all over the world:

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 13:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I doubt if many (if any) of these WWE overseas shows will ever have anything notable like title changes or major storyline developments. WWE usually saves those for the US PPVs with bigger audiences and better profit margins. --Eqdoktor 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They were just house shows, no notability. TJ Spyke 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn appearances! SkierRMH,07:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Peterkingiron 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  22:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was already deleted, no sense keeping this going. Luna Santin 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amrick[edit]

Amrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for A7 but seems more like a hoax to me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 12:13Z

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense --Sandy Scott 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Sandy Scott. Danny Lilithborne 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut, aber... This is a bleedin hoax SkierRMH 07:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense hoax with no verifiability whatsoever. The prod tag was also removed a few minutes ago, not a good sign.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:V is non-negotiable, and no reliable published sources have been cited for this content. Sandstein 06:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabenclan[edit]

Rabenclan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - non-notable org, original research, possible promotion, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Referenced so is not unverifiable. Any original research/promotion can be removed without deleting the whole article. Organisation is notable in my opinon for actively taking an anti-neonazi stance, pagan organisations are rarely politcal. Mallanox 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice towards creating new article - the reference is still connected to the subject; so there are still no third-party sources regarding this organization. B.Wind 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know which article Mallanox is looking at. The article I can see is not verified by reliable sources and features only an external link to the organisation's website. There is no evidence or assertion of notability here whatsoever. The editors of this article have had more than a year to cite multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the [group] itself. With none forthcoming, there is no article to be had. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- IslaySolomon | talk 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source I am looking at is the second one which is independent. Mallanox 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IslaySolomon said all there is to say. A Train take the 20:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per IslaySolomon ≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. SkierRMH,07:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is about information! Update the article, give references and add information rather than delete it! For crying out loud. FK0071a 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- if sourced, clearly notable. -- Simon Cursitor 07:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stiffer[edit]

Stiffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(contested PROD) Dictdef and seems unlikely much more could be written about it (could add a sentence mentioning the slang term "stiff" in Tipping). As it stands, even apparent WP:NEO/WP:OR...cited URL does not mention the term at all. Hopefully this isn't just a WP:SPAM for that site. DMacks 12:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, nn neologism. MER-C 13:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a spam, that is the real meaning of stiffer, someone who does not tip! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.102.165 (talk • contribs).
  • if considered spam, remove the url provided.
if considered more appropriate for the wiktionary, put it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.150.220 (talk • contribs).
  • From a pizza delivery driver:
This is a subject that needs to be addressed. As pizza delivery drivers we need to spread the word about numerous subjects. For one, the delivery charge does not go to the driver. 2, describing, in detail, what our jobs entail. Such as vehicle usage, gas reimbursement, etc.
If anything, I think we can make a page dedicated to "Pizza Delivery Tipping". The reasoning for this, is that many people feel that pizza delivery is not the same as restaurant delivery and that they aren't required to tip as would be a server. We need to get detailed and explain this thoroughly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.110.134 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete non-notable slang. Dar-Ape 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a dicdef, unsourced, et al. WilyD 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur Halldórsson[edit]

Haukur Halldórsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - no assertion of notabilty, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article is reference for verifiability is clearly not an issue. An artist who has held exhibitions internationally has to be notable. Mallanox 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand stub - international exhibitions are sufficient for WP:BIO. To disregard this is to add to systemic bias. B.Wind 04:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but still needs heavy language cleanup. Sandstein 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gharjamai[edit]

Gharjamai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A very, very vague article. I don't even know what the heck its actually meant to be talking about. There are no references stated and barely any pages that link to it Debaser23 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on it. Links will soon be up.

Suggest adding "formal tone" status rather than deletion ? Pete Orme 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite - the term seems to be of note, and even a fairly perfunctory Google search turns up some useful material about it, but the article at present is rather POV and too informally written. ~Matticus TC 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this page wants to have any chance of survival I think we need more people writing it than Xghostfacexx because so far that user has been the only editor. Debaser23 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean - Searched Google, appears to be a valid term. Needs some formal tone and be written more from the NPOV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not a English-language term. It's a term used in many Indian languages (Hindi/Bengali/Gujarati/etc.) for a man who lives in his in-laws house, instead of his own. Most of the stuff in article seems to be exaggerated. There's a movie called "Ghar Jamai", though. utcursch | talk 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term is used in subcontinent with different pronounciations and synonyms. In Urdu the word "Ghar Damad" is used where damad is the urdu word for son-in-law. The pronounication "ghar jawai" is also used. voldemortuet 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment - The gujju tranlsations are horrible, but it seems notable.Bakaman 07:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not an English word and IMO not relevant in an English language encyclopedia. - Parthi talk/contribs 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to say Keep in light of recent edits. For Parthi and others, here are some non-English words that are relevant in an English language encyclopedia: Panzer, Rio Grande, Ahimsa, Schadenfreude. A Train take the 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term 'Gharjamai' refers to a live-in son-in-law. That's what the article says. Pretty clear what it's about, just written badly. Anomo 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUFORN[edit]

AUFORN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A UFO "research" network. Google news: no hits. Factiva: no hits. Cited sources: none. Other subjects edited by creator:none. Assertions of notability: none. Creator in this instance means the individual who changed this from being a redirect to the The Disclosure Project, itself tagged as {{spam}}, and then complained on the admin notice board about "vandalism" (i.e. addition of an {{importance}} tag). Guy (Help!) 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles. I'm not given enough time to edit the article properly. I was in the middle of editing the article when I got the obtrusive message stating it's nominated for deletion. Note my link website to the AUFORN official website. It does exist. It's in the External links section of the article (works in progress as i write this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantom555 (talk • contribs)
  • Merely existing is not enough. AUFORN has to meet the notability guidelines for organizations, as outlined in WP:N and WP:ORG. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AUFORN website is not a Wikipedia reliable enough source to use to justify a separate article on AUFORN. You need to have footnotes (references) and those footnotes need to cite to newspaper articles, books, and the like. I checked available newspaper articles. Most of the newspaper articles on AUFORN only mention when they are having a meeting and have a quote or two from an AUFORN member. I've created numerous Wikipedia articles and, even with enough time to edit the article properly, there is not enough information about the organization AUFORN contained in newspapers to support an independent Wikipedia article on the organization AUFORN. If you really want a separate Wikipedia article on AUFORN, issue press releases to have one or several reliable newspapers write up the history of AUFORN. Then you can use those newspaper articles to build the Wikipedia AUFORN article. If you locate enough Wikipedia reliable sources containing information on the organization AUFORN, post a note on my talk page and I'll help you create a proper Wikipedia article.-- Jreferee 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no verifiable third party sources to establish the importance of this group. For now I have to say delete because there is a distinct lack of any reliable sourcing.--Isotope23 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If not deleted, merge/redirect to Australian Disclosure Project. Not much stand alone information here. --Onorem 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough Wikipedia independent sources to maintain a separate article. So that the deletion won't result in loss of valuable content, I added/merged all notable information about AUFORN here. -- Jreferee 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Australian Disclosure Project although a Google News Archive search does come up with something on this organisation. [56]
  • A few more reliable sources could convert me to a keep. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Me[reply]
  • Delete, I can't seem to find any reliable third-party sources. Will change my opinion if some are provided illustrating the existance and notability of this group. Lankiveil 05:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG and WP:WEB. SkierRMH,08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG - Auforn + UFOlogist Magazine + Earthlink are one of the same, a private company owners Mr Diane & Robert Frola - They run under "Earthlink Publications (Aust) Pty LTD" - Australian Business Number 66 092 197 129 - See[57] TimMU 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I see about 10 sources in that article. Do they reference the article or not? Anomo 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference the article is not enough. The article needs footnotes. A footnote is a link between the end of a sentence and the listed source. None of the 10 sources were linked directly to the end of a sentence. I added footnoted fact to give you an example of how to footnote a sentence. Before this article is deleted, you may want to use the 10 sources in that article as footnotes to the facts listed in the article. However, make sure that the footnoted source supports the fact stated in the article. Also, there needs to be Wikipedia reliable sources. A person's web page may be reliable for some facts, but it usually is not Wikipedia reliable for most facts. If there is to be a Wikipedia Auforn article, then Auforn needs to get its history in a newspaper such as those in the List of newspapers in Australia and/or perhaps a book. I think a main problem is that Auforn itself has no interest in promoting its own history. Take a look at the Auforn website. Even they do not have a history of the Auforn organization. If an Auforn article can be created in the future, one reason to send that new article to AfD would be that the organization does not want its history publicized. -- Jreferee 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG I looked around the net on on some web page and it seems that auforn is more of a 'voice piece' contact point for these two people that is about all, not that important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.73.187 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PFSL[edit]

PFSL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable and no assertion thereof. Almost no ghits [58]. Akihabara 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a very notable license and hardly any google results Jayden54 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these licenses change from use to use (hopefully, if they've got a good lawyer and translator) and none of them would really be notable/encyclopedic. SkierRMH,08:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to M/S Estonia, which wouldn't have needed an AfD. Mergers can, as an editorial decision, be done from the history. Sandstein 05:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marge Rull[edit]

Marge Rull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Claim to fame is surviving the M/S Estonia disaster and being interviewed in subsequent media coverage. Clearly not the "primary focus" of such media coverage, fails WP:BIO. Suggest redir to M/S Estonia. Deizio talk 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom and respectfully. This was a horrible disaster but that does not mean that we should list every survivor. MartinDK 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Agreed; each of the 137 survivors isn't automatically notable for that fact alone, and her media coverage is hardly in line with WP:BIO's criteria. Geoffrey Spear 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I agree with the above statements, so I suggest merging whatever's possible with the main article, and then redirecting. Jayden54 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with M/S Estonia...SkierRMH,08:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Else there should be entries for every Katrina survivor, Holocaust survivor, etc. There will and should be memorials, but WIkipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a online tribute site.TruthGal 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Johnson[edit]

Roman Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable (despite unfounded claims of fame) Lars T. 14:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non notable. IMDb lists only one short film in his page[59]. Cate | Talk 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Race car driver, actor and musician"? "Rise to fame in the United States"? Hmmm. I hope that I will be forgiven for having my doubts. 571 Google hits, many of them MySpace and apparently unrelated, with nary a race car to be seen among them. A Train take the 15:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO. Completely fails the reliable sources test. As far as his "rise to fame in the United States"... what? Sounds like WP:BALLS to me, and I'm tagging it as a hoax. --Kinu t/c 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים (Eccl 1) and hoax. SkierRMH,08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like an elaborate and pointless hoax! Slp1 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, amateur/student football club, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPFC[edit]

PPFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A school football club with no notability assertion, few ghits. Akihabara 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Clearly lacks notability; I'm not sure wy this wasn't simply prodded first. Geoffrey Spear 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable and no sources to show notability Jayden54 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied... no notablity whatsoever. SkierRMH,08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, so tagged. I'm sensitive to potential bias towards articles of "foreign" culture/origin etc. Akihabara 13:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHICKENMAN[edit]

CHICKENMAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Contested prod. WP:NOT for in memoriams. Person is not notable. Cheickenman plus greg riley gets 8 Google hits[60], Chickenman plus Gregory Riley gets 29 Google hits[61], and "gregory chickenman riley" gets 10 Google hits. The events, and the friendship with the Dropkick Murphys, is apparently real, but hasn't made any WP:V impact. Fram 14:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He died in May 2004, which is hardly a current event. I cannot see that he is notable enough for an article. LittleOldMe 15:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO so far as I can tell. If kept, certainly move to a more appropriate page name. A Train take the 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial for people who were non-notable. Condolences to his friends and family. Edison 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a memorial as has been pointed out above.--Isotope23 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who is this guy and why is his nickname spelled out in all capital letters? Lemmy12 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed Wikipedia is not a memorial and he does not meet WP:BIO requirements.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uber Delete. Just like Poet Gal said, Wikipedia is not a memorial. RedKlonoa 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a memorial, does not otherwise meet WP:BIO based on WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, non-notable-K37 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to suggest that my vote counts as I am the one that created the page, but I just wanted to put forth an argument as to why I believe he is notable. The Dropkick Murphys are an increasingly popular band and continue to put forth "Never Forget Chickenman." This causes people to wonder just who "Chickenman" was. I created this page to answer just that question. I'm sorry if the page looks abit rough, but I am new to creating pages on wikipedia, any helpful suggestions would be appreciated. Num1dgen 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: IMHO, there is no notability per WP:BIO outside of the band itself. If anything, it's worth a brief (and I emphasize that point) mention at the band's article. --Kinu t/c 05:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted by Briancua (see the "History" Section, 03:53, 15 December 2006) "the page needs work to be sure, but those stickers are on cars all over new england. its notable" Num1dgen 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as memorial/obit... SkierRMH,08:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Num1dgen points out, I did already say I thought he was notable. As the page stands now it does look like it is simply a memorial, but I think it can be reworked. For instance,rather than say GR grew up in Dehdam and lived there with his gf it should read something to the effect of GR, more commonly known as chickenman, was the inspiration for the Dropkick Murphy's Never Forget Chickenman campaign. Bumper stickers and t-shirts with this saying can be found all over New England.... Then it can go on to explain more about him,and finally what the campaign hopes to accomplish.

