Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:05Z

VIP Passport[edit]

VIP Passport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • As of 23 Dec 2006, there is no listing for VIP Passport at TV Guide. [1]
  • VIP Passport is also not listed at Fox's website (where the article says the show premiered). [2]
  • There is no IMDB page for VIP Passport. IMDB has a page for pretty much every television show, no matter how small or short-lived.
  • Official websites for TV shows (especially syndicated shows) always have a list of when the show is on and on what channel. Not so over at VIP Passport. [3]
  • There is no website for the production company, Lux Entertainment.
  • There's no review of VIP Passport on variety.com or hollywoodreporter.com - seldom do both entertainment trade papers fail to review (or refuse to review) a television series.
  • I'm not sure what to make of this. Was this an infomercial maybe? It certainly doesn't bear any of the hallmarks of a TV show (industry trade reviews, listings, IMDB page, etc.). TruthGal 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to say that I am very confused about the show. A Google search for the title reveals some vague references to a show on Fox that premiered in October or November, but no concrete information exists. I really don't know what to make of it, however as no reputable source can even support the existence of the show I have to vote for deletion. TSO1D 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Virtually no evidence that it exists, let alone that it's notable. Tevildo 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a syndicated show that appears to air on weekend late nights, not strictly a Fox-affiliated show. According to the show's local listings, it doesn't air in New York City, so I would never have had the chance to see the show. But I picked an affiliate at random: WJBK in Detroit, and it is listed in their local listings for Monday (or Sunday broadcast day) at 2:00 AM, as the VIP show says. Nevertheless, the show is not notable per TruthGal and Nate. Tinlinkin 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Late night weekend time-filler that is as unexceptional as other time-filler efforts like Byron Allen's many low budget shows and Livin' Large (a show of this same type that starred Carmen Electra back in 2004). If you take away all the promo-speak, you can pretty much write this article as A broadcast version of the 2,129 shows about fancy cars/gadgets, celebrities, parties, and celebrity parties that currently air on VH1 and E!. Yes, it exists (as a syndicated program not exclusive to Fox; I see it as on at 1:05am tonight on WITI in Milwaukee), but without Trishelle from the Real World, it's just another hour designed to fill a timeslot. And I think that HR and Variety didn't bother to review it because they usually don't do reviews for shows like this. Nate 03:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no really notable.-- danntm T C 04:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to later re-creation. If it eventually gets an IMDb listing and survives for a while, it probably will be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 06:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was announced here and shows up here. Not notable-- as per above. Delete without prejudice to later re-creation. Nephron  T|C 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Selmo (talk) 19:49, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:08Z

Give My Regards To Broadway (Disney Channel Movie)[edit]

Give My Regards To Broadway (Disney Channel Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keeps being recreated with unsourced information about a DCOM. Has been deleted numerous times, I think it should be deleted and protected from being recreated. I have it currently Redirecting to Give My Regards to Broadway. Even IMDB doesn't have a list for Give My Regards To Broadway. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Bigtop 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (vote changed, see below), and be bold! Just like somebody else has done. Recommend protecting the link and LARTing the vandal. --Dennisthe2 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete R3 (redirect for implausible typo). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 05:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding "has been deleted numerous times". The logs for this article don't show that it has ever been deleted. Am I missing something? Neil916 (Talk) 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These logs here. The difference between that title and the legitimate article we have is a capital T. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, salt at admin's discretion as the creator seems persistent. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I maintain that it was speedy-deleted in error the first time - there was a bizarre sequence of events wherein it was quickly deleted then redirected by a different user, and when I questioned the closing admin about the deletion criteria, he didn't remember having deleted it to begin with. It was all very strange. Are we sure this doesn't exist?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather difficult to assess the article as it is currently just a redirect page - this is similar to what happened last time.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked on IMDB and googled it and nothing came up. and the creator of the article changes the actors every day. the movie either doesn't exist or is so far from coming out it doesn't belong here either. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and Take to RFD The article is clearly unverifiable crystal-ballism, and should not exist. However, I prefer to narrowly construe the authority of AFD, and because the nomination was made after the article was made into a redirect, Redirects for Deletion properly has jurisdiction over this page.-- danntm T C 03:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put it here because it keeps being changed into an article with false information. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the need to have a decision directly on the article's (unencyclopedic) content, and I thank you for your speedy reply.-- danntm T C 18:23, 25 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:SNOW. Full agreement with the statement on the first AFD: this isn't worth a 5-day discussion.--Húsönd 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Oats[edit]

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

This was deleted after an expired {{prod}} placed after the first AFD, which makes it a contested PROD. The original rationale was "fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This is a procedural nomination, so no opinion. Coredesat 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're calling this an article? MER-C 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then lemme change that :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:HOLE. MER-C 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Getting on for an A1, let alone prod. Entirely NN. Tevildo 01:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The toy horse of an OC character? Lol NN of course. TSO1D 02:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking as someone who watches the show, there is just no possibility that an encyclopedic treatment about this toy horse will be long enough to require its own article. I would say merge with Seth Cohen, but there really isn't anything to merge. -SpuriousQ 02:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seabiscuit would eat Cap'n Oats for breakfast. (Seriously, though. Non-notable here.) -WarthogDemon 03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NEEEIIGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!! WIIIILBUURRR!!!! --- RockMFR 03:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per SpuriousQ— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caknuck (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Non-notable. Hello32020 04:11, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:11Z

Chicken slacks[edit]

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

Reads like a dictionary entry. WP:NOT#DICT may be applicable here. Navou talk 01:19, 24 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 Lucky Number Slevin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:12Z

Slevin Kelevra[edit]

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

Doesn't deserve its own page, says nothing not found on the Lucky Number Slevin page. Delete and redirect. ChronicallyUninspired 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the character is single-use (appearing in one film), meaning that everything in its article is directly relevant (and should appear instead) in the article for the film. --DachannienTalkContrib 09:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This case is covered by a specific section WP:FICT, which states:
  1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
  2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
    The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters.
This article clearly states that "Slevin Kelevra is the main protagonist in the movie, Lucky Number Slevin. How could the protagonist be a minor role? The nominator has missed the fact that this is the main character, who is not only mentioned specifically at the Lucky Number Slevin page, but his name is also in the title. Perhaps the author of the article is being unclear; however, poor writing style is not grounds for deletion.
Has the article about the movie become too large to the point that the main character deserves a separate article?
There is no discussion as to how many films in which a character should appear inorder to be notable. The question is whether the character is Major or Minor, and in either case deletion is not an option. At least the subject should receive a merge and redirect.

--Kevin Murray 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of saying "delete" is that the Slevin Kelevra article provides no additional insight or information not provided in the Lucky Number Slevin article. In fact, the article in question here does nothing more than name the character and then go on to provide a plot synopsis of the movie, rather than providing information that extends beyond the scope of the movie. Since the movie's article provides a much more detailed plot synopsis, this article can safely be deleted, perhaps with a redirect, as the original AfD nomination states. I stand by my earlier vote of Delete. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are bringing new information to the discussion. If the article adds no value than it should be redirected, but that should be examined and discussed. --Kevin Murray 16:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After rereading both articles, I refute Dachannien's comment about the redundancy of the two articles. However, in both cases the articles break the guidelines regarding articles containing extensive restatements of the plots. I think that a well thoughtout merge is in order. As my suggestion was to keep or merge, I would more strongly advocate a merge predicated on a complete rewrite of the Lucky Number Slevin article. Short of someone taking on that task, I would advocate a keep in the mean time. --Kevin Murray 16:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have merged the valuable aspects of this article describing the protagonist into the article Lucky Number Slevin, so that Dachannien's assertion of redundancy is now valid, and suggest that someone make sure that any valuable plot information be transferred as well. Then there should be a Redirect rather than a deletion. Unless someone can demonstrate a reason to expand this article. --Kevin Murray 16:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge, and "plot information" is not especially encyclopedic. 67.117.130.181 02:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:12, 28 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 and redirect to Singapore. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:13Z

Statistics of Singapore[edit]

Statistics of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MER-C 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • RedirectDelete and Redirect to Singapore. Many of the statistics should go in the Singapore article, that is if it were properly sourced (or it wasn't already there). As it is now, we don't know if the statistics came from somewhere or just made up on the spot. ColourBurst 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC). With the copyvio, delete and redirect would be pertinent. ColourBurst 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ColourBurst. Bigtop 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ColourBurst. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Singapore, per above. Hello32020 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to possible copyvio. I found the source of those statistics and added a link to Singapore. As these statistics will change every year, and the Singaporean government has the situation well in hand, there's no need to keep this article. In addition, the Singaporean government has asserted copyright over this content (see the aforementioned link). --DachannienTalkContrib 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Singapore per above editors. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect due to copyright violation, and delete the page. The link in Singapore would suffice. As I'm from S'pore, I find much of the statistics interesting, but still not very impt too. - Advanced 17:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Singapore. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:07 24/12/2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect AND find sources, which currently are absent. I do not believe there ought to be any article title "statistics of country X." 129.98.212.144 05:34, 25 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 Guity Novin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:48Z

Transpressionism[edit]