--Briancua 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google results for "never forget chickenman": 15 distinct ones[62]. It may be all over New England, but not one WP:V independent source seems to have picked it up, which means that it has no place on Wikipedia. Fram 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whoever put this page up for deletion is pure evil. Keep his memory alive!

Tjsrules 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Tjsrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks and instead discuss why this article should be kept or deleted according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Fram 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should been speedied, and Strong LOL at above comment. Seems liek a random person to me. Milto LOL pia 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and per nom. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 06:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although there was no consensus to delete, WP:V cannot be overridden by consensus, and no reliable published sources have been given for any of this content. Recreated as a redirect to Vocus. Sandstein 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR Web[edit]

PR Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Advertising. They justify their name at least. Akihabara 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a big enough company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, is being a "big enough company" equal to, say, passing WP:CORP or WP:WEB? I don't see "big enough" in any of those criteria. -- Kicking222 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are quite notable. OTH, article needs a LOT of work though - does not cite any independent sources for verification. All ref links are to its own websites. Its a weak keep, article is horribly written (reads like a company brochure). --Eqdoktor 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have you ever noticed how the articles (presumably self-written) we get on PR operations are so consistently badly written? Kind of makes you wonder. Fan-1967 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as spam or regular-speed delete as failing WP:V. Recury 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even their parent company, Vocus, is sufficiently notable. And since there is no non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party sources, the information in this article cannot be properly verified. Redirect to new article Vocus. -- Satori Son 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vocus is notable. See Vocus. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice job on article creation, but that still doesn't make this company notable, or provide sufficient sources for this article. I will, however, change my opinion above to "Redirect". -- Satori Son 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google News Archive search shows that they meet WP:CORP for mine. [63]Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure it's any big surprise to see a lot of press releases from a public relations firm. Not many of these hits are third-party, however, and I could not find any that were non-trivial. Do you have any specific cites that you think might qualify? If I'm wrong, show me and I'll admit it. -- Satori Son 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIRBAS[edit]

CIRBAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Article on a non notable, university based research centre. Currently reads like spam, with a hint of vanity Nuttah68 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of the article is a research facility in New Delhi, India located at the Jamia Millia Islamia university. This research facility appears to be notable and important in the field of Science Research within India. As a reminder, Wikipedia recommends avoiding describing "vanity" when referring to deletion of an article "as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles." [[64]] Drew30319 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep needs a rewrite to read less like a pamphlet, but if its claims can be substantiated, it seems notable enough. Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. The links are about the conference and only mention the institute in passing. --Chondrite 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or slicht merge to Jamia Millia Islamia. No substantial third party coverage, reads like an ad. Sandstein 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several articles and sufficient information for "notability." CuriousGiselle 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - primary purpose seems to promote the conference as other sections have been neglected. A more rounded, objective article - one with the research facility as the focus instead of a conference - is much more appropriate. B.Wind 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not find any trace of CIRBAS at Jamia Millia Islamia's website. Moreover, according to reference [4] in the article, the conference described in the first paragraph has been cancelled. There is practically nothing else beside that, so I'd say Delete. Stammer 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no 3rd party vrification, even if there was, it's still non-notable (verification <> notability). SkierRMH,08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of this is not a Research Center, but a future event. Wikipedia is not a place to plce event flyers. SweetGodiva 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gay rights in Greece. — CharlotteWebb 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Pride[edit]

The Athens gay pride march does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. Only two "Athens Pride" marches have been held, and it's not certain that the march will continue to be held. I think we should either merge with Gay rights in Greece or delete. Mitsos 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Nominator, please provide some more explicit argumentation why you think it doesn't "deserve" an article. Besides, "merge" and then "delete" is not possible for reasons of GFDL - if things are merged, a redirect must remain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Request was met, nomination modified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, also, he said merge or delete, not and. --PresN 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gay rights in Greece While this information is important, it shouldn't be in its own article. I think it would fit fine with Gay rights in Greece--Adam Riley Talk 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - not notable enough at the moment, but in the future we can always re-create the article. Jayden54 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge and Redirect The article says that the events received national and international media attention. If the articles can be expanded with this, then keep it. Otherwise, merge it into Gay rights in Greece and redirect. —ShadowHalo 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Gay rights in Greece, isn't much to show that this will be a regular event. SkierRMH,08:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete (whichever gets more support), I agree with Mitsos. //Dirak 11:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, it only started in 2005, let's wait until 2007 to see if it will be done again. You can give a seealso link in gay right in greece article. It is normal that there have only been two since it started two years ago :) There are even shorter stubs, so I don't see the point of deleting it. Maybe I should leave a note at the WP LGBT notification board to see what they think, eh Mitsos? :) Baristarim 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones[edit]

Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article does not cite sources, so nothing here is verifiable except via the Veritones website. Amsuther 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - passes WP:MUSIC since they've released five albums. Jayden54 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; their albums are self-published [65]. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for campus clubs Bwithh 21:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only self-pubished works; no other notariety. SkierRMH,08:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JDoorjam Talk 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - releasing a (self-produced) album doesn't make you notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is really more WP:ORG than WP:MUSIC, since it's a college club that performs and records music. Nonetheless, it fails; essentially all Google hits come from their own website, Harvard websites, or college a capella websites. The Harvard Krokodiloes, who have appeared regularly on national television, pass. It's true that there are other college a capella groups no more notable than the Veritones which have pages, e.g. Harvard Din and Tonics, but maybe these should be considered for deletion as well. Strabismic 20:49, 22 December 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 speedy delete as per CSD G1. A Train take the 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sega PU[edit]

This is a combination of speculation, original research, and quite possibly a hoax. From the article: "Although Sega denise the making of this". There are no sources and the only link is to Sega's website, which has no mention of an upcoming console. Koweja 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. PU is right. Lemmy12 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this. -Docg 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)-Docg 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators[edit]

Never this article would reach a NPOV status. People (see history) are deleting and adding what they call dictators randomly. It is like if it was a battleground of additions and deletions. Please discuss. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AFD is not a place to bring content disputes or request cleanup. WilyD 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Protect from IP users. If what you say is true, than just protect it from the IP's and new users. RedKlonoa 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOV is not an especially inherent problem as most dictators are described as such outside Wikipedia. It may be a problem in some cases, but then, that happens with a lot of articles. Problems with vandals or other edit issues don't mean delete. Seek an alternate solution. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't this list a violation of WP:OR and a huge NPOV problem? The only way I could see a list like this working is if the addition of every dictactor is backed up by a reliable source that shows that it is generally accepted that that person is a dictator. Without sources this article would simply be a major POV article (and likely a big source for conflicts and disputes). Jayden54 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the plethora of sources on many, if not most of these people, I can't imagine how OR or NPOV is a real problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a dictionary definition to what a dictator is so this isn't a indiscriminate list or original research, it is also a notable topic so the list is appropriate. If people are adding non-dictators it is simply vandalism and POV-pushing. These are reasons to protect a page, but not to delete it. Koweja 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and watch very carefully, per all others. There are criteria that a person needs to fulfil in order to be a dictator and RS should be supplied with every addition. Those which can't be verified should be stricken from the record, since they'll either be unverifiable, in violation of BLP, or both. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and semi-protect. Useful list, can be sourced using RS. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and semi-protect so I don't list my boss' name on Friday afternoons. ;) SkierRMH,08:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page starts by saying that it is a list of people 'commonly regarded as dictators'. That creates a difficulty because even in undeniably democratic countries like the UK people accuse forceful leaders of being "dictators" - see BBC News story. Reading through what others say, why not try to set out some key characteristics of dictators, e.g. lack of real accountability and unwarrantably restricting opposition, and then see who fits? I do see the value of having a list like this but there should be some solid reason for appearing on it. Sam Blacketer 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly some dictators are utter tyrants and others comparatively begnine. There will clearly be aguments over who should be included; perhaps there should be two sections - one for those who definitely fit the definition and another for those whose inclusion in it is disputed. The dispuyted cases could then be argued out on talk pages. Peterkingiron 17:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps the most POV page on wikipedia. In modern terms, a dictator isn't a title, it is a term based on a subjective point of view. Most, if not all the names on the list are debatable and disputable containing multiple points of view. NPOV says

    The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

Yet this page asserts one point of view as the truth by its very title. It also woefully fails the basic tenets of attribution, WP:ATT by not attributing who is making each claim. --Zleitzen 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Criteria seems reasonable. Require citations rather than deletion. — RJH (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A very valuable page. The WP community is taking care of monitoring it. We should close this AFD debate soon.69.112.101.41 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is useless. Almost all kings and leaders throughout the world history were dictators, as they were not elected through a democratic election. Such a list is useless. Gorbeh 14:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the word dictator has a negative meaning. Democracy in its western meaning is a phenomenon of 20th century. So leaders of earlier times were all undemocratic in its modern meaning. However they were not necessarily bad people. The word dictator has a negative meaning. We need to include British qeen and Kings and princes of Denmark and Netherlands etc. here as well. Gorbeh 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I read the criteria again. It is vague. Many of the rulers mentioned do not have absolute power. Many of these countries have parliament, elections and the king have to work in the framework of law. The very good example is Iran. The leader is not a democrartic leader. However he is not able to do what ever he wants. He has to follow the law and can in principle be kicked out if he does something against the law. And the law can only gain legitimacy by a referendum. I suggest change the name of the article to Undemocratic leaders rather than dictators (too strong). Gorbeh 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per explanations offered by Jtdirl, John Kenney, and me following the first nomination. To those voting on the AfD now, please give the past discussion a serious reading before making any hasty judgments. 172 | Talk 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination did not include a valid reason for deletion from deletion policy. Last time I checked, lists with some disputed POV or OR entries where not candidates for deletion themselves just because some entries contained errors. We can always reduce this to include only Roman dictators, Stalin, Mao and Hitler and maybe few other obvious cases that only crackpot would dispute. Then we wait a decade or two for historians to sort out the mess, or more likely present references both supporting and opposing the dictator label for a given list item. 172's position seems to boil down to something like: Most professional historians disagree among themselves whether to classify a given person as a dictator. Therefore we cannot label anyone as dictator. What is this kind of reasoning if not just disguised argumentum ad populum with little appeal to authority thrown in? Maybe professional historians cannot arrive to conclusions starting from a dictionary definition and expanding it into usable political typology because their branch of science is (yet) too immature or suffers from (currently not well understood) epistemological flaws? Should we also delete all other lists where the list element is Weber's idealtyp and where the term is in general use (e.g. List of emotions) just to satisfy historian's desire for pretence of knowledge (to steal a phrase from professor Hayek)? jni 10:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, will never be anything other than a POV squabble. A category can do the job without the hilarious 'my boss' additions, and without the weaselly 'some people consider X to be a dictator' stuff. Proto::► 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV is not negotiable here. Labels like this don't work. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination apparently from lack of knowledge, it's 24 hrs later so keeping - David Gerard 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ero guro[edit]

Ero guro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fancruft Tueid 17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC) — Tueid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Myneu 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy- or guideline-based reason for deletion presented. Existing genre verified by reliable sources. Am also somewhat skeptical when an account's first edit is a nomination for deletion. Shimeru 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same thoughts as Shimeru. User Tueid has also initialized an AfD discussion for the article Nasuverse. Vandalism, maybe? - Cyrus XIII 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as noted above, no policy- or guideline-based reason for deletion, and the Ero Goru movement is a very real and existant phenomeon in Japanese culture spanning across art, music and (more recently) fashion. Just because you haven't heard of something, that doesn't make it fancruft. Arkady Rose 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Looks like a querulous nomination from an account created literally seconds before this nomination and the other were placed, and the knowledgeable appear to be responding "wtf". I'll speedy-close this tomorrow unless anyone seriously objects - David Gerard 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, recreated as redirect to Kinoko Nasu. Sandstein 08:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuverse[edit]

Nasuverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fancruft. Original Research. Tueid 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Myneu 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy or guideline has been presented to justify deletion. Discussion initiator uses a newly registered account and has already nominated another article for deletion (see Ero guro). Vandalism, maybe? - Cyrus XIII 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check again. Wikipedia:No original research is policy. Find another reason to keep. --Kunzite 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News 12 Sound off board[edit]

News 12 Sound off board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

News forum for Long Island TV station. Speedy declined, because the article asserts notability as "the nations most visited public news forum". However, article also states that the forum gets 25-30 posts a day, which seems to contradict the first claim. Certainly seems nowhere close to WP:WEB Fan-1967 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to News 12. Not a notable website. A Train take the 18:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not voting for a redirect only because I'm unsure anybody would use this as a search term. I doubt anyone from NYC or the Dirty Jerz would ever try to find info on News 12's forums on WP. -- Kicking222 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or redirect, I don't really care, but we definitely don't need an article on this forum. Jayden54 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB, not a useful redirect. --Kinu t/c 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. Sounds like the premise for a Saturday Night Live skit. JChap2007 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete WP:WE with no redirect. SkierRMH,08:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Ridge Church[edit]