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

There are no credible citations to indicate that there is, in fact, an "artistic movement." Googling the term comes up with Wikipedia, our mirrors, and several sites directly related to the artist.Bastiq▼e demandez 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Guity Novin and use as a redirect. The main reference is one newspaper article. Outside wikipedia, there are only 35 unique google hits, most of them on self-promotional web sites. Google hits including wikipedia show this article to be the main source of information on the movement. It is however part of Guity Novin's work. Also this article has been linked from many other articles[4]. These links need to be removed. Tyrenius 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'll tackle the links. MER-C 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. MER-C 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This heavy-handedness is uncalled for -- Especially in Wikipedia. Why you eradicate every reference to Transpressionism? See the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.87.152 (talk • contribs).Virtually all contributions Transpressionism-related.
  • I would call this an artist's manifesto. It is interesting. In fact, it is very interesting. But I don't think it deserves a page of it's own. I think it should either be moved to the artist's page, or, if it is available somewhere else on the Internet, it should be clearly linked to from the artist's page. Ideally, an editor would boil down the ideas and present them to a reader in the article about the artist, on the artist's page. But I am not up to that task. Bus stop 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not artist's manifesto. This is an article about Transpressionism. Given that Stuckism (that was established in 1999, i.e. five years after the introduction of Transpressionism)has an entry ofit's own Idon't see the reason for hostility towards Transpressionism. Incidently, beside Stuckism there are other more recent movements like Transavantguardia, Neue Wilde and the School of London that have been obviously influenced by Transpressionism.140.80.199.91 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hostility towards Transpressionism (if anything, this page shows interest in it), simply an observation that so far it has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. It does not appear to have any widespread notability, as evidenced by mentions in acceptable sources. Movements with articles such as Stuckism can be verified through 40,000 google hits and mainstream media mentions. It is certainly not an evaluation of the intrinsic worth or otherwise artistically of Transpressionism. Tyrenius 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. It is not an artist's manifesto. I know I read some interesting things in it that seemed more than slightly relevant to what I see as relevant concerns in the visual arts. I saw value in it. I didn't thoroughly study it. I would probably not agree with all of it, if I read and studied it in it's entirety. I just wanted to say it addressed concerns in visual art in the times in which we live. I don't know what an artist's manifesto is. It just seemed like it might be one to me. I like it. I think it should be linked to, from the artist's page, if it is not notable enough to warrant it's own page. And it certainly deserves restating in layman's terms. That is one of the tasks of an editor. An editor serves as a bridge between a likely reader and a piece of source material that may not be readily comprehensible to a likely reader. I don't think the primary issue is whether or not it deserves inclusion on this page or on the artist's page. The most useful thing would be a digesting and restating of the article about Transpressionism. I know that I would be interested in reading such an article. This is problem that doesn't only afflict this article. Most visual art movements and styles are afflicted by unclarity. That should be addressed by an editor. Bus stop 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Guinnog 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect any useful content to Guity Novin. I've searched several academic databases, both generic and art-related, and haven't found any instances of the use of the term "transpressionism". I also cannot find any references in several newspaper databases I've searched in. Nevertheless, if this is the word used by the artist to describe their own work, then that's obviously relevant to the article on the artist, and useful content here should certainly be merged to her article. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since there is no credible evidence that this "movement" extends beyond its originator. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Guity Novin.--Yannismarou 13:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- Far too many Internet sock puppet: Meat puppet interventions!! Transpressionism was introduced in 1994-1996. Stuckism, New Wilde, Transavantguardism, School of London, and Re-Modernism were introduced about 5 to 10 years later, all of which were influenced by Transpressionism. Think of what is to be gained by deletion of this page? You cannot succeed in rewriting the history. 24.81.86.162 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • .:This user has only 10 edits, all in the last 2 days and Transpressionism-related, 6 of them to this AfD, so is probably correct regarding meatpuppetry. Tyrenius 01:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tyrenius or more aptly Tyranness, is the person who has started many articles on stuckism in Wiki (see her/his user page) In that page he/she claims -- perhaps with all honesty he/she could master:

I find, not infrequently, that I am editing (and sometimes starting) articles which do not have any prior personal interest for me. I also find that I am inserting edits, with which I may personally disagree or may not believe. This is in order to work towards a comprehensive, informative, authoritative and balanced encyclopedia.

Here are his other articles related to stuckism: Spectrum London the first West End commercial gallery to show the Stuckists, Go West the title of the first Stuckist artists exhibition, Stuckist demonstrations,Stuckism Photography, Art manifesto according to the article the Stuckists have made particular use of this to start worldwide movement of affiliated groups,Michael Dickinson He is a member of the Stuckist movement, and many more -- so much for being disinterested in a topic!!.I wonder what Stuckists think of meatpuppets? 24.81.86.162 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My particular interest is contemporary UK art. You don't need to search out the articles I've started (mainly on Stuckism, Turner Prize nominees, YBAs and FBA artists). They are on my user page. You seem to have missed out quite a few. Regarding "his articles", see WP:OWN. I suggest you also have a look at WP:NPA as you're currently violating it, as well as checking out what a meatpuppet actually is. Your observations are irrelevant as to whether this article should or should not be deleted. It will be judged in its own right. You would be better off finding reliable sources to VERIFY it. Tyrenius 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too few external sources (none of which seem to qualify as Reliable Sources) to label this as any kind of notable movement. When Wikipedia seems to be the major source of information on anything, that's a bad sign. Fan-1967 02:44, 29 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:53Z

SecretPenguin[edit]

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

"Street art campaign" and apparently now a "design shop". Prod removed without comment by author in August, hasn't been back since. No evidence of importance for either venture, google turns up plenty of mirrors, screennames and boards but not much else. Deizio talk 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could not find any mentions (trivial or non-trivial) in the news. -SpuriousQ 03:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is total non-sense. TSO1D 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT.--John Lake 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable drivel. Cryptospheniscidaecruft. --Folantin 09:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unverified.-- danntm T C 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and unreferenced. —ShadowHalo 04:00, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:54Z

Raiffeisen Observation Tower[edit]

Raiffeisen Observation Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Empty article about a 35m observation tower. Previous AfD had 1 keep !vote but was rather poorly attended. No indication of significance. German Wiki article doesn't seem to reveal its significance either but goes into a bit more detail about its height, location, nearby towers, zzzzzzzzz... Deizio talk 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded with translation from de-wiki. Seems my German skills are still pretty tight. Deizio talk 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable; notability not asserted, no non-wiki ghits. Maybe a hoax. Akihabara 03:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Hello32020 04:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't look notable enough. TSO1D 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure why this is important.-- danntm T C 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unremarkable towercruft. MER-C 06:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Am I the only one who finds the very existence in WP of towercruft, mastcruft, and other such detritus hilariously funny to read about and see? Charlie 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve frummer 08:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesnt assert notability, only g-hits is wiki and the mirror sites. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 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. John254 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge[edit]

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A bridge of no notability. Created by a single-purpose account, given the way it reads likely an associate of Mr Gelegotis. Almost no ghits for Mr Gelegotis [5] and even fewer for "his" bridge. The google links indicate this was a suggested name for the bridge but not that the name was finally chosen. Akihabara 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand/clean up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur: No significant sources appear to exist, and WP:NOT a memorial. Shimeru 03:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but move to Stono Bridge. Being the site of a Civil War battle and a slave revolt makes the bridge notable, and even though this is not the same physical structure, a mention of the new bridge should be included in that article. Since the article states "Stono Bridge" is still the more common name, and that was apparently the name in use during those historical events, it should probably be at that name anyway. The official name of the new structure makes a good redirect. Shimeru 02:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Bigtop has changed his opinion below...I am striking this one out. alphachimp 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to have been named the Paul Gelegotis Bridge[6]. Anyway, there must be at least hundreds of thousands of streets, bridges, motorways, public buildings etc named after local dignitaries in the world. There's nothing to indicate that this particular bridge is especially encyclopedically noteworthy Bwithh 03:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bridgecruft. It would be nice if another wiki for this kind of stuff existed though. --Improv 08:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument that the namesake is not-notable is irrelevant. This article is about a physical structure and this evaluation should hinge on that alone. Unfortunately most of the Deletes above are based on the original premis which is severely flawed. I propose that further research be done to verify that the bridge is notable, and if not the discussion for deletion should resume. --Kevin Murray 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THAT AS OF 02:03, 25 December 2006 THIS ARTICLE WAS COMPLETELY REWRITTEN WITH MULTIPLE NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES --Kevin Murray 02:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I change to keep per above note. Bigtop 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since notability has been established. MER-C 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to Neutral/Move The new historical context is interesting, and if the article is kept, I would strongly support a move to Stono Bridge. Not enough historical information yet and too many unanswered questions for a full keep !vote from me though. (was the rebellion in the general Stono area, or really centred on Stono Bridge? Was the Civil war clash more than a skirmish/small part of a wider battle?). The article also needs to refocus on the history, not the traffic details. Incidentally, this book should be helpful to the article:[7] Bwithh 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to Kevin for his work. I would not AfD this now. Suggest the article be moved to whatever the official name of the bridge really is. Akihabara 02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As of right now, the article seems to have sufficient notability to be included. I really don't like the trivia/cruft, but it's not enough to delete it. alphachimp 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All bridges are important and this one has multiple sources to prove that fact. --JJay 04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a little cleanup KnightLago 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice job KnightLago Shoessss 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 00:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been completely rewritten and clearly demonstrates notability using reliable sources. Silensor 06:11, 28 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:55Z

Rob Sanderson[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DDeleTe If being a former host of a pro wrestling themed AM radio show is your greatest claim to notability, then you're in trouble, brother!! <taker>RESSSSSST IN PEEEEEEACE</taker> Caknuck 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kukini 19:04, 28 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 -- Samir धर्म 11:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troxel[edit]

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

A college intramural team. De-prodded by an IP address without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 04:10, 24 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. This is not the appropriate venue to hash-out notability guidelines regarding schools. ---J.S (T/C) 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Ridge Junior High School[edit]

Desert Ridge Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-noteworthy junior high school. Only sources are the school itself and a directory; I'm unable to find anything with Google News or Lexis-Nexis. Attempt to redirect to the school district was reverted as "vandalism," so I'm now bringing it here. Shimeru 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is verifiable, we should wait for a school notability guideline to pass before delete school articles as "non-notable" as we would have to remove 50%+ of school articles. BJTalk 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you list the sources you found? Shimeru 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • [8][9][10] and the state school report card when the server is back up. BJTalk 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Directories. Thank you, though. Shimeru 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Bjweeks. Until a guideline is passed on the subject I cannot support the deletion of individual school articles at random. TSO1D 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another non-notable school. I can see that there are already people who think all schools are notable have voted. TJ Spyke 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-notable schools --Tothebarricades 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep eople can expland on the school i say keepOo7565 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BJ. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 07:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 08:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gilbert Public Schools (add a few sentences about the school to that list). Local interest only, although info about the educational systems is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, would also suggest discounting those users that just vote Keep all schools without a verifiable reason. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep there are a million of these articles, we should only delete when some consensus has been established KnightLago 15:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am going to try and improve it a little. While it is simply a middle school, it hurts nothing to have information about the subject. So there should be no reason to delete unless the school is written with such POV that there is no hope of fixing, or as stated above, consensus has been reached. My two cents. KnightLago 16:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is verifible, pov seems ok, potential for expansion. But someone should more add info on why this sch is notable. -Advanced 17:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there potential for expansion? Based on what? There isn't a single news or scholarly article about the school that I could find, and nobody else has yet been able to present one. Reliable independent sources are required to expand this article beyond a directory entry, and I contend that they do not exist. Merging would be an option, but was already rejected. If it can be expanded... then expand it, and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Shimeru 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why the desire to remove schools, is Wiki running out of electrons? There's plenty of space and this is valid information and certainly notable to some. Just because it's not notable to ME doesn't seem sufficient to delete. Drew30319 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Just H 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep if we delete this, we'd have to delete every other school. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no significance of any kind established (or even asserted). Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS. Google provides nothing. Literally every keep vote above has been "keep because all schools are notable" or "keep because there's no notability guideline currently established" or "keep because if we delete this, we'll have to delete all schools". The only thing stated above that even matters is "keep because the info is verifiable", but that doesn't really make sense, as we delete verifiable info all the time, and info about a non-notable middle school should be no different. -- Kicking222 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, so far there has not been 1 valid reason to keep the article. Nothing has been provided to show why this school is notable, and unless something is provided before this vote is closes then this article should be deleted (or merged like Sjakkalle suggested). TJ Spyke 18:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Umm. No. Every keep vote hasn't been for the reasons that you've listed. I stated that because it isn't notable to me doesn't mean that it's not notable. And I questioned if we're running out of electrons. Why the rush to remove information that is undoubtedly notable to some? The article isn't harming anybody or anything so let it be. Rather than looking for articles to delete spend ten minutes and add more information to it (as I did). And then take a deep breath and feel good about the value you've added to Wiki. Drew30319 13:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Goodnightmush 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above agruement that until there is a notability standard for schools, all verifiable public schools deserve the same recognition. --Kevin Murray 02:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument doesn't work because there is no guideline that says that. 18:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm not up on the latest here, but I recall a rule of thumb that high schools are inherently notable, and anything below is not. Other than that, the article is well written and deserves to be kept on the merit of its content. 129.98.212.144 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about a notable institution. Nathanian 20:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, I'll ask: How is this notable? What criteria does it meet that establish notability? -- Kicking222 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced factual article about a real place. If this is the crap we're voting on deletion now ... whats next Las Vegas?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My house is a real place. If I could find references stating that my house exists, but that did not establish any importance for it, would it still deserve an article? -- Kicking222 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably not, but then again, the importance of this school has already been established. Silensor 05:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable educational institution which serves over 1,100 students which is verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Silensor 05:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the love of god, what makes it "notable"?! -- Kicking222 17:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school district article and Do not Keep. There is nothing notable there. Merge is recommend by both WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Claims for notability on keep votes need to be supported. Vegaswikian 00:04, 29 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. John254 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Mattuck[edit]

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

MIT professor. Prior discussion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should add as finding from the DRV that he is the author "Introduction to Analysis", Prentice Hall (1998) ISBN 0130811327 ~ trialsanderrors 04:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has 118 hits on Google Scholar as can be seen here and I believe he passes the professor test :). TSO1D 04:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable as i noted in the last afd. his work might be old, but it makes unique contributions, and he has influenced generations of mit students. --Buridan 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having written textbooks that are in use, he easily meets the professor test. Tarinth 14:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Alf photoman 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. -Advanced 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons I gave at DRV. Hornplease 10:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major book + research means he's certainly notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:16, 28 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. --Ezeu 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. A. Bambenek[edit]

John C. A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Columnist with contested syndication status. Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review due to new information, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. -- ChrisPerardi 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note According to a quick lexis search and his bio website he's been syndicated by U-Wire, Nextex (I'm not sure what that is) and Advance Publications. Self-Syndication means that instead of an agency selling your column, you do it yourself. The end result is the same to the end reader, they read a column, there is just no agent taking half the fees. -- ChrisPerardi 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment ... that's why syndication alone is not notability. He's put it out for syndication, but what notable publications have published him? (And I do NOT mean "quoted him") --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as he seems almost notable, but in DRV it was noted that his column is "self-syndicated, meaning he posts it many place" -- this is not notability. Being widely quoted is not by itself notability, it just indicates aggressiveness getting on reporters' rolodexes. The books are a maybe -- they might pass the review test or not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bleh, it is not any significant syndication. show us numbers to convince us of notability. --Buridan 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is read by many in a number of very well-known publications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Artcle says his columns have appeared in the LA Times and Washington Post. I just did a search of John C. A. Bambenek at both sites. Nothing current written by John C. A. Bambenek at the LA Times, and nothing in their archives written by him. Nothing current written by ohn C. A. Bambenek at the Washington Post, and nothing in their archives written by him. He's a college newspaper columnist which is not notable enough for a Wiki entry.TruthGal 15:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed. The sentence "His commentary has appeared in the Washington Post and the L.A. Times." is resume puffery -- he has been quoted, as a "SANS researcher", in both publications. His "syndication" is a crock, and his highest post in "journalism career" is assistant editor of a blog. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've trimmed the article removing some of the less credible claims and puffery like overstating the importance of being mentioned in a blog. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChrisPerardi. Heavily read syndicated columnist and writer in multiple publications. --Oakshade 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No evidence of being a significant syndicated columnist; Fails WP:V. Contributor to a few technical books is not evidence of encyclopedic notability. In general, the rticle reads like resume puffery as per Dhartung Bwithh 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that article is still wholly unsourced. The question whether/how he was syndicated seems ancillary as long as the main question, whether his claims to notability can be backed with independent sources, is unanswered. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search on Amazon.com turns up no publications by John Bambenek. The Washington Post article is a one line quote. I don't see any evidence as to where he is syndicated "since 2006" - and 100,000 circulation is, like, 3 or 4 suburban community papers. This guy is a publicity hound. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 19:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has anyone even TRIED looking at lexis... here's a quick list of references...
    • This also entirely fails to address his information security expertise. The books are real, the ISBN's are verified, if you want to see the contributors to the book, you can see these links... here and the books can be bought here. It skips past the fact he was invited to a conference sponsored, in part, by the Dept. of Homeland Security, his presentation is here. He's been quoted far and wide in that capacity and here and here for starters (and that's not including several foreign sites that talk about his research), including be interviewed on several radio programs. If people have a problem with the way something is written, but all means edit. However, he was mentioned in 4 different Wikipedia articles before this page was even created. That at least suggests notability. -- ChrisPerardi 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Searching the SANS site, I was unable to find any of these publications for sale, except for the ones he is listed (in this article) as only a contributor to. I suspect the others are at best "white papers". If you do a search on "Bambenek" on the SANS site, you get one hit, where he is thanked for helping to prepare a tutorial. And, by the way, ChrisPerardi has made virtually no Wikipedia edits unrelated to John Bembenek. --Brianyoumans 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further Comment - Of the long list of references above, a number of them no longer work, and the rest consist mostly of him being quoted as a representative of SANS. He does seem to have some very minor notability for discovering a minor security flaw in Mozilla in December 2005. But as far as I can tell, none of the articles is actually about Bambenek or centers on his work. --Brianyoumans 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's saying the books aren't real (although some of them appear to be more white papers than books), but WP:BIO has a slightly higher standard. Most of those books are published by SANS, his employer. Several of the quotes have him acting as a spokesman for SANS, or his blog posts are quoted on various bugs. Making a presentation to a conference is normal for a researcher, not something unusual. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I am saying that those publications are not books. Two of them are brief white papers, one is self-published (his website), and the ones with the SANS name match the name of SANS-sponsored classes given at conferences, so it's possible he is the "author" of the courseware, but he isn't credited anywhere that passes WP:V, so I have commented them out. I'm not going to check all the "contributor" claims, but he is not a published book author as the article was clearly written to suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a lot of dodgy stuff is being put forward to assert his notability.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not convinced of notability per Dmz5. Akihabara 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above.Oo7565 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, per evidence by Dhartung, et al. -Will Beback · † · 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Protect page from recreation. I am the subject of this article and I endorse deletion, not because I really care what the semi-literate masses that waste time on Wikipedia think is notable (see Bubb Rubb to see how ridiculous the notability standard is) but because the Wikipedia model is garbage and prone to vandalize, slander and libel. Remove this page and prevent it's recreation. -- JohnBambenek 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Should anyone wish to verify that I, in fact, am John Bambenek, my e-mail is not hard to find (in fact, my university email is public record). Send me an email and I'll verify I posted this. -- JohnBambenek 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "semi-literate masses," do mean, like, people who use the word "it's" when they should use the word "its"? TruthGal 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By "semi-literate masses", do you mean, like, people who use the word "it's" when they should use the word "its"?
        • Fix'd. Maybe try not criticising typos? -Amarkov blahedits 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was a joke. Sigh. Oh well, it won't matter soon, as the Bambenek entry fades away... TruthGal 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I misunderstood. Take note, everyone, it is hard to pull off sarcasm on the Internet, and you may just offend people. -Amarkov blahedits 03:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Hello, I'd like to note I'm the actual Chris Perardi. I make all my edits under the username User:perardi. (Although I've been inactive as of late.) I'd just like to state, for the record, I've not been involved in any of this. My contact e-mails are 'chris AT perardi.com' and 'perardi AT uiuc.edu'. perardi 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notable as my left sock. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Syndication implies notability in the sense that I use the term, but by no stretch does my definition cover this. -Amarkov blahedits 05:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - seems to fail WP:V, and WP:BIO is in question. That the article subject doesn't want to be covered is ironic, because notariety would argue to the page's inclusion. Still, much of the text seems lifted from the other site. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:56, 27 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:59Z