North Ridge Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This church is not notable as per WP:Church. It does not have any national or international influence, it is not historical by any means, and it does not even have any verifiable sources to back up anything. Adam Riley Talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sandstein 08:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Way Automotive Group[edit]

Three-Way Automotive Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:CORP as explained below:

WP:CORP GM Dealership group with additional pages for dealerships including 1 of CA's largest may not be notable. I support merge of all 5 pages at Dealership group page, but deletion is a consideration TonyTheTiger 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:CORP. A local auto dealer with 5 locations in Bakersfield, California. These all look like advertising too. Dragomiloff 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:CORP and spam. No merge, parent company/merge still isn't notable. SkierRMH,08:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I was not sure about the rules for dealerships or groups thereof. TonyTheTiger 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. per reasons above. BlankVerse 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Memorial Church[edit]

Stanford Memorial Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-verifiable as per WP:CHURCH, and also non-notable, and doesn't have any historical significance. Adam Riley Talk 17:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notable because of the connection to two SF Bay area earthquakes. They've also recently added another pipe organ which has the unusual ability to play in either equal or just temperament. (I'll look for a cite for that claim.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bpmullins. WP:CHURCH is really not appropriate, as it is only a proposed guideline and is nowhere near consensus. If a proposed guideline were to apply, I'd say that this church meets WP:LOCAL at the very least. The article provides an indication that this isn't a typical neighbourhood parish church and why it has some notability and encyclopedic value. Agent 86 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The building is architecturally significant, and was thoroughly documented in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) conducted by the US Library of Congress. Daderot 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Church[edit]

XXX Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This church is non verifiable and non-notable per WP:CHURCH. Delete The only links are to within the church, google video's uploaded, and non-notable blogs. This seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Adam Riley Talk 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pretty much per what the nominator says. The article has no real references (that pass WP:RS) and the church doesn't seem notable. Jayden54 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn notable church, non verifiable and agree with nominator in all respects.--John Lake 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of many online ministries, nothing particularly notable about it, unusual name aside. Dragomiloff 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 164 hits in US newspapers in the Factiva database since 2002. There are three articles focusing on this ministry in the Los Angeles Times archives [66]. 13 books with hits on Amazon.com[67](most of them passing mentions). Article needs proper referencing, but there's enough here for borderline notability in my opinion Bwithh 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, just one of a zillion (not accurate ghit count) online ministries, this one with an odd name. SkierRMH,08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt Recreation of deleted material. Deleted in September of this year. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XXXchurch Anomo 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ””Strong Keep This Church is both notable and unique. It has crossed over into many platforms, from The Daily Show to ABC News as well as many notable newspapers. It also is the only church of it's kind. If a small Church like Westboro Baptist Church can have an article, then surely there is room for a church like XXX Church. And as far as verifiable, I believe it is. Check Lexis-Nexis.Derek Cormier 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see my comment above for verifiability Bwithh 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt per Anomo. Also previously deleted in February '06.[68]--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per utter lack of any reliable sources being cited. Sandstein 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gray-Tea Green[edit]

Gray-Tea Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable color. No source has been forthcoming. Not in a notable color standard like CSS. Google hits seem mainly Wikipedia mirrors. No need to give names to all the 24-million hex values Notinasnaid 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems overkill to have an article on every color that exists, and it's not like gray-tea green is a commonly used color. Jayden54 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there are an indefinite but large number of similar articles. It took a few moments to find Violet-eggplant and Lemon cream (color). If it turns out this one is deleted, the chances are many others will meet the same criteria. If there is a way of consolidating this to save the time of AFD voters, please let me know on my talk page, thanks. Notinasnaid 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If someone can find a reliable source, then keep it; otherwise, I see no reason for it to exist. —ShadowHalo 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH,08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some colours that would be notable, but as Notinasnaid mentions, there's a possibility of having over 24 million articles on individual colours. Something that should be avoided like the plague! SkierRMH,08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Using Google I found only 6 pages using the phrase "gray tea green" as a color that do not appear to be merely copies of WP content:
  1. list of colors in some GUI code documentation (possibly derived from the WP list)
  2. list of colors in some adventure game parser source code (I excluded from the search many hits that appeared to be logs of gameplay using this parser)
  3. pocket notebook for sale
  4. Italian edition of Dante for sale
  5. handcrafted ceramic tile for sale
  6. pashmina shawl for sale
None of these mentions any kind of definition (e.g. as an RGB triple) for the color, and none seems usable as an authoritative source. The shawl has a color very similar to the one in the article, but the tile doesn't. —David Eppstein 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Maalouf[edit]

John J. Maalouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article created and quickly linked to a number of corporate lawyer-related articles. Limited notability from unreliable sources (see the article talk page for a detailed accounting). Author may be a sockpuppet and seems to have a possible conflict of interest, especially in light of the similarities in account naming between User:Maximilian.stone and User:John.maalouf (who have also both edited a family-related article. ju66l3r 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Church First Nation[edit]

Burnt Church First Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Speedy keep Mistakenly tagged this as a small non notable church, when it is obviously not. --Адам Райли Talk 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This is not a church, it's an aboriginal band in the Canadian maritimes. Please read the article, it's patently clear. The band itself has been part of a notable Supreme Court of Canada case. Agent 86 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Just in case there was any doubt. TheMightyQuill 21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep You saw the category was wrong and AfD'd it?! Why not just edit the page, that's what Wikipedia is for?! No need to delete and re-write an article, just hit that "edit" tab/button at the top! Matt 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Point Community Church[edit]

North Point Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Non notable as per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think its presence on the churchreport.com list of 50 most influential church pushes this one over the line. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bpmullins thechurchport.com link took a look. the link is thechurchreport not churchreport regardless 3rd party reporting so it makes WP:Church guidelines.--Xiahou 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction. Slap my hand! -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On 8 October the article was prodded by User:Nuttah68 as NN; I deprodded on prod patrol because the most influential church claim is an assertion of notability asserted by an independent source. I've never taken the time to try to expand the article. GRBerry
  • Strong Keep per above. Pastordavid 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is a very famous church. Akubhai 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For The Children (politics)[edit]

For The Children (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Soapbox, poorly referenced article, original research, etc. Dragomiloff 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our children need to be protected from articles such as this one. For their sake, this entry should be deleted. Rearden Metal 19:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (For those with broken sarcasm detectors, I vote to Keep it.)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I've seen the phrase being used quote often around the internet, so I think it's quite a notable phrase, and it gets quite a lot of hits on Google News, which means I'm going with a "weak keep" for now, but it definitely needs some references. Jayden54 21:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not only the Simpsons, but several other programmes (South Park comes to mind) mock the insincere use of this phrase, usually by politicans. SkierRMH,08:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Probably needs cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Beanie[edit]

Bernie Beanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Non-notable and fails WP:V. Contested prod. Anonymous IP which contested prod gave no reason for preserving the article and did not make any edits to the article content. Non-notable, unverifiable puppet. Zero google hits for "puppet power collective". Zero google hits for "Bernie Beanie" with "puppet power". There's this canadian puppet power activist site:[69], but there are no relevant hits for bernie or beanie on this site[70][71]. "Bernie Beanie" google hits refer to the highly capitalist US corporate beanie baby, not this underground "cult" Canadian version. Zero Factiva hits. Bwithh 18:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely unsourced and maybe even fake, since Google provides no hits at all. Jayden54 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Jayden54 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very weak assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - googling turns up that "Bernie Beanie" is the name of a St. Bernard beanie baby by Ty, which appears unrelated. Could find nothing on the Canadian puppet show this article is about. Possible hoax? Dragomiloff 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & above Pete.Hurd 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per noom - 0 non-beanie-baby-ghits. Probable hoax, eh? SkierRMH,08:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puyi Church[edit]

Puyi Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is the second third deletion debate for this church. The first second is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Puyi Church. The first was part of a group nom, and is linked from the second. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CHURCH doesn't appear to apply because this doesn't look like a local church (which I take to mean a single congregation). Abstain for now. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources added in the year and a half since the last deletion proposal indicates to me that either there are none to be had, making this unverifiable, or there's nobody interested in writing the article, making this unexpandable. Shimeru 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge somewhere) this isn't a local church, it is a denomination, and as was already pointed out int he previous discussion, it is listed on the worldchristiandatabase as such [72]--Sandy Scott 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. doesn't seems like this article will be anything more than a stub. Abstrakt 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is surprising the amount of info that can be found on things like these if one digs hard enough. Take a look at this diff, one one such denomination I've been working on occasionally for a few months. I don't think we currently have a project devoted to complete coverage of all Christian denomination. Denominations are almost always kept, and I don't see any reason to eliminate this stub. GRBerry 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to know what has changed from the last (failed) AfD until now to make this worthy of re-nomination. Pastordavid 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, my automatic reaction per WP:V on seeing an article that cites zero sources for more than a year now Sandstein 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, no assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crosspointe church[edit]

Crosspointe church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, not verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Flame[edit]

Azure Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Clear case of self-promotion Deb 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a clear case of self-promotion? Please elaborate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe deb meant WP:COI? -- Ben (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see how it is a clear case of COI. There is a contributer in the history with a username of User:Azureflame, but most of the article was written by one User:Dmmcclanahan. How is that a conflict of interest? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe since it looks like User:Dmmcclanahan is a single-purpose account? I don't see it either. Time for Deb to weigh in.-- Ben (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- Ben (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - barely fails WP:MUSIC but it still fails, so delete. Jayden54 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepShe's a popular singer, did a google search over 40,000 hits--TrulyUnited 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: Firstly the 49000 Google hits you get when you search on "Azure Flame" are not actually for this singer - in fact, I could only find one or two that referred to her. Secondly, the user had not only created an article for the singer, but another under the name under which she wrote a book, another entry for her autobiography (which was self-published) and another for her album, which again has no notability. They had also created interwiki links, but when I checked, none of them existed on the other wikipedias. If I had spotted this article when it was first set up, I would have speedy deleted it. Deb 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the article was a bit scattered, I saw little evidence of WP:COI other than an abundance of external links. The article does fall short of WP:MUSIC, although this artist does have some notability and national exposure. ≈derekwolfe 1:31, 19 December 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. Proto::► 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Church[edit]

Victory Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete This church is non notable and non verifiable as per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This church has its own t.v. show; and an awful lot of Google hits (but then again, one would expect there to be a lot of churches called, "Victory Church"). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On 7 August 1994, the first church service of Victory was held at Putnam City original High School with an attendance of 53 people. One man who had heard the radio advertisements came to the service and came forward to "accept Christ" for the first time. That seems like an advertisement for the church. Also, there is nothing in the article about having its own TV show. --Адам Райли Talk 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam, fails WP:CORP and WP:CHURCH (and ghits look to be low for this specific 'Victory'.SkierRMH,08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination appears to be in bad faith, a part of a WP:Point. Pastordavid 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not assert notability. From the way it reads, likely a copyvio. In any case the wording could be considered spam. Vegaswikian 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculata Church[edit]

Immaculata Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually...it is notable and verifiable per WP:CHURCH (see item 3: "Churches which have verifiable historical or architectural significance are notable.") *Please do not delete article* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.29.121 (talk • contribs)
There are talks about a "painted scroll" in the article, but that's the only significance. It is a pilgrimage church, yes, but there is nothing stating the significance of a pilgrimage church. --Адам Райли Talk 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep. It certainly has historical significance, having had a sizable German Catholic congregation dating from before the civil war. I found the German scroll interesting as a testament to (rather odd) attitudes of German Catholic immigrants in the 19th century. Though I normally have no interest in churches, I'd see this one if I were in the area, based on this article.