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada)[edit]

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Note that there are two school with similar names. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lean toward keep as it doesn't appear to be a diploma mill like some places, but article needs cleanup.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say keep unless there is a specific standard for colleges which is not met here --Kevin Murray 02:39, 25 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. --Ezeu 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peak rest test[edit]

Peak rest test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I tagged it for notability. I became suspicious when noticing this article is one of only two contributions of creator. Noted it gets practically zero non-wiki ghits. Nominate for deletion based on non-notability and a possibly made up term. Akihabara 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's all well and good, but do you have any evidence this isn't made up? Why redirect when it seems to be an unused term? I couldn't find it in your linked article, and that would only be a single usage. Akihabara 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reply Look at [22], and search in page for Peak-Rest Tests. It's a ways down. The concept seems valid, though I wonder if it exists under another name. Argyriou (talk) 07:08, 29 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:03Z

APAULED[edit]

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

Delete: Seems like a hoax to me. The G4 article doesn't mention it. The Entertainment company site has an empty framework. The show site loads for a long time and then just displays a logo. The kid's blog is juvenile. In any case, not notable, since "apauled g4" gets only 64 Google hits, many referring to the G4 computer. While you are at it, delete the "Apauled" redirect link. Hu 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Hu & others: Apauled is not a hoax; although it a hoax show airing on G4. To respond to Hu’s comments, the G4 article doesn't mention Apauled because the G4 article doesn’t list shows that are airing as interstitials throughout the schedule. The Entertainment company site does not have an empty framework, please see for yourself. The show site doesn’t load for a long time and then just displays a logo; please see for yourself. Please re-consider your comments above.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:05Z

Anglo-saxon warfare[edit]

Anglo-saxon warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Content is entirely the result of original research. ju66l3r 05:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • England needs another article? Puh-leeeeze! Delete this essay and Speedy redirect to History of Anglo-Saxon England. No references, nothing to merge. Tubezone 06:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add references, which are abundant and easy to find for this subject (e.g., G.P. Baker, The Fighting Kings of Wessex). This is an important historical topic. The complaint that this is another article about England is frivolous and bizarre. Needing to have references added where references obviously exist is not the same as original research. --OinkOink 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this needs to be kept, and expanded upon, according to the spirit of Wikipedia's open source method. It is a very important topic for understanding English pre-conquest history. Kozushi 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you are the the author, I would suggest you wikify this article, add references and link it to articles where the subject is pertinent, such as History of Anglo-Saxon England. If it fits in to the overall scheme and is useful, then I could change my position, and others might too. As it stands it's just an orphan essay. England has lots and lots of articles, I'm probably more aggrieved about various English hoax (my, English schoolkids just love a good practical joke), nn football club and petrol station articles that have to be constantly deleted than this one, which on a second glance at least could serve a useful purpose rather than being yet more Anglocruft. Tubezone 11:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this period of warfare probably merits a military history article, there wasn't much that was unique to the Anglo-Saxons. It's essayish, and the bits derived from contemporary poetry/historical epics are original research. Some of the rest could be properly sourced, but again, the scope is probably wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that anglo-saxon... is a historical contrivance to describe a somewhat diverse group of people with different habits and practices... this article is either OR or non-encyclopedic. --Buridan 13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noting that some of the above appear to be statements of odd POV. This topic is particularly important for the period up to and including Hastings, and the difference in approaches at that crucial battle was very important. England is hardly the front-runner in terms of irrelevant cruft, and this topic is far from irrelevant. A primary source is not original research, there probably should be more requirement for them.FasterPussycatWooHoo 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand, and add some citations and references. This is a rather relevant important topic in English military history. I would suggest AFDing articles such as non notable English diners, pubs, and amateur football clubs too, if there's a constant complaint abt too much England related articles. =) -Advanced 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --Bryson 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unsourced. It could well deserve an article, when that section elsewhere becomes too large. However, on the other hand, I can find no information on the matter elsewhere in Wikipedia. Although this particular article should be deleted unless sources can be provided, I am going to try and find an appropriate WikiProject and contact them on the matter. J Milburn 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject matter is worthy. This text will not be useless to someone who wishes to improve it. Disputes about the content of the article are not matters for AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't content, it's what's lacking, like sources, links and organisation. There's at least 20 articles on Anglo-Saxon England, another 30 in Category:Battles of the Anglo-Saxons, this article should fit in with those articles and be linked to and from them in some logical manner. Tubezone 00:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its definitely OR but make sure to let the creator know its being deleted - he/she may wish to keep such work. Thedreamdied 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup bigtime.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic seems notable and if not now well referenced there are many credible sources. I don't think that poor style is grounds for deletion, rather it should be cleaned up.
  • Keep. It needs to be cleaned up. Badly. But it's a legit subject that deserves an article. jgp TC 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thought it needs a lot of work. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:19, 28 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 by User:Grutness (CSD A7). --- RockMFR 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North shropshire methodist youth choir[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- RockMFR 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of zelda twilight princess[edit]

The legend of zelda twilight princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There's already a page called "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess! Redirect to there. Bigtop 05:34, 24 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 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Vercher[edit]

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

Non-notable mucisian, sounds like a bit of a con artist!--Edchilvers 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to find more information about him, but so far, have been unable. It is quite likely that his "borrowing" of another artist's music may be the most notable thing he ever does. His music on his new album is pretty, but it doesn't sound very special to me. I agree with deletion on the grounds that he, for himself is not truly notable yet.VBlack 06:56, 2 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, --- RockMFR 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly nn. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails at being a notable plagiarist. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Plagiarism happens all the time; nothing else suggests substantial notability. Heimstern Läufer 07:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, fails WP:MUSIC -Advanced 18:02, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:06Z

The Armenian Kingdom of Mitanni[edit]

The Armenian Kingdom of Mitanni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a POV fork, which Wikipedia:Content forking says may be deleted. Merge was a suggestion, however there is nothing in this article which is not in Mitanni itself which is cited by a reliable source and thus worth saving. Thanatosimii 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one problem with that is that the pov fork was created to promulgate the view that Mitanni was Armenia; a claim that the editors responsible have been incapable of substantiating with even one reliable source for citation. Thus, no redirect is probably a better idea, because "Armenian Kingdom of Mitanni," lest so much as one source can be produced, is POV propoganda to begin with. Thanatosimii 06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The speed by which such articles relating to Armenia or Armenians are created is scarring. The same two users who better read Wikipedia guidelines and policies before creating this sort of articles. This must stop. Fad (ix) 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (do not even redirect), pure pov-fork. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As quickly as possible. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete asap, just a POV fork. -Advanced 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously; this article is the perfect awnser to the question what is a pov fork.--Aldux 18:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I have read both this and Mitanni and this article contains details (for example about Nairi, Maryannu, Queen Nefertiti, Urartu, and other relevant images of Mitanni etc) which Mitanni does not contain. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be fine and good except the details are patently false. The editors who created this page tried to insert these details into a number of established articles and had their changes removed by editors who demanded citations by reliable sources. A month or so later, they have yet to produce one reliable source. Because they couldn't insert their stuff in the real pages because they can't cite it with reliable sources, they make up pov-forks among other things. Thanatosimii 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The details are NOT false these come from scholars and historians and books they wrote and published its not accepted among many scholars because historians can barely trace back Armenia to urartu and going further confuses the history but i think deleting it is good. Nareklm 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars, historians, and books"- This is exactly why it's a false page. No citations from reliable sources; not one, despite requests for them for a month now. Your response is a case in point example of why the page has to be deleted. Thanatosimii 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? Do you want text from the book? Nareklm 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the appropriate venue. You have already had one month to provide reliable sources. Thanatosimii 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One month? When was this? Nareklm 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been one month or so since this stuff began being put all over ANE pages, and it has been met at every turn with a request for Reliable Sources. Thanatosimii 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but you never gave me a month Ararat arev and me are diffrent people. Nareklm 04:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have also been in the same way removed on at least one occasion. Thanatosimii 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? These historians are real and they have fascinating books if you reject this theory thats your opinion but basing on facts and evidence they recovered alot of this is true. You can go buy the book and read it. Your edits and Dacy's are similar also, and Ararat and me are not the only people in the world who see this as history the mitanni kingdom of armenia these are all evidence and documents recovered in the Armenian highland. You obviously reject this for some reason and mentioning these are important its part of mitanni history i assume these historians just made it up. They even gave lectures in Boston a while ago. Historians, Scholars, Books those are all reliable and i never knew giving reliable sources has a deadline.
Nobody says that these so called "historians" don't exist, they sure do. It's just that they are a fringe minority that nobody really takes seriously :)-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 05:10, 27 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 deleted Metros232 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Mullaney[edit]