OinkOink 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Church is on the National Register of Historic Places since 1979.[73] Artwork covered in a scholarly work. Should be notable enough. --Dhartung | Talk 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a native Cincinnatian, I see annual local news coverage to the Good Friday step climbing from the Ohio River bank to high atop Mt. Adams, one of Cincinnati's oldest original neighborhoods. The church itself is known for being a historical landmark. - Gilliam 06:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a national historical place; artwork & long history. SkierRMH,09:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep Definitely a notable church. Unfortunately, Adam Riley appears to be making a WP:POINT about churches, nominating many, many churches for deletion. Pastordavid 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback Church[edit]

Saddleback Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what you mean by notable. 1/4 million Goggle hits? [74]A senior pastor who, on the basis of his experiences leading this church has written 6 best-selling Christian books ([Rick Warren] - and his book on this church has a very impressive Amazon rating [75]). They host international conferences, at which US Senators speak [76]. They have developed a programme that has been used by 20,000 churches [77]. They've had media coverage for their approach to AIDS, and allowing pro-abortion speakers [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53168]. Isn't that notable? --Sandy Scott 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that says this stuff. --Адам Райли Talk 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of the most famous and influential evangelical churches in America. Rick Warren is as notable. The recent speech by Barak Obama there illustrates its importance. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article about Barack Obama. I don't see how something that isn't in the article can illustrate its importance. I would support a merge into Rick Warren, however. --Адам Райли Talk 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when faced with information which illustrates a subject's notability, saying "it isn't in the article" is only marginally faster - and certainly far less productive - than adding it to the article. Remember the WP tenet: "So fix it"! Grutness...wha? 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A fantastic phrase I would like to hear more often at AFD is "$EDITOR, if you have the time, please add those citations to the article so that evidence of notability is preserved."[78] It helps maintains WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep Saddleback is probably the most influential church in the last fifteen years. Adam Riley seems to be making a WP:POINT nominating churches. Pastordavid 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 11:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Creek Community Church[edit]

Willow Creek Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Bakaman 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utter nonsense This church has 17,000 worshippers - various books and studies written on it, and plenty of coverage in the national media. Do a little research [79] [80]--Sandy Scott 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Sandy. The article could do a better job of asserting its notability through third-party sources. But that's a clean-up issue. The sources are out there. -- Ben (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Sandy. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, poss. bad faith nom. Meets WP:CHURCH 1, national scope of activities, through Willow Creek Association. Inclusion in published materials met. Media coverage that deals specifically with the church met. Willow Creek was not the first megachurch but they are arguably the template for many subsequent churches and through the WCA have organized other churches (with or without denominational affiliation) and thereby developed a shared idea of a modern megachurch. Also note size of membership is not necessary for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; very clearly notable per WP:CHURCH. —Rob (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is certainly notable. I have heard it referred to on the other side of the Atlantic. It provides a particular model for church growth. Its size is of course significant, but not the decisive factor. Peterkingiron 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This nomination is a prime example of why I think User:Adam Riley is nominating churches to make a WP:Point. Please stop. Willow Creek is the model for the mega-church movement, and has been very influential even beyond evangelicalism, influencing many mainline churches. Pastordavid 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please possible point nomination but anyways it is notable under church guideline Yuckfoo 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 11:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slivercasting[edit]

Slivercasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As it has very little information (mostly pointing to links, has not been edited since October 06 which was by a bot that maked it for cleanup Wrcmills 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef/neologism. a whopping 327 google hits (many of which are related to metalworking with silver) Geoffrey Spear 19:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the article as written I have no idea what "silvercasting" is about. Dicdef, and looks like attempted promo for a non-notable concept. Dragomiloff 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as WTF/nonsense. SkierRMH,09:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northland Church[edit]

Northland Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising/promo Dragomiloff 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like spam. SkierRMH,09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination part of a WP:Point about churches. Pastordavid 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Reads like copyvio spam. Vegaswikian 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some sort of agenda here. --Sandy Scott 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 already. Proto::► 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester Church[edit]

Westchester Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising/promo Dragomiloff 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable church per WP:CHURCH and no sources to show any notability either Jayden54 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable by itself, but part of the Fellowship Church network. Redirect there. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn church, maybe redirect... SkierRMH,09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as quickly as you can, please. On the 8th day, man created pork. Doesn't come much more blatant than this, tagged as such. Ohconfucius 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship Church[edit]

Fellowship Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable and non-verifiable per WP:CHURCH Adam Riley Talk 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable church. Dragomiloff 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable per WP:CHURCH and no sources to show notability (which means it also fails WP:V. Jayden54 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think they're big enough and influential enough to be notable. More sources will help and should be easy to find. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't see any sources that would show notability. SkierRMH,09:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are the primary subject of multiple published pieces by multiple independent publishers. This profile comes from chruchbusiness.com, which is owned by a company also publishing magazines like Food Product Design and Infection Control Today, so is independent by even the most ridiculous standards I've seen at AfD. The article already has the piece from Vision Magazine - reviewing their articles, they seem to specialize in covering megachurches. Supposedly the fourth moth influential Christian church in the USA during 2006 according to thechurchreport.com [81]. GRBerry 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination appears to be part of a WP:Point —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pastordavid (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M. Silverstein[edit]

Jack M. Silverstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prodded, but had previously survived prod. Article describes him as a columnist. Relevant guidelines would be WP:BIO NickelShoe (Talk) 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - occassionally writes for an alternative newsweekly and won a minor award as a student. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. Geoffrey Spear 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writer for a small Indiana newspaper. Not an encyclopedic subject. Dragomiloff 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BIO and WP:V. Nothing in the article shows notability, and I couldn't find anything in Google. Jayden54 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayden54. Not even close. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails BIO big time. SkierRMH,09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, no notability asserted ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas of Tolentine[edit]

St Nicholas of Tolentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete Not notable per WP:CHURCH. Adam Riley Talk 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable church. Dragomiloff 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing that shows that this church is notable, so delete Jayden54 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN local church -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable ≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Were this nomination not a part of mass nominations of local congregations by 1 person ([WP:Point]), I might support it. As it is, I wonder if a church that size, in that location, can help but be notable. Pastordavid 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Perfectly verifiable. --Docg 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstood (band)[edit]

Misunderstood (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band, violates WP:MUSIC, vanity page. Static Universe 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete {{db-band}}. So tagged. -- IslaySolomon | talk 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{hangon}} message indicates, per the author, I believe this page should'nt be deleted because this is a band that could really make it and need to be publicised and i thought such a huge company such as wikipeia would'nt mind one more band being put on there website. That being said, CSD A7 applies, no assertion of notability; would be a delete regardless, due to WP:MUSIC, WP:COI, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and WP:ILIKEIT. --Kinu t/c 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, they clearly have no idea what an encyclopaedia, let alone Wikipedia, is. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely fails WP:BAND Jayden54 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Also, that a band "could really make it and need to be publicised" does not assert any sort of notability, rather POV. —ShadowHalo 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The only thing the article asserts is that there's no notability to be asserted. -- Kicking222 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect. A Train take the 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kornei Yashmaa[edit]

Kornei Yashmaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page is a copy of the information in Minor personalities of the Noon Universe Struds 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need for this to be taking up space at AfD; a simple redirect will do the job just fine. A Train take the 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Alexander Glennie[edit]

Craig Alexander Glennie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I am not sure exactly what the position of Costituency Assistant to a (presumably Canadian) MP entails, but it looks like he's more of an intern at the office of some MP. The article also fails to mention anything he did while being Constituency Assistant but talks at length about his achievements at school. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but methinks Craig should wait a couple of years until he's an elected official himself, then maybe someone else will write an article about him - at the moment it looks like just another vanity article. -- Ferkelparade π 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. That means, best I can figure out, he's the guy who opens the mail and answers calls from constituents, sends them the right form letter, and occasionally forwards one to the MP. Fan-1967 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Appears to be a non-notable government employee. --Kinu t/c 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and above. Fails WP:BIO and Google brings up no results at all. Jayden54 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could have been speedied. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup. Sandstein 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Singh[edit]

Reuben Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It looks like an attack page, but the subject seems to be fairly notable, so I didn't delete it outright under A6. Requesting comment here, but I suggest deletion without prejudice toward recreation. theProject 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (changed again). MER-C 10:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete. THe way I read it, A6 doesnt specify that it applies only to nn subjects; "..Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject.." This meets that criterion, and then some. Delete without prejudice, and do it soon, its a giant WP:BLP violation.Hornplease 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. So tagged. MER-C 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Good point. Since the article in that version seems backed up by citations, and he seems to be the subject of several mainstream media reports, I suppose he meets WP:BIO; also, per recent ArbCom decisions, the page isnt mainly criticism, so it can stand. Changing my vote to Keep. Hornplease 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also this.Hornplease 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the cleaned-up version. I couldn't understand why people were saying it was no longer an attack page until I realized that User:Tell no lie had reverted Hornplease's improvements (removing the AfD notice in the process). Just to be clear, I'm voting to keep this version of the article. Admins should keep an eye on User:Tell no lie, who may have to be blocked if s/he doesn't learn Wikipedia norms. JamesMLane t c 09:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, A Train take the 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; and watch for vandalism Not an attack; notable per WP:Bio; simply was vandalised. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think given the number of newspaper articles cited in the article, it should stay. He is clearly famous. Sam Blacketer 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arnold Stahmann[edit]

Mark Arnold Stahmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Plus, article created by User:Jstahmann...possible relative => vanity? Ozzykhan 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability is claimed in the article (i.e. "He is best known for his work on anticoagulants") but I couldn't find much about it on Google or anywhere else, so per WP:V and possibly WP:COI I say delete. Jayden54 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete copyvio from [82]--Seoc31 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Tagged as such. There have only been cosmetic changes to the article since the copyvio was added and I don't think we need an article on this individual per WP:BIO and WP:NOT a memorial. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This can't be speedied as it was created more than 48 hours ago. The article will have to undergo review - tag now removed. (aeropagitica) 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oops, forgot to check the age, sorry. Anyway, make that a regular delete as above. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since cleaned up is now verifiable and NPOV -Docg 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC Design[edit]

DC Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It's an ad; fails all the criteria of WP:CORP Mikker (...) 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this ad. Doczilla 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and verging on spam. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I managed to find some coverage by reliable, third-party published sources and have added them to the article. I also removed the long, unverified list of product offerings that smacked of advertising. The article obviously needs additional work, but I believe the company barely meets the notability criteria of WP:CORP. -- Satori Son 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Requests to provide reliable third-party sources on the topic (rather than just self-interested first-party sources) have not been answered. The article has been edited during the run of this AfD, but the main problem persists. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra massage[edit]