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

Nominated by User:198.14.75.15 per "this person is wholly unremarkable." I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The guy tests arrows. Not much claim to notability, a mere page of ghits. No notability asserted = speedy delete. So tagged. Tubezone 06:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. So tagged. Sr13 (T|C) 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Not notable. Neil916 (Talk) 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 06:54, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:08Z

Upcoming Bollywood films[edit]

Upcoming Bollywood films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Rory096 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: note also that there is no sourcing for this list and little possibility of adding any without reducing this to a very short list that would not be useful. Heimstern Läufer 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant and unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 06:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because of blatant crystal balling. Also, I think the same should happen to some of the articles it links to, for the same reason. (Ex: Om Shanti Om) Charlie 07:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable crystal balling.-- danntm T C 17:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Hello, welcome to Crystalballfone!" --Dennisthe2 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT--thunderboltz(Deepu) 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ← ANAS Talk? 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete will become a Crystal Balling haven. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm predicting the future with my vote lol .Bakaman 18:37, 28 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 Bueno Nacho. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:12Z

Chimurito[edit]

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

A fictional food in a children's TV show. Not notable. Improv 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naco (nacho/taco) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete - completely nn, fails WP:V with 21 non-wiki ghits, crufty. MER-C 08:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bueno Nacho. This would be absolutely impossible to write even a decent sized stub on. It's not even a recurring theme, 1 episode. Crufty. Naco (nacho/taco) should also be merged while the closer is at it. James086Talk | Contribs 08:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Naco (nacho/taco): I'm not sure how much in this article is really worth merging into Bueno Nacho; the current coverage seems sufficient for two fictional food items. Heimstern Läufer 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Chimurito and Naco (nacho/taco) with Bueno Nacho. The problem is that the Bueno Nacho page is currently contains two different subjects: the episode named "Bueno Nacho" and the fictional Kim Possible franchise also named "Bueno Nacho". Split Bueno Nacho into two pages and incorporate all the info from Chimurito and Naco into the franchise page. (I know about the image in my signature, I'm still deciding what to replace it with.) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:20, 28 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:14Z

Newsweek's 10 Most Dynamic Cities[edit]

Newsweek's 10 Most Dynamic Cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is ephemeral by nature, not encyclopedic in scope and not likely to be expanded for usefulness in the future. We don't/shouldn't make articles for top ten lists by magazines, tv stations, etc. RCEberwein | Talk 08:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Such an article also has copyright concerns. MER-C 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Bwithh 08:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -Advanced 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea why this was even made. Stuff like this IS NOT meant to go here.--Merry Christmas! CJ King 21:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and perhaps mention the list in each city's article, but even that is a bit of a notability stretch.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not mention in the articles. Ephemera. Nathanian 20:50, 26 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:15Z

Emma Prescott[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:31Z

  • Delete unless sufficiently expanded to show notability by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Looking at her imdb profile, she has appeared in more shows than Windfall, however I still don't think she's notable enough, at least not yet. TSO1D 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'd be tough to make a case for notability based on the current Wikipedia entry.TruthGal 03:34, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:15Z

Julee Gracey[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:32Z

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alike Boggan is relevant, though it didn't mention this person, and there is an assertion of notability beyond being a "DOND babe". —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:57Z
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. No evidence of external coverage on Google. MER-C 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mer-C. TSO1D 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable per WP:BIO and as MER-C says, Google provides hardly no useful results and Google News provides nothing at all. Jayden54 18:12, 24 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. John254 01:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hannon[edit]

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

The only claim to notability that the subject appears to have is being the father of a pop star. Pathlessdesert 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Nuttah68 19:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I consider being a bishop in the Church of Ireland more notable than being a musician's father, but you put the two together and, IMHO, you get marginal notability. Eluchil404 08:17, 21 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka
  • Keep A bishop in the Church of Ireland is sufficient notability for me. Drew30319 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Drew; being a bishop seems to be notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. --The Way 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bishops in established churches are notable. up◦land 08:35, 26 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:27Z

Rajendra Bahadur Bhandari[edit]

Rajendra Bahadur Bhandari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:36Z

  • Comment. Found a more primary source for the news article referenced in this page. May be sufficient to confer notability, even if the article is still stubby. --DachannienTalkContrib 09:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's won a few gold medals in what I believe are major athletic competitions, as well as a few silver medals. On top of that, he seems to have been involved in a steroid related scandal. This should be enough to establish notability. --The Way 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep gold metalist at Asian Games and newsworthy doper. Eluchil404 08:19, 29 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:16Z

Radio Zero[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:38Z

  • Delete non-notable local radio show and podcast, no media coverage, no references = nn per WP:N. Tubezone 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable because I can't find any reliable coverage through Google News or anything else noteworthy through Google. Jayden54 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tubezone and Jayden54. - Aagtbdfoua 18:23, 27 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. John254 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Meyer (clarinetist)[edit]

Paul Meyer (clarinetist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:42Z

  • Keep and cleanup, some quick research on google suggests he is notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he has several albums per Amazon so meets WP:MUSIC. JLaTondre 01:28, 25 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. John254 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Lane[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:44Z

  • Weak Delete - Although she has won an Acadamy Award, I don't think that makes her notable enough (per WP:BIO) to have an article. Jayden54 15:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winning an Oscar ought to qualify her under the WP:BIO provision for "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." --Metropolitan90 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as an Academy Award winner. Nationalparks 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per everybody above that recognizes the notability of winning an Oscar. Drew30319 18:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep She's got a f***ing Oscar! Who would try to speedy this? -- Kicking222 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment I left a message on User:Kintetsubuffalo's talk page- I am amazed that someone would put a speedy tag on the article of someone who has verifiably won the biggest award in a major industry (and, aside from a Nobel Prize, Olympic Gold, or World Cup championship, perhaps the most well-known award in the world). -- Kicking222 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let's assume good faith, I get a bit peeved when people fly off the handle on AfD debates that are not obviously bad faith nominations (and even then, fauxfanity is not necessary, IMO).--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel strongly about this entry either way, but I just wanted to point out that the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences gives out about 80 Oscars every year (and this year will be the 79th Academy Awards ceremony). The Oscar-winners club is fairly exclusive, but I can conceive of Oscar-winners who would not be considered notable per WP:NOTE. TruthGal 03:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the above cited reasons. And I have to disagree with TruthGal, even if a lot of Oscars get handed out each year, winning one of them indicates that the winner is very important in their field and are notable enough for an article. I, personally, feel that winning an academy award is enough to meet notability requirements. --The Way 19:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only reason this article was created is because of the subject's appearance on Identity. There's nothing here beyond what was announced on that show. Lambertman 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't feel an AA automatically makes one notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winning an Academy Award and the sources that creates clearly meets WP:BIO. If this is not so, can someone explain why? Vegaswikian 00:11, 29 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:16Z

Lindsay Clubine[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. A previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alike Boggan, applies, however, that AFD didn't mention the subject hosting a talk show. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:50Z

  • Delete per the previous AFD. Still fails WP:BIO, as she's not "widely recognised" yet. MER-C 11:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO. She's made some minor tv appearances (her IMDB profile) but nothing notable. Jayden54 15:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 10:30, 26 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 Mars University. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:19Z

University of Mars[edit]

University of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominaton for deletion Article which is based on a mishmash of a one-time sports gag, a joke t-shirt, a sci-fi novel plot element, one cartoon episode, an obscure roleplaying game, a Norwegian band and a supposed nickname for Arizona State University - none of these elements actually seem to have anything to do with each other. 9,830 google hits but these mostly are 1)sites selling the joke t-shirt 2) references to the novel in which the university is one plot element 3) random attempts at using "University of Mars" humorously Bwithh 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not enough reliable sources to build an article about the usages of this phrase. Also, some usages seem unverifiable using Google. Pan Dan 15:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a mishmash of pop cultural trivia.-- danntm T C 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote this article back in September, and now suddenly everyone's hot to delete it? Don't you people have anything better to do? RMc 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously. Pathetic. RMc 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above and because existence on WP is not a sign of notability.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mars University because somebody might type that by mistake. Alternatively, make this a disambig if there is any real documented other usage. FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per FrozenPurpleCube. No other possible reason for having it. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 25 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 Hrisi Avgi. It sounds like a new article on the incident should be created; when that happens this article can be re-redirected to the article on the incident. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:23Z

Dimitris Kousouris[edit]

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

A left-wing student who has once been the victim of an attack, does not deserve his own encyclopedia article. Mitsos 13:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I need to do more research before deciding what I think about the notability of Mr. Kousouris, but given this RfC I have my doubts that this is a good faith nomination. - Eron Talk 15:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator isn't exactly known for his civil behaviour and is a known supporter of neo-nazi ideology. He has been pushing these thoughts on several articles so I don't think he is to be considered objective. That said, the article he is nominating is not of very high quality. However, he was instrumental in these strikes and given the history of his country I cannot entirely deny that he may meet WP:N. Potential contributers to this AfD should be warned about the nominator though. Participants with better knowledge of Greek affairs should be encouraged to voice their opinions. MartinDK 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I corrected myself above. I am unable to find a source for that statement or in what way he was a student leader. This requires further research to establish if he is notable or not. Also it needs to be established if the students were instrumental in the strike and what part he might have played. It seems to have generated quite an amount of local press. However, the criteria is verifiability so unless we van verify his notability I say we delete the article. If there aren't better sources anyway the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond stub status. MartinDK 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about me. It's about the deletion of an unecessary article. Kousouris wasn't "instrumental in strikes" he is known only because he was attacked. He doesn't meet WP:N. About you who say that I 'm "not to be considered objective" because I 'm a "neo-Nazi", what can I say... You are very open-minded... Mitsos 19:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is a stub isn't it? persons hist. before attack might be notable (have {fact}ed it, & ask for such).  ⇒ bsnowball  13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't ask for a [citation needed] tag because I know it's not true. This article must be deleted. Mitsos 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I lean towards week keep, but I want to inform the reviewers about the essence of the event. Kousouris was brutally beaten by a group of extreme right-wing members of Hrisi Avgi. One of them was Antonios Androutsopoulos who was sentenced in 21 years in prison, and who has an article in Wikipedia (article created by Damac and edited by Mitsos). This event took significant publicity in Greece and was notable. Now, my opinion is that if Kousouris does not deserve an article of himself, Androutsopoulos deserves neither! Either we will delete both articles and create a single article concentrated on the events and not the person (e.g. Kousouris' beating); either we'll keep both articles.--Yannismarou 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yannismarou is right. I think we must delete both articles and maybe create an article on the incident (although it is already mentioned in Hrisi Avgi). P.S.: "extreme right-wing members of Hrisi Avgi" Not righ-wing! Nationalist (or neo-nazi). Mitsos 13:59, 23 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, Sandstein 09:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crime victims aren't notable just for being crime victims, even if the crime is covered by the media. Sandstein 09:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might have some argument on your hands here, as some editors sincerely believe anything that was covered by the media is inherently notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Antonios Androutsopoulos. This guy isn't notable of his own accord, very few ghits, none notable. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see the other guy's article here in the near future as well, and I'd probably vote to delete it, too. --DachannienTalkContrib 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per mitsos, merge with the Antonios Androutsopoulos article to form a new one about the event rather than the people. Akihabara 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pertinent to Sandstein's point above. If you want to see a really irrelevant crime-victim page, look here. This one is a lot less overblown.FasterPussycatWooHoo 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reinforce that this is not an example of "if we have X, why not Y", articles like that do often come up for deletion and are frequently kept on the general grounds that if they were covered by the newspaper in any detail, they are notable. This seems to be an area where consensus has not yet developed.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Notability (much like his attacker) is questionable, and only in the context of Hrisi Avgi. Ronabop 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hrisi Avgi (along with Antonios Androutsopoulos). Subject NN - lots of "students" get beat up in demonstrations worldwide - maybe not quite as many as form crappy bands, but close. Argyriou (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything here that comes close to meeting WP:BIO. He's already mentioned at Antonios Androutsopoulos and there is really nothing worth merging there.--Isotope23 16:15, 28 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. Essjay (Talk) 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Holzwarth[edit]

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

Holzwarth is a studio musician, not a member of any known established group. See also Wikipedia:Notability (music). Thuresson 13:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very weak assertion of notability, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 21:40, 16 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, Sandstein 09:26, 24 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 per CSD G12. J Di talk 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noirdegout[edit]

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

Article about a French band who seem to have released records on 'their own label'. This does not seem to be a 'speedy deletion' candidate because of the claims that it is notable, but I think it does not meet the standard for inclusion. Please note that User:Noirdegout created the article. Sam Blacketer 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Non- notable, and seems to have quite a bit o' spam.--SUIT 18:44, 16 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, Sandstein 09:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough to be independently verifiable. --DachannienTalkContrib 10:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also doesnt seem to be verifiable. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you thought this was a copy from the band's myspace, then you're absolutely correct. Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 12:06, 24 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 ChaCha (search engine). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:28Z

Scott A. Jones[edit]

Scott A. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Should be deleted or redirected to ChaCha Search. It references the voicemail article and I searched it and it mentions his name, but has "citation needed tags" so there are not verifiable or reliable sources for the voicemail thing. The Scott A. Jones article lacks reliable, verifiable, or notable sources in the article itself. Also the article has no talk page at this time. Scott's claim to fame appears to be his search engine. Anomo 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ChaCha Search --Jmax- 08:51, 18 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, Sandstein 09:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as all relevant information is already contained on ChaCha Search, and there is no additional notable/verifiable information in this article. --DachannienTalkContrib 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, open to a redirect. MER-C 12:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Stubify I don't think it fails WP:BIO. The article itself is bad, and should be stubified, but according to the Voicemail article, "In 1986, Scott A. Jones co-founded Boston Technology, where at the age of 26 he created a voicemail system now used by nearly 500 million people worldwide." Having co-founded a significant company (search on Boston Technology) as well as creating a widely-used software products are way, way, way above the minimum bar. Rather than firing off deletes, at least take a minute to look up some of the relavent information.
  • Keep but mark as stub include relevant information into the article or else we will be back next month Alf photoman 14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ChaCha Search and merge any useful content. --Wildnox(talk) 19:22, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:28Z

The Magdala, Hampstead[edit]

The Magdala, Hampstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Pub whose only claim to fame is that someone was murdered outside it once - the murderess is somewhat encyclopedically notable as she was the last woman to be executed in Britain (if not for this, her crime would be an encyclopedically non-notable ordinary crime of passion, love triangles (squares?), and no-good men), but this doesn't make the pub outside of which she committed the crime notable enough for its own articleBwithh 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, nn pub. MER-C 11:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. Google only provides 27 hits and shows nothing noteworthy. Jayden54 14:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn pub. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, appears to be uncited as well --Wildnox(talk) 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems to be part of a general attempt by some editors to make wikipedia into a concordance that details everything tangentially related to something that actually is notable (in this case, the murder.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:18, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:29Z

Derek Frazier[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - Doesn't seem notable at all, really-DESU 10:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Normally, I would say to merge to Combat Zone Wrestling, but there are enough wrestlers associated with that organization that the article would be huge if all of them were merged into it. If the Combat Zone Wrestling article is notable enough to keep, the articles about its wrestlers are notable enough as well, if only to keep that article a reasonable size. --DachannienTalkContrib 10:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if the company is notable that in no way means that everyone who works for it is. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO. I found a few results through Google News but no reliable sources (only the Pro Wrestling Insider). Jayden54 14:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Wildnox(talk) 19:24, 24 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 Chlorophyllin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:34Z

Body mint[edit]

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

Article is on a non-notable commerical brand of chlorophyllin, which already has an existing article. A merge/redirect was attempted into chlorophyllin, but was objected to and reverted. - Pacula 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the talk page: a google search for "body mint" brings up 30K hits. According wikipedia policy for notability, Wikipedia:Notability, there should be several independent articles on the subject, which it has. Daniel.Cardenas 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits do NOT equal notability - from what I understand from the specific guidelines here, the number of mere mentions or trivial references do not count, which is all counting the number of Google hits will tell you. A source also needs to be unbiased - anything from the company or another source trying to sell the product directly or indirectly does not count either. There's also another matter, even more important to consider I think: what makes 'Body mint' notable enough from chlorophyllin to warrant a separate article of its own? As far as I can tell, there isn't anything other than the trademark to distinguish 'body mint' from other commerical chlorophyllin preparations or chlorophyllin itself. In cases like these, wikipedia policy seems to be to redirect brand names to the article on the generic parent compound. The only exception seems to be in the case of a genericized_trademark, and that doesn't apply here - and if anything, it would apply more to Nullo, with a whopping 1.8 -million- hits on Google. And yes, I realize that not all of those hits are about the product - but a fairer search adding 'odor' to both brand names still results in 31K hits for Nullo vs 1.4K for Body mint. Pacula 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I discussed on the talk page, the chlorophyllin article is about an organic chemical. The "Body Mint" article is more about body health. The body mint article gives natural alternatives to "body mint".   You are setting a higher standard than policy. The policy pages does not say unbiased and does not say anything about indirectly trying to sell the product.
Daniel.Cardenas 22:50, 17 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, Sandstein 09:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect - to the Chlorophyllin article. The Chlorophyllin article is currently almost indistinguishable from the Body Mint article, other than the mention that it is a particular brand name. I do think that 30K Ghits is a helpful indicator of notability, but the issue is that there isn't anything essentially new in this article to distinguish it. Tarinth 15:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't evaluate articles on what they are today, but rather in what they will grow to be. Daniel.Cardenas 17:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Chlorophyllin as per Tarinth. "Argumentum ad Googlum" needs to take the Google bias into account. Demiurge 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above --Wildnox(talk) 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As I said above and elsewhere, I had already merged all of the non-brand-specific data into the Chlorophyllin article. Originally, I thought the body mint article was the better of the two by far, but simply thought that content should be on the generic page rather than on one dedicated to a specific brand. Likewise, I think a see-also should be added to nullo, since that is also a popular commercial chlorophyllin preparation. - Pacula 04:01, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:36Z