Tantra massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm concerned that this article somewhat reads as an advert for the "Tantric Massage Association", but moreso that the references don't appear to be reliable sources. The book appears to be self-published (or perhaps a vanity publisher?). I'm not dead set on deletion, but I wanted to get more eyes on it after it came to my attention from an edit war.-- Syrthiss 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think an association of practitioners is a valid source. However, it appears that who created the technique is disputed. If the dispute has been published in a reliable source, I have no objection to the dispute being included. However, those disputing the citable facts don't seem to have reliable sources. Frater Xyzzy 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a licensed association of practitioners, like the AMA? 14 people in all of Germany and Switzerland doesn't seem very notable. I'd really like to see documentation from some 3rd party source. Syrthiss 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I know there is nothing like a licensed association in Germany and Switzerland. Every group of interested people can form an association, and there are a lot of associations in Germany and Switzerland... See also the entry in the German Wikipedia Verband (Recht) --Edi Goetschel 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Erotic massage according to the book Essence of Tantric Sexuality listed as a reference for the article, there is no such thing as Tantric massage, it is a misnomer, as no massage techniques were included in the Tantras. It is simply a term misused by some massage practitioners as a synonym for Erotic massage. Thus it should be a section of that article and this title should redirect there. Frater Xyzzy 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to this. --Edi Goetschel 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteYou are right, Syrthis. And there is not only this article, there is also one about the Tantric Massage Association. ;-) The topic was discussed twice in the German Wikipedia and the article was deleted twice. There are no reliable sources that Andro invented the so called Tantramassage (except the website of his own Association, which represents a minority of practitioners in Germany and Switzerland). The mentioned book from Stubbs exists (it has more to to with erotic massage than any sort of Tantrism) and proves that the terme was used years before Andro used it (there are several editions from several publishers). --Edi Goetschel 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can find a source that docuements the history of the use of the term, you can use and cite it. You just can't infer from book publication dates, etc. Also, note that the article is titled "Tantra massage" not "Tantric massage". Is there a difference as Hanuman Das suggests below? Is "tantra massage" simply a well-defined and possibly trademarked form of "tantric massage"? If so, both TMA and you could be right, "tantric massage" existed and was refined into official "tantra massage" by the German dude. Still you need to docuement the respective dates from reliable source to make any statement about primacy. Frater Xyzzy 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tantra and Tantric are one in the same. The term 'Tantra' is a noun, whereas 'Tantric' is an adjective. The correct term for a massage based on the practice of tantra would be a "Tantric Massage" Again, any first year student of tantra would know this. The fact that you people are discussing issues such as this is quite telling. Please, if you don;t know anything about tantra, move on to another subject. - Etheric One
  • Merge to Erotic massage per Xyxxy. —Hanuman Das 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Keep but move to Tantric massage. The term "tantra massage" or "tantramassage" seems to possibly be a trade or service mark of a more general "tantric massage". Hanuman Das 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is consistently changed by 'Hanuman Das', an obvious agent of Andro and his association. Apparently, the same thing was happening in the German edition. The notion that Andro invented this modality is preposterous! It's unfortunate, really ... to have someone who's profile appears to convey knowledge on the subject be an obvious agent of misguidance by those of us who truly do have knowledge on the subject.- Etheric One — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.131.226 (talk • contribs) — 70.123.131.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Please observe WP:CIVIL. As I said on the talk page, I don't give a crap about Andro, only that the material in the article was cited, which you never bothered to take the time to understand. You, however, are a hypocrite, and have been attempting to use the article to promote your massage studio in Austin while simultaneously complaining about Andro's "marketing". The one thing I can discern from this is that he's a much smarter man than you, with better marketing savvy! —Hanuman Das 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those of us who have studied tantra certainly understand that Andro's organization is a front for marketing. For goodness sakes, take one of Daniel Odier's workshops, or read his books. I recommend "Tantric Quest". It'll put a perspective on the matter. In the book, he writes about performing tantic massage with his master back in the 1950's. What is amazing to me is that any novice in tantra clearly understands Andro had nothing to do with "inventing" the tantric massage modality. I mean, please ... that is preposterous and you know it. And, if not, you better go write someting about something you do know and leave this subject to others who have studied tantra.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.131.226 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • Then why don't you add and cite the information. I can only add the information I have access to. I'm not going to buy any books. The issue here is that you refused to cite your sources for the information that you added, therefore that information had to be removed according to WIkipedia policy. Your laziness in learning how to write an article according to Wikipedia policy is not my problem - it is yours. —Hanuman Das 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hanuman, the (English) internet is not the only source for knowledge! You do not have to buy any books, you can go to a library and lend them... But you have to know the "state of the art". Your statement ("I can only add the information I have access to.") is laziness and not according to Wikipedia policy. This is really your problem, not the problem of Etheric One or my problem. --Edi Goetschel 15:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I repeatedly asked "Etheric One" to provide his sources. It's on the talk page. I was and am happy to integrate cited information into the article. I came across a completely uncited article in violation of policy and did my best to fix it immediately based on the resources I have available. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I do not have to do all the work on the article. If I point out Wikipedia's verfiability policy and other users refuse to follow it, their work may be removed. Period. —Hanuman Das 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • As you said Wikipedia is a collaborative work. So please accept or respect also other sources than the ones you like. Wikipedia has nothing to do with personel preferences. We cited other sources. The sources are not the problem, you are the problem. EOD. --Edi Goetschel 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - about Edi Goetschel and his personal war against Tantra Massage:
    I want to inform you about the person Edi Goetschel. For some reason he is very much against Tantra Massage and tries to make it miserabel whereever he can. It was mainly the work of Edi Goetschel to destroy the German Articel with similiar arguments like he uses here.
    There is a growing scene of people who work with Tantra Massage in Germany and Switzerland. These people use the massage concept of Andro, who is a very experienced Tantra and Massage teacher - he was the first person who used this "Tantra Massage Concept" - not only the term "Tantra Massage" but a comlete concept for a full body massage.
    Out of his students developed some very motivated practitioners who made his work more and more popular.
    Tantramassage practitioners do not want to be mixed up with prostitutes!
    The Original Tantramassage in the style of Andro has a very clear structure and clear borders, sexual exchange is not allowed.
    It is not right to merge this articel with Erotic massage because Erotic massage is not specified and can be anything.
    By the way there are about 300 people in Germany working with Tantra Massage (Andro's style) most of them work together in massage instituts and most of these instituts are members of the Tantra Massage Association.
    --Kaukaukau 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kaukaukau, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a messageboard for your personal opinion about other persons! If there are any sources, that proof that Andro is the inventor of the tantric massage, I will accept it. Till now he is only the inventor of the "Original Tantramassage" (as a brand), but not at all of the so called Tantramassage. Perhaps you know his publication about the concept you mentioned. Its title is Berühre mich. Anregungen für erotische Massagen (tranlated: Touch me. Inspirations for erotic massages). So why do you pretend Andros massage has nothing to do with erotic massage? Finally is not true that most of the "institutes" are member of the Association. Most practioners are not! Only 13 massage parlors in Germany and one person in Switzerland are affiliated to the Association. --Edi Goetschel 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of multiple independent and reliable sources. Edison 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is real subject area but of course the article could do with a fair bit of improvement. Mathmo Talk 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a practice allegedly "over 5,000 years old" there sure aren't many verifiable sources for this. - WeniWidiWiki 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing too strange about that, a lot of thousands of years old practices (or so they are claimed) coming from the asian region will have little references to them in the western world. Mathmo Talk 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you a search for this and it's variations in name you get hundreds of thousands of ghits. Am sure with minimal effort you can find verifiable sources to you heart's content. Mathmo Talk 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing as a default keep for now. Wikipedia cannot make a comparison between two things. No matter how well referenced each of the things compared it, it will still be original research. All we can do is report comparisons made by other scholars. We report research, we don't do it. That's a fine but important line. I'm closing as keep for now to allow the article to be re-written with citations to comparisons being made elsewhere. If such cannot be added after a reasonable time, then the article MUST be deleted. If it isn't properly cites, I invite someone to re-nominate it after, say, two months, or alternatively an admin to delete it on the strength of this debate. -Docg 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ido and Novial compared[edit]

Ido and Novial compared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Page is WP:OR, and at first glance is probable to stay that way (more contents, but still original research). No WP:V sources given, and none seem available as far as I can see (see e.g. the 410 Google hits, which don't look to be really about the subject[83], and the fact that there are no Google hits for any text containing either "novial and ido compared" [84] or "ido and novial compared" [85]. For the moment, no encyclopedic content at all. Oh, not a reason for deletion, but using a Christian prayer as the comparison text in the article (and similar ones) is probably not the best choice for a neutral text about languages intended to unite the world in friendship. Fram 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This is evidently a nascent form of something much like the article Esperanto and Novial compared. A link needs to be added from the Novial page once this reaches an equivalent form. I'm puzzled how this could be considered original research any more than a table of corresponding identities of circular and hyperbolic functions. Nothing has been made up and all is well known. Links should be added of course, but this page has just started. To see what it will probably evolve into, look at Esperanto and Novial compared.

Perhaps some more explanation as to why this is neither frivolous nor trivial is in order. Otto Jespersen was by far the most sophisticated and scholarly of the creators of auxiliary languages. Today he is best remembered for his profound and extensive work on English grammar. His creation of Novial was driven by the inadequacies of Esperanto and Ido. He wrote on this in An International Language, referenced on the Novial page. References to this will undoubtably be added as the article expands.

In comparing Ido and Novial, we can see why Novial is what it is, and more importantly, we can see what a first-rate linguistic thinker thought had to be changed. The topic is of interest even though nowadays the notion of an artificial international auxiliary language seems hopelessly quaint.

Finally, let me address the paternosters that Fram found offensive. In fact, this is a tradition of comparative linguistics, perhaps because a translation is almost always readily available. (Another traditional comparison is the fable of the Sun and the North Wind.) Furthermore, Novial was not intended to unite the world in friendship, though I'm sure Jespersen wouldn't have minded if it did. It was intended as a practical language for international business and science. It may not sound practical today, but when it was created it sounded like plain good sense to many level-headed people. OinkOink 03:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Esperanto and Novial compared, the page you use as an example for what this will become, has no sources or references at all. References to the work of Jespersen, if added, are no secondary sources of course, as he is the creator of Novial (and involved with Ido as well). How do you judge that this is not WP:OR? As for the "unite the world in friendship", this comes from the introduction to the page Novial: "He devised Novial to be an international auxiliary language (IAL), which would facilitate international communication and friendship, ". As for the prayer, from Talk:Esperanto and Novial compared, it looks to me as if people are making up their own translation of the prayer, not using a standard version. So what is then the value of it, and why not use some neutral text? I don't really care about tradition, especially not when it is non-neutral. Fram 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"He devised Novial to be an international auxiliary language (IAL), which would facilitate international communication and friendship, " I've read a great deal by Jespersen about Novial. I doubt whether he ever made such a statement. That's probably the personal opinion of the editor who wrote it. Wikipedia has a lot of opinion and clearly erroneous statements are sometimes made. It's best not to use Wikipedia articles as if they are sources: I thought that was policy. Nov ialiste 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Novial. To compare every two languages in existence in Wikipedia does not give sense to me - it looks like WP:OR.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a breezy dismissal of the entire field of comparative linguistics! A comparison of, say, Novial and Turkish would indeed not make sense. But a comparison of related languages, such as Middle English and Modern English does make sense, and is necessary to understand the history of English and the effects of the Great Vowel Shift. Likewise, a comparison of High German to Low German, Dutch, or English does make sense, and is necessary to understand the effects of the High German consonant shift. This article does not compare Novial with just any random language, but with one of the languages that closely inspired it, which in the realm of constructed languages, is as close to a genetic relationship as you can come. OinkOink 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is only a dismissal of almost empty articles with two versions of Paternoster written in almost non-notable constructed languages. I think that such things should be in Wikisource, not in Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Several articles comparing the most influential AILs already exist:

The first 3 are linked from the Esperanto navigation box. In "An International Language (1928)" Jespersen critiques the major IALs including Ido. This type of article is very informative, helpful and interesting to people seriously interested in IALs. Novial is one of the most influential IALs. If this article deserves deletion so do those other articles some of which are quite old and well developed. Nov ialiste 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "if this article is deleted, then so should those" is an old argument in AfD's and usually considered invalid. As I have discussed above, none of these articles has WP:V sources discussing these comparisons (making them for the moment WP:OR), and only one of them has any sources at all. Being linked from a navigation box is not a reasdon to keep any articles, being helpful and interesting is not a reason for keeping either, being old and quite well developed isn't either. Do these articles follow Wikipedia policies? No. Can they be rewritten to be compliant to Wikipedia policies? Perhaps, but that has not been shown by the defenders of the article in question, and the "good" comparable examples don't show it either. So as far as I can see, this is still a WP:OR article. Fram 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not nominate all for deletion? I was tempted to do so but that might have been viewed as disruption to make a point. All your arguments apply to *all* these articles. Why are the others not nominated for deletion? How many other articles comparing languages or dialects do your arguments apply to? Or is it more to the point that the newest article which I believe is less than 48 hours old is clearly a stub? Do all stubs get nominated for deletion?Nov ialiste 22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I had seen this article via new pages patrol, and had not seen the others at the time, and because I wanted to try it first with this one, and could always come back to a second AfD for some of the others if this one was deleted. Fram 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


QUOTE: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level. END QUOTE.

Note that all content in this article is readily verifiable - simply read the original sources which describe the languages. Nov ialiste 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is WP:OR: reading the original sources = original research. We need secondary sources. Thank you for confirming my point. Fram 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following are specific quotes from "An International Language" (1928) by Professor Otto Jespersen (the book which first described Novial: note that the book is about Novial, not Ido, but let's see how often Ido is mentioned).


"Therefore in Novial, as well as in Esp-Ido, we simplify the spelling in all words containing double letters in the national languages, from which the words are taken: pasa (E pass, F passer), efekte, komun (F commun, E common), etc. "

"This is especially the case with some more or less learned words, which it would be awkward to spell with j: geologia, geografia, and others with geo-, genealogia and others in -logia; further, gigante, gimnastike, tragedie, genie, general, original, geste; to these I count also rege 'king' on account of regal, regalia, though Ido has rejo."

"Imaje is better than image, and there is some justification for the Ido differentiation of this word and imagina vb imagine."

"The second pronunciation, [ts], is the one given everywhere to c in Esperanto and Ido, in the formerly undoubtedly on account of Zamenhof's Polish extraction; and in both languages c is used extensively with this value not only before e and i, but also before other vowels."

"In Ido we have the demonstratives ca, co, taken from F ce, but with a pronunciation and endings not found in F, and further a great many verbs like formacar, importacar, where the sound [ts] is taken, curiously enough, from the Latin (F E etc.) ending -ation, which has no place as such in the system."

" Ido alleviates these groups and has such forms as cienco, ecepter, ceno scene, etc."

". This means one sound less than Ido has, in the sc-words, and the group [ks] instead of [ts] in xc."

"Very often, where Ido has c, it is best to reintroduce the L ti, e.g. tendentie, silentio, natione, sientie, pretie - with the ordinary pronunciation of t, not with [ts] or [S]. in some of these ti is found in derivatives in some languages, e.g. D pretiosen, Dan pretiosa."

"This sh is found in Ido in a certain number of words, which seem worth of admission into our language on the principle of being known to a greater number of people than other expressions for the same ideas; some of them are common to E D Sc, others are found only in one or two of these languages; I give the most important of them, and quote them as above without any grammatical endings: sham, shark, shel, shild, shirm, shov, shovel, shu, shultr, shutr."

"In Esp and especially in Ido z is used extremely often, not only where F E write s between two vowels (rozo, amuzar, akuzar, fiziko), but also where the voiced sound is found only in one of these languages (krizo E crisis, bazo base, words beginning with iso- or ending with -ozo, E -ous), and even where neither language has the voiced sound (karezar caress, mazo mace, F massue, kazo case, F cas with mute s, komizo F commis, E salesman)."

"It is no exaggeration to say that this excessive use of the letter z is one of the features of Ido which are least liked in many countries, except perhaps by the few professional phoneticians. To the many millions speaking D I S it will always be a stumbling-block."

"This is D satz disfigured by writing z for the North-German initial sound and by the Polish-Zamenhofian c before the substantive ending -o, the whole thus a very strong argument for a revision of the entire Esp-Ido system."

"As we have seen, Ido is inconsistent; it is so even through writing s where according to its own principles it should undoubtedly have had z: frizo F frise E frieze, fusilo F fusil, gasoza F gazeux E gaseous (generally pronounced with z). "

"The result of this somewhat chaotic distribution of s and z is that in writing Ido one is constantly obliged to look up words in a dictionary, and in speaking it one cannot help hesitating now and then, for no one can remember each word separately."

"I suppose no one can doubt that this consistent use of only one letter where Esperanto and Ido have three, c,s, and z, constitutes a very considerable simplification and lessening of the burden on memory."

"But there may be many interlinguists who will think that this is only possible at the cost of clearness, because as a matter of fact these sounds are often used in Esp and Ido to distiguish words that would otherwise be identical."

"The alphabetical list on p. 174 will show how it is possible to get out of all serious difficulties without disfigurements of well-known words, for it can hardly be called a serious defect in Novial that musa means a female mouse as well as a muse! (Ido musino and muzo with unnatural -o.)"

"Here it is possible to pronounce the combinations of i and u with a following vowel either as one syllable (in which case the stress would fall on the preceding syllable) or else as two, with i or u stressed: the former is the system of Ido, the latter that of Esperanto."

"If we want to make things as easy as possible for everybody, we must therefore avoid the mistake of Idiom Neutral (and to a less extent of Occ) with its heavy groups of final consonants in many words, but must rather imitate Esperanto and Ido, which are made sonorous and pleasant to the ear by their numerous vocalic endings like Italian or Spanish."

"This ending was selected in Ido (with omission of the substantival ending of the singular, thus homi from homo man), the reason being twofold: a vocalic ending was wanted in order to make the addition of the (Esp) accusative -n possible, and on the other hand the s-endings were used as in Esp for the verb."

"NOTE.- Z quite properly gave to his definite article the same ending as to his adjectives: la bona, but he also felt that it would be unsupportable to inflect it like adjectives (lajn bonajn homojn etc.) and therefore made la invariable: Ido was more consistent and made adjectives invariable too (la bona homi). But then Ido had difficulties with "substantivized adjectives" (adjectives as primaries), and there invented the unlucky device of inflecting the article, plural le bona, neuter lo bona."

"It was an important step in advance, when Ido after having had for some years the Esp system established common-sex substantives, e.g. spozo husband or wife, patro parent, with derivative endings for both sexes: spozulo husband, spozino wife, patrulo father, patrino mother (though it yielded to sentimental reasons, which some look upon as prejudices, by also allowing the use of matro for `mother'). Ido also created a common-sex pronoun for the third person, lu by the side of masc. il (ilu) and feminine el (elu)."

And so on and so on and so on (I've only checked a few chapters of the book so far). The comparison of Novial with Ido has obviously been an object of careful consideration by one of the more influential 20th century linguists. Nov ialiste 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yet more quutes from the same book:

"But while the principle is sound, the way in which it is carried out in Ido does not deserve praise in every respect."

"It should be noted, also, that some words had to be changed, because the -in- found in national languages might be mistaken for the feminine suffix, thus Esp has rabeno instead of rabino, and Ido mandareno instead of mandarino (though -in- has been admitted in mandarino `mandarin orange'). As Ido has diciplino for `discipline,' it could not at the same time have diciplo for 'disciple,' and therefore took dicipulo for `disciple' or `pupil' of either sex, which makes dicipulino for a female and dicipululo (!) for a male pupil. Even stranger than this is the treatment of the word for `cousin'; Esp has kuzo for a male and kuzino for a female cousin, consequently Ido has kuzo as a common-sex word, and kuzulo, kuzino for the two separate sexes. "

"Esp and Ido have the prefix ge- for both sexes combined: gepatri parents, gesiori ladies and gentlemen. "

"This rule is carried through in E and must be ours in N (as Ido, but different from Esp): natural formes; ti forme es natural; ti formes es natural, etc."

" Z simply added his adjective ending -a to the personal pronouns: mia, via, lia, etc., which is systematic enough; and Ido took over the same system, adding -a to its personal pronouns, which are somewhat different from the Esperanto ones."

"These were not imitated by Ido."

"Ido keeps the acc. ending -n, but does not make its use compulsory and specially recommends it in the case of inversion: ilun me konocas, ne ilua spozino, him I know, but not his wife; mea amiko quan vu vidis my friend whom you have seen - thus very often with interrogative and relative pronouns."

"In Ido this play of vowels was extended to the infinitive amar to love, amir to have loved, amor to love in future, to be going to love."

"Several teachers of Esp and Ido say expressly that these six participles constitute one of the greatest difficulties for their pupils (cf. also estus estinta `would have been')."

"Now the corresponding construction would not do in a language of the Esp-Ido type, with an adjectival form of the participle and no indefinite article, because a sentence like me havas perdita klefo (or the plural klefi) would easily be misunderstood as meaning 'I have a lost key (some lost keys)' instead of 'I have lost a key (some keys).' "

"This was at first imitated in Ido (me esas perdinta, me esis perdinta), but to a West-European mind these must always seem clumsy roundabout expressions, and therefore most Idists took readily to the new synthetic forms with inserted -ab-, when these were allowed after some years: perdabis 'had lost', perdabos 'shall have lost', perdabus 'should have lost' (Why perdabas 'have lost' was not adopted at the same time, will ever remain a mystery)."

"It is, of course, possible to form participles of the auxiliaries: hant veni having come, salent veni = Ido venonta. "

"These compound forms may be freely used in apposition, but cannot easily be used as adjuncts in the same way as the Esp-Ido forms can, but then they are not often wanted and relative clauses are always handy."

"The existence of more than one passive participle in Esp-Ido creates some difficulties: what is exactly the difference between esas skribita and esis skribata, between esas skribota and esos skribata - in other words, should the time indication be added to the auxiliary or the main verb? "

" Now this rule was transferred by Z to Esp, and from Esp taken over into Ido, one of the reasons being probably that otherwise it would have been necessary to create a new tense for the shifted future in (3)."

"Now in Novial there is no necessity to follow the Russian rule, and we can easily form the shifted future missing in Esp-Ido, by adding -ed to the auxiliary sal: saled. "

"The Ido synthetic forms videsas, videsis, videsos, etc., are not good, because the most important element, that which should show the passive, is eliminated, and only the empty verb `be' is included."

"On the whole the synthetic forms of Ido are often cumbersome: it is possible to form such passives as naturaligesabis, elektrizadesabos, which are not far from outdoing certain Volapük formations."

"The chief differences between the Esp-Ido system and ours are (1) that in Novial the elements are separate words, in Esp-Ido inseparable word-elements: it is true that Z claimed that each of his suffixes, etc., was independent and separable (which leads to the curious use of suffixes like inda and igi as words in themselves), but this is not true of the verbal endings as, is, u, i etc. "

"The first of these endings is in Novial the same as in Esp and Ido, namely -o, but in our system it serves to denote substantives immediately derived from or connected with a verb and meaning the simple act or state denoted by the verb (nexus-substantives)."


"For the first sb Ido-dictionaries have rulilo, rulbloko, rulajo--rather unnatural formations. The word rule should be kept distinct from role, F rôle--etymologically the same word."

"Kronisa from krone 'crown' would therefore seem correct for 'to crown' (with kroniso coronation), but it must be admitted that 'to provide with a crown' is no fully adequate description of a coronation, and the formation krona with vbsb krono is less dangerous in our system than in Ido."

"It is claimed that this system is both clearer and more natural than those of Esp and Ido. "

"n writing Ido one is constantly confronted with the problem: am I here logical justified in using the immediate formation, or should I use a suffix and which?"

"But if Ido 's rules are too strict, those of Esp are undoubtedly too lax, as they allow any substantive to be made into a verb simply by changing the ending, and vice versa, without taking the meaning into account; each writer may thus follow the practice of his native language or his own individual fancy. "

"The same is the case to some extent in Ido, which has not -iono or -ationo as derivative suffix, but which has a certain number of words in -iono besides some in -aco, vb -acar, taken from national-language words in -ation in half-Russian dress, due to Zamenhof: formaco from formation (R formatsia), operaco, naraco; similarly atenco (= N atentione from atente). In other cases Ido has changed Esp -io into -iono: naciono, profesiono, prepoziciono, but without consistency: religio, ambicio. "

"Ido has the suffix -uro joined to verbal roots to denote the result or product as distinct from the act itself. "

" Note that our e/a/o-words make it possible to have simpler forms for many Esp and Ido ilo-words; in N -ilo is used only where it is absolutely necessary to start from the verb."

"The latter is the only way in which -izar is used in Ido, but the suffix is really much less widely used in national languages in this than in the first-mentioned meaning, corresponding to Ido -igar, Esp -igi. "

"-AD- taken from such substantives as F promenade, cannonade, fusillade, is used as in Esp and Ido with verbs and verbal sbs for the repeated or continuous act: frapada beat several times (frapado continued beating, frapo a single blow); kantada; parlada go on talking."

"-AN from L is found in a great many words in Romanic and other languages; it means inhabiting or belonging to a class or party: Roman (Romani, -e, -o, -a), Italian, Amerikan, urban, akademian, senatan, vilajan, partisan, leftano member of the "left" party; further the convenient Esp-Ido formations samlandane fellow-countryman, samreligionano, sampartisane, samideane; also altrilandano, etc."

"Esp and Ido have -ema, coined with some reminiscence of the F verb aimer. "

"This suffix is very convenient with adjectives: beleti pretty, varmeti lukewarm, maladeti poorly; it is used extensively in Ido and Esp with verbs, and -eta is of a certain utility in such verbs as rideta smile, dormieta take a nap, salteta caper, frisk about (whence of course verbal sbs rideto, dormieto, etc.); still the use with verbs should not be exaggerated, and there may in rare cases be a little danger of confusion with the passive participle of verbs in -e. "

"The Ido system of composite numerals (70 sepadek, 17 dekesep) is rather confusing."

"Ido has here the verb mariajar `to marry' with the derivatives mariajo or mariajeso `marriage,' mariajatulo `married man,' mariajatino `married woman,' with the variants mariajitulo, mariajitino; mariajo-festo `wedding'; further, the independent words spozo, spozulo, spozino for husband and wife."

"Even (E): by taking even and self instead of Ido mem (F) and ipse (L) we gain the advantage of having words which are known to several more millions of people and which are unambiguous, while mem is apt to induce all those who know French to use it in the meaning either of N self (F lui-même) or of N sami (F le même)."

"Jus just now, a moment ago (D . . . S, here as in Esp and Ido differentiated from justi, justim)."

"Non may also be used as a prefix, see Prefixes: nonrational irrational; nonnesesarieso (better than Ido neneceseso), etc."

"Ido went far away to Sanskrit to find ka, which, by the way, does not seem to be used in Sanskrit in exactly the same way; it might have been mentioned that Japanese has an interrogative particle ka, only placed at the end of the sentence."

"It may even be used put twice (as Z uses cxu . . . cxu) to denote two alternatives (Ido from L sive . . . sive), as in rendering Goethe's "Er liest es jedem froh und laut, Ob es uns quält, ob es erbaut!" "

"The discrimination and correct use of prepositions is a very important thing in an IAL, and as Ido has contributed much to perfection in this point, I have used most of the Ido prepositions."

"Ido dop is very bad: it is taken from I dopo, which is chiefly temporal, not local as Ido dop."

"Ido has de, but it is confusing to have the three prepositions de, di, da - here supplanted by fro, de, da."

"which is more internationally known than Ido diafan"

"After (E, D in some compounds, Sc efter) is really more international than Ido and Occ pos, an abbreviated L post, which survives only in some compounds like postscriptum."

"Depos in Novial is a separate word (F depuis, S despues, P depois), not as in Ido a compound of de (for which we say fro) and pos, the meaning of which cannot really be inferred from that of the components."

" Ido has L dum like Esp--one of those L words which have not survived in any language."

" This use of an invariable particle seems preferable to the Ido conception of kloko, plural kloki."

"Po (from R Po, Esp, Ido)"

" The form kun (as in Esp Ido) is chosen, because the L kon (con) is found in so many compounds in which it has lost its original meaning"

" Ido has vice, which is used in no language by itself, but is derived ingeniously from words like vice-president--which, however, means a man standing next below the president rather than one who acts instead of him."

"Convention come to play a rôle here as in national languages: for `railway' Esp, Ido and N use fervoyo, fervie, which is modelled on D eisenbahn, F chemin de fer, but might just as well have chosen rel-vie like E."

" Provisionally useful information may be found in Ido dictionaries (best L. H. Dyer's Ido-English Dict, and English-Ido Dict. (I. Pitman and Sons, London, 1924)."

"Ido distinguishes basa (adj) bass (with compounds like basvoco, basreliefo, basklasa) and bazo base, basis, foundation, bottom."

"Better than Ido skopo (from I: E scope does not mean exactly the same thing); ema serves also for Ido vizar."

"FOGLE `bird' D vogel, E fowl (which in seafowl and fowler has the old meaning), Dan fugl, Sw fågel; better than Ido ucelo (I uccello; F oiseau is too far be of use) and Romanal ave, "which can be recognized by everyone" (Guérard), i.e. everyone that knows Latin, for others will rather think of Ave Maria; S P ave is rarer than pájaro, passaro."

"HUSE (or HAUSE) house E D Sc better than dom-, which both Esp, Ido and Occ have inherited from Volapük"

"Ido insulo has wrong accent."

"the Ido distinction justa and yusta is arbitrary"

"Similarly Ido."

"LEFT(I) as Occ from E `left' instead of Ido sinistra (L), which has acquired other meaning."