Von's Bookstore[edit]

Von's Bookstore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non notable business. Nuttah68 10:59, 24 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 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Prentiss[edit]

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

FirefoxMan 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Completing incomplete AfD from 12/22/06; procedural nomination, no opinion. SkierRMH 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Competed in the Indy 500, so clearly notable. Readro 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: competed once, with no real success. David Mestel(Talk) 12:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete win, place or show... those are notable... but only if at a significant event, or repeated enough times to stand out from everyone else. --Buridan 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the event is significant - it's the Indy 500! Readro 14:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • , but he did not win, place, or show, so while the event is signficant, every participant, in every race will not be. wikipedia is not a sports trivia book--Buridan 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He placed 13th! But anyways, WP:BIO clearly states that anyone who has peformed at the highest level is notable enough for an article. So every participant of every race at the highest level is notable enough for an article. Readro 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've expanded the article a bit to better demonstrate his notability. Readro 15:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are literally hundreds of articles like this one already in existence, with hundreds more to come. Other similar articles have been nominated for deletion and in every case have been kept. Almost every source book on Indianpolis lists results in two ways: by race and by driver (regardless of the number of races run), Wikipedia should be no different. --Mycroft.Holmes 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POKEMON is not a reason to keep. David Mestel(Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To expand on Readro's comments: this is the Indy 500 for goodness sake! To the true "500" fan, every lap, driver, tradition, event, and statistic must be recorded! People coming to Wikipedia for Indianapolis information would expect an article for Willard Prentiss and all other "one-timers" --Mycroft.Holmes 16:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT a place for fancruft. David Mestel(Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And another thing: lots and lots of these Indy one-timers had significant midget, sprint, dirt, and board track careers. As the articles note: these are stubs. Give us an opportunity to expand them before nominating for summary removal.--Mycroft.Holmes 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If delete this entry, then you may as well delete all other F1 drivers who never got anywhere in F1 which I would object to. Willirennen 17:20, 24 December 2006 (utc)
    As above wrt WP:POKEMON. David Mestel(Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Only claim to fame seems to be that he competed once in the indy 500 in 1933, and finished 13th. Does not seem notable enough to me. --Wildnox(talk) 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep Even if he only competed once (or twice, but only qualified once), he verifiably competed at the highest level of his sport. He passes WP:BIO with relative ease. -- Kicking222 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me some non-trivial published sources of which he is the primary subject. David Mestel(Talk) 21:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If being the subject of a "non-trivial published source" is essential to an article's worthyness – and I do not believe that it should be – then the criteria need to be reviewed because that leaves a lot of interesting material at risk of deletion. Adrian M. H. 22:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT#It.'s_interesting. David Mestel(Talk) 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Prentiss is without doubt worthy of inclusion due to his part in the early history of one of the world's most famous motor races and his part in the wider field of early U.S. motorsport history. I really cannot believe that anyone would actively seek to remove this entry from such a comprehensive encyclopædia. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Easily passes WP:BIO. The Indianapolis 500 was definitely the paramount event in the American Automobile Association (AAA), the highest level fully professional racing league in 1933. What racing event could possible be considered more professional than the Indy 500 in 1933? The best drivers and barnstormers from around the country came to Indy for the event. All the contributing that I've done with old drivers make that point obvious. The article is well sourced and notability is asserted by multiple non-trivial sources. The AAA hasn't promoted the event for many decades, and the IRL/ChampCar series should not be considered first party sources IMO. Royalbroil T : C 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lately I have been expanding articles for drivers from the National Midget Auto Racing Hall of Fame, and many of the drivers have articles simular to his before I expand their articles to show their entire notable career. Many of the Hall of Fame racers had significant careers in midget car racing, but their current article features a single or a few appearances at the Indy 500, which doesn't do their careers any justice. I haven't even started the Sprint Car Hall of Fame yet. Give time for people to expand their stubs. I would welcome help... Royalbroil T : C 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, look at the how different the article on Harry McQuinn is before and after finding a single source. I bet there are references on all Indy 500 drivers somewhere that will pop up someday. It is a good example of why a stub tag should be applied, not AfD. Royalbroil T : C 02:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - again, this appears to me to be concordance material. Does every aspect of every major race need its own article? Every jocky who has ever ridden in a triple crown derby? Every player who ever qualified one time for a notable golf tournament? I would venture no, and say that if anything, these people/places/things can be mentioned in the larger article on the thing that actually is notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BIO clearly states that anyone who has completed at the highest level of their sport is notable enough for an article. The Indy 500 is very much the highest level, so surely the article should be kept? Where should the cutoff for notability be? Or will all of the judgements be subjective? Readro 18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no. What WP:BIO really states is that having competed in their sport at the highest level is likely to have multiple, nontrivial sources on them, which is the central criterion. If you can provide them, then fine. If not... David Mestel(Talk) 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What should be the criteria used for "notability"? Should Dave MacDonald or Swede Savage not be be mentioned due to their lack of Indy "success"? Should Babe Stapp be left out due his "unsuccessful" albeit long Indy career? Have these theoretical notability criteria been applied to the F1 circuit? Most of the Indy "one-timers" from the 50's were initially added by F1 folks anxious to fix their broken driver links. --Mycroft.Holmes 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... no. They're notable for other reasons (the fact that they died in a famous crash). What I'm saying is that competing once in the Indy 500 does not itself make you notable. David Mestel(Talk) 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-sourced and meets the notability requirements for people, as others have argued. While I personally am not sure the current standards are really good, because they do open the door for a lot of articles on people who merely competed in races such as the Indy 500, they are still what we should follow and they clearly support a keep in this instance. --The Way 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is effectively equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT#Just_a_policy_or_guideline - you're simply asserting that it meets the notability requirements for people. David Mestel(Talk) 08:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As said above "The article is well-sourced and meets the notability requirements for people". He is somewhat well known to people who know American Motor-Racing history. I don't see any harm in keeping it, it is not as if he is completely unknown. Plus the article has a lot of time and effort put into it by the Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing . . . look here: 1933 Indianapolis 500. -BMan1113VR 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ILIKEIT. David Mestel(Talk) 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not believe an individuals level of success or failure does not in itself make them notable (or not). I feel that the obscure may still relevant because of its context. Do you discount the worst selling singles of otherwise significant recording artists simply because they did not fare so well. Certainly not because they would be expected to be there in an encyclopedia. The article in this case should be a small one certainly but it should be there.Jsydave 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the single might be notable because, for example, it represented a development in the artist's performance, but if it was virtually unknown and insignificant, then no, it would not in principle merit an article. David Mestel(Talk) 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The whole point of notability is a guide that the subject can be written about from a NPOV from verifiable sources - that is clearly the case with this article. Alexj2002 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:ILIKEIT is not really relevant here: I don't think anyone has a personal bias about this article. We are simply arguing for its inclusion based partly on our interpretation of the criteria and – certainly from my point of view – partly on a consideration for a "completist" approach to content. Yes, the article (and many others like it) could be improved further – take note of Readro's initial efforts – but why on earth should a minor article be deleted? Sounds like a case of WP:IHATEIT Adrian M. H. 16:41, 29 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:36Z

Dmitry Afanasenko[edit]

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

nn ski-jumper, whose chief (and almost only) achievement seems to be coming 74th in the Ski-jumping world cup. I've been unable to find a single proper source relating to him. Oh, and the article's completely unsourced, too... David Mestel(Talk) 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any sources either and if the article is accurate about his achievements, it seems unlikely there will be any. Trebor 13:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO; no reliable sources or anything else notable. Jayden54 14:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No citations, non-notable. --Wildnox(talk) 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:23, 28 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, and article was stubbed during the AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:38Z

Amr ibn Abd al-Wud[edit]