"Ido creates a totally unnatural word evar `to be so and so old' from L ævum which does not mean that), probably because in F one cannot ask `Combien vieux?' or say `L'enfant n'est vieux que d'une semaine.'"

"OSA `dare,' F oser. Conflict with ose `bone,' F os, I osso, S hueso, is not dangerous, and there is no reason to take osto like Esp and Ido from Greek osteon."

"Thus we distinguish Ido paco, paso, pazo:"

"But for Ido selo (F selle, I S) we must take sadle from E saddle, Sc sad(d)el, D sattel."

"Ido has celar hide "

"The echo-word D summen (Ido zumar) is best made into huma, E hum"

"Esp iri, Ido irar takes the L infinitive ending into the root, which should be avoided"

"VETRE `weather' (D Sc E) on account of the accent better than Ido vetero"


Those quotes are all in the first external link I provided: An International Language, 1928, by Otto Jespersen PhD., Litt.D., LL.D. Nov ialiste 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is the book by the creator of the language, not an independent source. Has someone reliable and independent (per WP:V) cared to make a serious comparison of Novial and Ido since the creator of the former? Furthermore, this explains mainly how the roots of some words were arbitrarily chosen in both languages, which is quite different from comparative linguistics of e.g. English and France, who have an organic history, not a synthetic one. So, we have the original inventor writing about it, and then we have some editors doing original research, but we don't seem to have any independent sources, and indication that this is a scientific field of study, that this gets discussed anywhere but here. Nope, I still see no reason to keep it... Fram 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the external links *not* by Jespersen, i.e. independent sources:
The final link among its numerous sources of information has an obituary of Jespersen at "The Times (London)" which mentions his work for Ido and Novial. Henry Jacob places great emphasis on such comparison - read the source. There are plenty of sources on this subject, i.e. the comparison of Ido and Novial. Nov ialiste 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is part of the book:OTTO JESPERSEN His Work for an International Auxiliary Language By Henry Jacob, 1943
So your assertion that "we don't seem to have any independent sources, and indication that this is a scientific field of study, that this gets discussed anywhere but here." is clearly false. Nov ialiste 09:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another indedependent source which compares Novial with Ido and others:

Enkonduka lernolibro de interlingvistiko Vera Barandovská - Frank ISBN 973-95604-6-8 © PDoc. Dr. habil. Vera Barandovská-Frank Unua eldono- presita 1995 che Editura Universitatii, Sibiu-Hermannstadt (RO)

Link: 5. DETALA PREZENTO DE LA PLEJ SUKCESINTAJ PLANLINGVOJ Chapter 5 of a more extensive comparison of IALs (in Esperanto). Scroll down the page to the Ido and Novial sections. Nov ialiste 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. It seems all very small (for the Ido vs. Novial part), just explaining that Novial is basically a changed version of Ido with some small changes. A paragraph or two in some books about two languages that are spoken by very few (Ido, 200 to 500 speakers) to barely anyone (Novial, less than 50 speakers) and which only gets discussed by a small but dedicated group of enthusiasts (the sources all come from very limited publishers, it seems, so I'm not sure if they are good enough for WP:V) seems to me still a way too small topic for an article, but I guess we'll let other editors decide this. Fram 10:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me, but if you would actually read the sources you might notice that Jacob's 2 books have several chapters concerning Novial and Ido, not a paragraph or 2. Additionally Novial is *not* a changed version of Ido. It is based on Romance and Germanic languages and the most similar previous IAL was Occidental. It differs radically grammatically from Ido, as well as Esperanto. Novial was and is one of the most influential IALs ever. Just because a topic is unfamiliar to you, or you happen to find it uninteresting does not mean that is unencyclopedic, unless Wikipedia is "Encyclopedia for Kiddies and the Poorly Educated". Concerning numbers of speakers I believe that even small or extinct languages are of encyclopedic interest. Maybe you are against AILs, though, in which case I suggest you read the essay "Psychological reaction to Esperanto" by the psychologist Claude Piron. He claims that many have an irrational subconscious fear of constructed languages.Nov ialiste 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks. As for the importance of Novial: from Ido: "Many other reform projects appeared after Ido: examples such as Occidental and Novial appeared afterwards but have since faded into obscurity." Anyway, this is not the AfD of Novial, which I would firmly oppose, even though it is obscure and hardly spoken anymore, but of the page "Ido and Novial compared". Fram 13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: Anyway, "this is not the AfD of Novial" So why mention: "(Novial, less than 50 speakers)"?
Quote: "from Ido: "Many other reform projects appeared after Ido: examples such as Occidental and Novial appeared afterwards but have since faded into obscurity." " But it is continually mentioned in discussions of different IALS; I regard "faded into obscurity" as weasel words. Also I believe Wikipedia policy is that other Wikipedia articles are not to be regarded as valid sources.Nov ialiste 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "the sources all come from very limited publishers".

ON LANGUAGE MAKING By Henry Jacob A Paper read to the Philological Society Kings College, London, 6th February 1948

S. Auerbach, Pri nonmediati derivatione in li international lingues, in Grammatical Miscellany (Allen & Unwin)

Otto Jespersen, An International Language, London 1928 (Allen & Unwin)

Otto Jespersen, Novial Lexike, London 1930 (Allen & Unwin)

Philological Society Kings College, London and Allen & Unwin are obscure?

To the uneducated populist they might be. Nov ialiste 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, your rather lenghty citations prove only that Novial is notable - nobody denied it. Bot we are now discussing the notability of two Paternosters written in esoteric constructed laguages. Please try to be more constructive in the discussion and restrain from personal attacks (WP:NPA).--Ioannes Pragensis 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources repeatedy compare Novial with Ido as well as other major IALs which is the point of contention as I understand it: "Ido and Novial compared". Nov ialiste 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still just a stub! We are not discussing "the notability of two paternosters written in esoteric constructed languages" but rather the validity of this article which has just been started, and of which the parallel paternosters will be a small part. Of course a great deal has to be added comparing the grammar, morphology, and so forth. The parallel paternosters are a minimal (but canonical) comparison. I'd like to note that Jespersen was not just some crackpot cooking up his own language in some utopian scheme, but one of the greatest linguists of his time. The dismissal of his work as WP:OR is misguided both because he is no lightweight and because he is not associated with anyone writing the article. Neither is he a contemporary figure. Nor is he the sole source intended for inclusion in this article. OinkOink 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Times newspaper of London in Jespersen's Times' obituary (3rd May, 1943):
"International language was a subject which he passionately advocated, and he helped to form Ido and later invented Novial. It was a source of bitter disappointment to him that the rising tide of nationalism dispelled any immediate hope of their universal adoption."

Link: [86] (was already linked from one of the links given).

But maybe the Times of London is as obscure a publisher as Allen & Unwin, also of London (yes, I'm being sarcastic but somebody earlier in this page said Allen & Unwin is obscure). Nov ialiste 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nov ialiste, I share your frustration, but I think you should make sure your heart rate and respiration are down to normal before you post. Despite the evident biases and mulishness, I think it's clear that the deletionists are acting in good faith. Who is not biased and mulish on occasion? Who is free of the tendency to regard that of which we are ignorant as unimportant? Who is not ignorant of most things? And Merry Christmas! OinkOink 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think people should make some effort to find out about a topic before advocating drastic steps such as deletion. I did take the trouble to quote the sources. False statements were made in spite of the appropriate information given within the sources. It might be necessary to read the sources to know what they contain. I'm ignorant of most things but I refrain from advocating drastic actions on matters about which I am ignorant. Nov ialiste 18:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gears of War weapons[edit]

List of Gears of War weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Original research, unencyclopedic detail, Talk:Gears of War#Weapons previously decided not to create such a list --Scottie theNerd 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It says where the information came from over the Lancer Rifle stats table. This article doesn't need to be deleted, it needs to be contributed to, in the likes of Weapons in Half-Life 2 DASGames 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A forum post is hardly a credible source, though perhaps I have mistaken the OR as an edit from the Gears of War page itself. As discussion on the GOW talk page is strongly against mentioning any sort of weapon without reference to its significance from credible sources, I am under the impression that a GOW weapons list is not warranted. I am also confused by various weapon lists being deleted while others are kept. Currently, the HL2 weapons article is more informative than a technical rundown, which belongs more on StrategyWiki. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is discouraging game guide pages such as this GOW weapons list. --Scottie theNerd 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is not strictly against code or regulation. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.34.40.19 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC). (Note: new voter)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a game guide. It could be better served as strategyWiki or egamia.com. Koweja 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:not a game guide. As to the above, sourcing is one basic wiki requirement, but not enough to save something that fails the WP:not test... Wintermut3 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Koweja. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Thunderbrand 13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, wikipedia is not a gaming guide. Stats on weapons like this is exactly the sort of content that should be in a gaming wiki. See guidelines for the WikiProject Scope of Information "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable."--Oscarthecat 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia rules and general consensus regarding deletion --Jecrell 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOR. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The weapons need to be mentioned somewhere and listed as they add unique characteristics to the game. However the stats could easily be removed and are unneeded. They are a pivital part of the game as many of them are the games signatures (IE Lancer rifle) --AllTeam 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The weapons are not the game's signatures. The only "selling point" of the game is the Lancer, and based on consensus in Talk:Gears of War#Weapons, it isn't enough to warrant a section within the article, let alone a standalone article. Nothing in the list adds anything special to the game and are certainly not pivotal; just because a game has weapons doesn't mean you need to create a list talking about all of them. Detailed lists can go on StrategyWiki; there's nothing special about GOW weapons. --Scottie theNerd 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia's notability policy. Bignole 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when you strip it away, you have a pistol, a shotgun, a sniper rifle and two types of machinegun - nothing at all notable or interesting about those within the context of shoot-em-ups. delete. --Charlesknight 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, JChap knows where it's at. Deizio talk 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Matrix[edit]

Children of the Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable author. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. JudahBlaze 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop: Hardcore[edit]

Kidz Bop: Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JudahBlaze 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced crystal balling. Plus, I'm not so sure it's not just a hoax. —ShadowHalo 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, despite the fact that it does not meet any speedy criteria. This is one of the more obvious hoaxes I've ever seen on WP. Yeah, let's have ten-year-olds sing "Rape Me". What a f*cking joke (and I don't mean "ha ha" joke). -- Kicking222 01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd also suggest a block, looking at Ghustug's edit history. Danny Lilithborne 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and Islam[edit]

Native Americans and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Almost entirely original research, of the crackpot variety. The small part that's not, the section on African-Americans, belongs in a different article. Ptcamn 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. And move the small worthwhile parts to their own article. --Miskwito 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly all unsourced, unreferenced WP:OR. And obvious nonsense as well.--Anthony.bradbury 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted article might apply, as I'm sure I read this article before under a different title (maybe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic place names in America?) Agent 86 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly crackpot research, as for some of the sections on African-Americans, that can be salvaged and moved. Abstrakt 05:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: no speedy deletion doesn't apply unfortunately - USER:7day created four or five articles about the same subjectat once - click the different links and you'll find them.Maunus 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe that a decentarticle could be made about the subject - but since the article at hand contains nothing that would be useful in the creation of such an article I'd prefer deletion so that the public at leastisn't misled untill someone tries to do it right. Maunus 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, next we will have flying saucers and Islam... Alf photoman 15:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I see sources and further reading, this is not OR. Maybe a minority view, but hey, this is wikipedia, remember? --Striver 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mormonism in Islam. — coelacan talk — 17:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with what? --Striver 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I meant merge with Mormon historical revisionism in modern Islam, of course. — coelacan talk — 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Maunus, there is perhaps an appropriate topic for coverage struggling to get out, but the present article is being subsumed by plenty of highly dubious material. There is already a pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories article to deal with the speculations claiming early contacts between Muslims and indigenous American peoples, one such article is enough. The only way for this Native Americans and Islam article to remain a viable prospect would be if someone were to completely rewrite and address the genuine, modern-day experiences of Native American peoples with Islam- but unless or until this is done there's no justification to have it remain in its present highly misleading form.--cjllw | TALK 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University Chess Club[edit]

Queen's University Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

University club. PROD contested. I still do not feel that the references provided to the article do enough to establish the club's notability, especially since most university clubs are non-notable. To me, it seems that the references provided just back up tournament results for specific people, rather than demonstrate the notability of the club as a whole. Delete. Andy Saunders 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly contesting Mr. Andy Saunders' contest of the Queen's University Chess Club article. I have provided a significant number of different references, and am digging up more. While I acknowledge his points, planning and hosting the two most important events in Canadian chess, with international grandmasters competing, is a notable feat for any group, let alone a university club formed entirely of dedicated volunteers who received no payment for their months of planning and weeks of work, and created very successful championships which paid significant prize money to the champions. Several outstanding games, two of which have been referenced to a world-respected chess database, were played in these events. That doesn't happen with garden-variety groups. Then, the Queen's Club took the lead role in creating a new national organization for Canadian chess. So, this blanket, catch-all statement that most university clubs are non-notable definitely does not, in my view, apply here. We apparently have five days to improve the article, and have already significantly done this on the first day after receiving the potential delete notice. Frank Dixon, Kingston Dec. 15, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would say that the object would be to find sources that specifically names the Queen's University Chess Club as being instrumental, and not just sources that name people who happen to be members of the club. Andy Saunders 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep I think this could be a good article. A number of the players mentioned are internationally recognised, and in chess, the club is the players. Need to fill a lot of those red links, though.--Anthony.bradbury 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Mr. Bradbury for his encouragement. I will take his suggestions to heart, and plan to continue to improve the article. Not to be too hard on Andy Saunders, the Ontario Quizzer, but I took a look at his bio, and he is a trivia guy!! To a certain extent, chess competes with trivia as a mind sport, so there is a little bit of a rivalry subtext here! Organized trivia is a very recent phenomenon. But chess has been played for close to 2,000 years, is played around the world by millions of people (including six million in Canada alone), and there are more nations which are members of the International Chess Federation (FIDE) than any other sports federation except that for soccer (FIFA). Two players need not speak the same language to play a game of chess; knowing the rules is enough! Try trivia with that arrangment, Andy! Also, there have been more published books written about chess than about all other games and sports combined! Chess research has led to significant scientific advancements in other fields, some of which were attained by strong chessplayers. There are more possible ways to play a chess game than there are electrons in the universe. (And that's just with the basic starting position; do stuff like rearrange the pieces, add more pieces, change the board size and shape, add additional dimensions, and the unique possibilities multiply even further.) Dec. 15, 2006, 6:20 p.m. EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankEldonDixon (talk • contribs)

Comment: I do not at all see how this above comment relates at all to the merits of the article. In fact, I see it as an ad hominem attack, implying that my opinion on the article's merits should be discounted as I apparently know nothing about chess (which could not at all be inferred simply by reading my User Page), and that I made the nomination in bad faith (by implying that a non-existent rivalry exists between trivia and chess). Andy Saunders 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having notable members, being involved in a notable game or competing in notable tournaments does not make an organization notable. The organization itself (not its tournaments, members or game) must have been the subject of multiple, independent coverage in reliable sources. Also, based on the author's autobiographical article, which has since been deleted, he is the advisor to this club, and writing about organizations one is involved with is a bad idea, per WP:AUTO and WP:COI. JChap2007 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JChap2007. This excessively linked up article is a real turn-off: I mean, how many times does Queen's University have to be wikilinked??. Seems to be written in a specific attempt to avoid deletion, with too much crap, pardon my French, which is not directly relevant to the club, so I'm not going to prod all the claims. Partial de-wikification and serious rosebush prune would be in order if kept.

Ohconfucius 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I think it's best if this article is merged with the main Queen's University article. Frank Dixon Dec. 18, 2006, 348 EST.

  • Keep, clean-up and wikify. I don't think a merge is a good solution as the Queen's U article is already quite long. I agree that University clubs are not generally notable, but I think this one may be an exception. If it has a long history, notable members and matches, then I think the club itself is notable.--Kubigula (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nothing sourced, so nothing for me to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 10:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Puffy Taco[edit]

Henry the Puffy Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Most certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Mikker (...) 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Ballapeño mascot to this AfD, both mascots can be merged into the San Antonio Missions article, it's got plenty of space. Only major leage mascots are really notable enough to have separate articles. Tubezone 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was early closure as speedy delete.--cj | talk 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dillonism[edit]

Dillonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This sounds like something someone has just made up. I think it wouldn't find its way into any encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete A made-up article about a made-up religion. A nonsense article.--Anthony.bradbury 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (A7; non-notable). —Psychonaut 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globulation 2[edit]

Globulation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Alpha software; no evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 22:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aptela[edit]

Aptela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

deprodded. Fails WP:CORP BJTalk 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear notable, verging on spam.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verging on spam? Nope, it's nicely designed spam. SkierRMH,07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable event. (aeropagitica) 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble Responsorium[edit]

Ensemble Responsorium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Early Music ensemble of unclear notability. Was tagged for speedy-A7, but a basic claim to notability is made (participation in important music festivals at national level). Seems thin though: official website contains no discography, demo soundbites ([87]) are nice but not top-notch quality. Procedural nomination from me, would like more input; neutral for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - it needs sources that are not its website. Also, participation in festivals does not establish notability, in my opinion. I might lean toward delete if third-party sources can't be easily located.--Dmz5 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The only way I can see it might pass would be Criterion #9, but festivals aren't competitions, and the statement is unsourced. —ShadowHalo 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable musical biography, WP:Music and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Calderazzo[edit]

Joey Calderazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and unsourced. I was taking the advice of someone to make sure and stick to articles and out of politics, which is a good idea although I'm drawn to it. So I hit random article and get this page, and am now getting into politics...

Anyway, the article is nearly two years old, with no discussion page until today when I commented on my earlier prodding of it (which I decided not to do after all). There are no sources for any of the information. I don't think sources are a possibility either - top hits on google are his own website, a music listing whose biography on him is identical to the one found on his own webpage, and a bunch of downloading sites. Even Sick Puppies is sourced, so it's no great feat. Probably not notable enough to have sources, thus delete. Milto LOL pia 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per ingenious reasoning of the nominator (me). Milto LOL pia 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, it might have potential. It's been unsourced for over 16 months, but not 16 minutes after I posted something to my talk page about it, GTBacchus came up with two sources I'd skipped over. Still not sure if anyone cares about this guy, but it's enough to make me change to neutral. Milto LOL pia 02:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, AllMusic calls him "potentially significant"[88], and he's worked with some key musicians like Branford Marsalis, and he's released albums on Columbia and Blue Note (which is a well-regarded jazz label). --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he gets more than "potentially significant"! SkierRMH,07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough to have reliable sources. Voretustalk 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wiltzie[edit]

Adam Wiltzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:V, WP:BIO. Deproded. Delete - crz crztalk 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - One of the primary members of The Dead Texan and Stars of the Lid. Very important in the Drone music genre. --Oakshade 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. - A cursory search for the subject provides information on notable acts connected to the subject. Nominator's motives are suspect. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; article does not assert notability under WP:MUSIC. The external links given as references are interviews. The discogs.com entry is a trivial mention, rather than the kind of in-depth coverage necessary to support a proper encyclopedia article. -- Chondrite 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Importance seems to have been asserted, but it is certainly not backed up by the citations provided. Does not meet WP:BIO at all. Mus Musculus 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage of article subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 22:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive comes up with 19 references. [89]

Not a household name but notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I don't think it would take much to have this person/article pass notability, but it's not there just yet. Akihabara 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, recommend nominator does not use jargon in deletion reasoning. Catchpole 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rayne[edit]

Robert Rayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing of notability given; a bio Akihabara 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seemed like an article on an important person that should be in Wikipedia, but after following up the links at the bottom, I'm not so sure. The article appears to be partly cribbed (parts word for word with just a change of tense) from the the first reference, a 32 year old church newsletter. Apart from that, I can only verify that he was at the Hong Kong College on whose website he is listed as stated. But, the link gven to Keele University Alumni Obituaries Page does not work. This does though: [[90]] but his name not does not appear there or anywhere else on the Keele University site. The Conservancy Association has no mention of him (granted, he has been dead six years). What can this mean? Emeraude 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there is some assertion of notability in the article, there seems to be nothing to verify it, certainly nothing linked to this orphaned dead-end article. If he were a significant part of the history of the Conservancy Association, there would have been at least a slight mention of him in the external sites... or in the Conservancy Association Wikipedia article. Delete B.Wind 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment I am still confused as to how this article got on Wikipedia. Robert Rayne was my grandfather and neither myself nor my father knew anything about it until I stumbled across it on a Google search. We can both vouch for pretty much everything in the article and I am in the process of re-writing it to expand on his life much of which has been missed off. Dont Delete Admiral007 21:24, 13 Dec 2006
    • Per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy I would strongly suggest that neither you nor your father (as members of the immediate family of the subject of the article) do the rewrite, but instead have a third party not affiliated with the family to add the pieces you want to add and remove any perceived inaccuracies. I'd also suggest that if there are sufficient omissions to Conservancy Association that you could "fill the holes" without any WP:COI problems if you have no direct affiliation with the group. Don't overlook the need for attribution for verification! B.Wind 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comes close, but "early men's warden" (a kind of residential dean) isn't notability, president of a little-known college for less than a year isn't quite, and co-founder of a local conservancy association isn't enough for me. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Doczilla 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete This article does not come close to outlining my grandfather's wholelife. Many parts have been missed out or not properly explained. Whilst it is still listed I stand a chance of contacting the person who wrote it in the first place and supplying them with more information to add to the article. Admiral007 17:09, 17 December 2006 GMT
You should be able to add enough to the article to support notability yourself. Akihabara 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Docg 14:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo (K.U. Leuven)[edit]

Toledo (K.U. Leuven) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable: web platform of (my) university, it's just another Blackboard application; page was started by an administrator of the website (User:Vandepitte). Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with the university page. May be worth maintaining as a single article with integration with other learning platforms. Note that other universities, such as the VUB, switched to open source Dokeos environment.
We already have Blackboard Inc. and learning platform articles, but merging with the university page seems like a good compromise to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be interesting to add an note on the Blackboard Inc. page mentioning the KUL is using the system under the name Toledo. Idem for Dokeos, with the VUB (where it is called PointCarré) and the Erasmus Hogeschool Brussel using this system. LHOON 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1213 (video game)[edit]

Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Non-notable game. Lorenj 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added some sources and removed some OR material. Better now? 81.79.29.103 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really can't see how this is notable. Koweja 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not so sure what the problem is... the game was made by a quasi-notable developer (who is more notable in the genre of this game, which, by the way, I've never heard of), and has multiple independent reviews published; at least one of the reviews comes from a reliable source, PopMatters. -- Kicking222 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Just barely meets the primary criterion of WP:N. Ccscott 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it still fails WP:SOFTWARE. Nandesuka 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom.Anomo 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Because I've never heard of it and am not qualified to make a call. Although, I think the article could be improved, when was it written, why, who cares?, how many downloads? etc? SweetGodiva 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. Sandstein 06:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The full text is below if someone wants to merge it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A School of Tomorrow school is a private school that uses Accelerated Christian Education curriculum. In these classrooms teachers are called supervisors. Students work individually on their work without direct teaching from the supervisor. Student desks are set up with dividers that do not allow students to see each other. Students have American and Christian flags that they place at the top of their desk to signal that they need help from the supervisor. Students correct their own work with score keys that are kept in a central location for all students to use.

School of tomorrow[edit]

Not sure whether delete or merge is best here. I don't think it can last on its own. Just H 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Docg 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel C. Smith[edit]

Rachel C. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No or marginal encyclopedic value, appears to fail WP:BIO. Most things mentioned in the article (doctoral candidate, 72nd female smokejumper, etc) are not notable at all. The academic papers and speaking might be notable but even they don't seem like encyclopedic material. What do you think? Dragomiloff 23:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Would be an interesting person to meet, but fails WP:PROFTEST. I don't see the encyclopedic value of "youngest smallest" smokejumper (as of 2003) either. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records Bwithh 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete appears to fail WP:BIO despite being a very interesting individual, though there may be more here that is notable. Canadian-Bacon 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Can-Bacon. Strong as a resume, not apparently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 01:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, really not encyclopedic. SkierRMH,07:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, and as pointed out above by Dhartung it appears to be a CV. DrKiernan 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nc). Docg 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Bank Studios[edit]

Kay Bank Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Insufficient notability given; few ghits Akihabara 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless it can be further expanded,Merge with Music of Minnesota which already mentions this studio and much of this information under the "Modern music" section. That page even includes a red Wikilink to a "Kay Banks" studio (note the slight difference in names).
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seems verifiable and notable enough due to the artists who recorded here.[91][92] If there were an article for the Twin Cities Soma Records, I might recommend a merger, though. But in this case the studio outlasted the label. --Dhartung | Talk 01:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Hillaire[edit]

Keith Hillaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Only mentioned in one newspaper article, non-notable High School senior. Fails WP:GOOG. I also suspect autobiography, since both the creator and the user who removed the prod tag look like single purpose accounts. Dar-Ape 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Schwartz[edit]

Ed Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Weak Delete Unsure on notability. Just H 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep At one time he was the overnight host on a clear-channel AM radio station with a broad geographical reach, WGN (AM), lately he's been in the news due to illness, and he writes a column for the Daily Southtown occasionally. Tubezone 01:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Chicago Ed" is a legend in the Windy City. There are about five or six substantial articles about him within the Chicago Sun-Times database (1986-present), including a November 22, 2005 piece by Robert Feder which calls him "the undisputed king of late-night radio for decades" (p. 61). This article is easily expandable. Zagalejo 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Becuase of WGN coverage late night he was known well outside the Windy City. This piece does, however, need to be expanded. SkierRMH,07:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps Zagalejo can add the references to the article. Ccscott 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm planning to re-write the article sometime next week when my finals are over. For the meantime, you can at least see that the articles exist, and I'm sure there are others available from the Tribune. Zagalejo 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15&oldid=1081094672"