Amr ibn Abd al-Wud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article reads like someone copied and pasted it out of a book. It is unencyclopedic and I cannot tell if it is fact or fiction. It needs sections, and introduction, and an overall structure. It needs a total rewrite. Sbrools 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

completing unsuccessful AfD (ended up on the article's talk page), no opinion, procedural addition. SkierRMH 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not nedded for wikipedia. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless completely overhauled and notability/verifiability established. MER-C 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 14:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is heavily POV. I searched for the name on google and couldn't find anything relavent. The person might be notable, but it would need references to some verifiable sources. Tarinth 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per MER-C, the guy is not non-notable, the article stinks Alf photoman 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable. besides, it reads like a novel ... shift to BedTimeStoriesWIKI xCentaur |  talk  12:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  21:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  21:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep sombody had dumped a how lot of copyvio material, that is why the article looked that bad. I removed it and turned it back into the proper stub it was. The person is notable indeed, he was a champion of the 10 000 man army that had surrendered the Muslims during a very well known battle and his troops were the only ones that managed to breach the siege. He was killed by one of the most notable and well known Muslim soldiers, whom eventualy became a Caliph. The battle itself is well known and prominently retold among Muslims when describing this battle. And as shown from the copyvio, there is material to expand this article for anyone having the time. --Striver - talk 14:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i would also like to point out that this afd' is in fact breaking protocol by not even atempting a simple inquiry on the talk page, much less asking anyone about the person in question, resulting in a Christmas afd that many people missed.--Striver - talk 14:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Delete unless seriously overhauled and notability is established. Unless someone provides evidence that it is indeed notable, I say delete. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver who turned this into a legit stub. Go get more WP:N by WP:RS on this dude and then notify me on my talk page; if I'm awake I'll do the rounds of contacting the people who already voted and asking them to take a second look when notability is established. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; is this guy indepdentently notable? If he's only known for this battle, then it should be in the relevant battle article, not in an article of his own, as he isn't all that notable as far as I can tell. I'd be open to having my mind changed, though. Titanium Dragon 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Striver. I think his comments are strong and valid. --- ALM 14:52, 27 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:39Z

WritersUA[edit]

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

Advert for a non-notable company — fails WP:CORP, retroactive objection to proposed deletion. ➥the Epopt 13:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable per WP:CORP as I can't find any coverage by reliable sources or anything else notable. Jayden54 14:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a lot of hits on this, but not a lot of news coverage, afaics. It's a special interest technical conference, and I'm not sure we need to be a directory of all of them. There are lots of blogs that mention it, but after all it is gathering of tech writers - of course they are going to blog about it. --Brianyoumans 18:55, 24 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 Ehrlichiosis. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:40Z

Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic[edit]

Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Created by CaliforniaLyme (talk · contribs) to bring her diagnosis and that of a suspected case into the limelight. Not a recognised medical entity; further discussion on Talk:Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura has not yielded any further indication that this page is about a legitimate medical diagnosis. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge. Haven't had a chance to verify this information, but it seems to be too subsubspecialized to merit its own page. If anything else, should be merged with ehrlichiosis or TTP, if this content is indeed correct. Andrew73 14:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is based on 3 case reports and a lot of fluff. Content was removed from TTP for being too hyperspecialised. I dispute that it is worthy of inclusion with Ehlichiosis either. JFW | T@lk 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly delete, (minimal merge) - Ehrlichiosis already mentions "bleeding due to thrombocytopenia", so this is a trivial (re number of confirmed cases, what with "In one study ... 11 of 15 patients were seronegative"") part of the overall clinical spectrum of features already discussed in Ehrlichiosis. David Ruben Talk 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WS 16:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mention in Ehrlichiosis that it can mimic TTP, otherwise it's WP:NPOV#Undue weight to 3 case reports -- Samir धर्म 22:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the minimal useful content, per Samir.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is beyond minutia and doesn't appear to be given much attention at all in the literature. I'm not even sure there's anything worth merging. Any Rheumatology/ID experts on call?Droliver 21:49, 25 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 first argument for keep is conditional, and as of now, no reliable sources have been added (Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source)... many of the other arguments for keep reference the first. I considered Mikka's argument but did not find it compelling when weighing against the delete arguments. Per WP:NEO, Delete without prejudice to a recreation if properly sourced. --++Lar: t/c 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - a number (but not all, it was a judgement call on my part) of the what links here pages were changed to point to School prank#pile-on as part of my cleanup after deleting. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on[edit]

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

That which is not a slang dictionary definition reads as original research. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as according to WP:NEO. --Tarret 14:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I believe it's quite a common term, but I can't find any reliable sources, so delete per WP:V and WP:NEO unless some reliable sources can be found. Jayden54 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - common term used by many people, but the lack of reliable sources is a concern, if reliable sources aren't found within the timeframe of this afd, then weak delete per WP:V & WP:NEO. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO TSO1D 15:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as dicdef (allow them to determine sourcing/currency). Not really a viable article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I asked for this to be brought back because of references from Snipe hunt and School prank among others. In light of the comments I see here, perhaps it's too long-winded and should be described solely in School prank. Comments? Frotz661 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arnzy. 1ne 15:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term itself is common enough in standard English, and is applied to everything from paperwork to food to American Football players, so ordinarily, I would say transwiki, but the current article is about an unbelievably trivial and non-notable use of the term and is completely unsalvageable IMO. Xtifr tälk 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm I guess conditional keep per Arnzy, and possibly move to some other term like "dogpile". This article is not a dicdef, but is weak in terms of verifiability. I think this afd is a bit premature, as there is some hope of turning it into a reasonably sourced article, and there aren't substantial promotional elements calling for an immediate smackdown, so its problems should have been discussed on its talk page before AfD. As Cool Cat put it, AfD is not an article improvement drive. If deleted, re-creation should be permitted if good docs are added in the re-creation. 67.117.130.181 09:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictionary definition. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Quite widespread. It is also known in Russia under the name "Куча-мала!" ("The Heap is Too Small!"). I will try to dig out something Russian. There are some interesting discussions about the psychology of the game [23], [24], [25]. `'mikka 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the cell phone game with the same or similar name (also Russian version [26]) has nothing in common with the body pile-up, and must be split out into the separate article. (a 100% verifiable one, BTW) Any volunteers? `'mikka 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I believe "dog pile" is a better name as it is arguably more common and unambiguous. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:43Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to International rules football. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:44Z

International rules[edit]

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

Appears to be original research and if its not original research i'd question the notiblity on the term Gnevin 15:01, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:46Z

Jennifer S. Sargus[edit]

Jennifer S. Sargus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable judge. Asserts notablity because her (non-notable) father-in-law has a prison named after him - doesn't work for me. Emeraude 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, local judge who sits on the county court in a county with a population of 70,000, with no assertion of notability beyond this. WP:BIO states that local politicians are not automatically notable, and this would be relevant to other local officials as well. Demiurge 15:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Demiurge Bugtrio | Talk 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Demiruge's comments and the nominator. Jayden54 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. State trial-level judges are generally not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles under WP:BIO unless they have received extensive press coverage, like Lance Ito. --Metropolitan90 01:19, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:30Z

The Sugar Blush Beauties[edit]

The Sugar Blush Beauties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NOTE The only checkable references are the subject's own webpages. The other cited references include a magazine called Calabasas (which links to The City Of Calabasas), a magazine called OYE (which links to nothing), a magazine called Peace (no link), a magazine called Infamous (which links to a definition of the word) and Playboy. If 4 out of the 5 magazines a band is mentioned in are not notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, it would come to follow that such a band is not notable.

It would be tough to try to see this band even if you wanted to - whereas a Google search for "The Pussycat Dolls are performing" or "Catch The Pussycat Dolls" returns links, a Google search for "Sugar Blush Beauties are performing" or "Catch Sugar Blush Beauties" returns nothing.

This group was founded by Rachel Sterling, also up for deletion for being non-notable.[28] TruthGal 15:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability is claimed under the "In the media" but no actual references are provided, and I can't find much through Google so delete for being non notable and failing WP:V. Jayden54 18:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment - Delete per nom. Also, Calabasas Magazine does exist, but it's confined to the LA area (I only know of it because of a Lauren Graham piece from a few months ago). I can't find any mention of this band on their site, so it's possible it could be just a minor profile or even an ad-placed mention (in this issue most likely). Nate 21:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm not questioning whether the magazines are legit - I'm just saying that 4 out of 5 of them aren't noatble enough to have Wikipedia pages. And therefore, if a publication that's not notable does an article about a person, one can't then use the article in the non-notable publication to make the case for the person's notability. Or if you prefer - If someone writes about a tree falling in Calabasas Magazine... ;) TruthGal 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mention of the Sugar Blush Beauties in Playboy consisted of less than two sentences in the text accompanying a six-page pictorial of Rachel Sterling. That pictorial could help make a case toward Sterling's own notability but the discussion is so short it doesn't do much to assert notabiility for the group. For the record, the following is the entire text of the Playboy reference to the Sugar Blush Beauties:
You can see her later this year in the indie film Price to Play, about 1980s drug culture, or you may catch her dance act, the Sugar Blush Beauties, as it tours Canada with some notable celebrity guests, including our September 2005 cover girl, Jessica Canseco. The group features five model-dancers who do "rock-and-roll cabaret."
"Rachel 911". Playboy. May 2006. p. 58. --75.0.154.30 02:21, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:48Z

Masters in Applied Positive Psychology[edit]

Masters in Applied Positive Psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable university program and unencyclopedic. ju66l3r 15:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, most university programs aren't notable and there's no sign this one is an exception. Spammy besides. Pan Dan 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a regular university program with no sign of anything noteworthy about it. Jayden54 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual university programs, whether at the graduate or undergraduate level, are almost, if ever, notable. Each university is going to have tens of programs. My university, for example, has something like 25 different Masters programs. No way we can have articles for all of them. --The Way 20:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just rewrote the article. What was there before made no claim to special notability, but in fact the program would be regarded by some as being not only the most natable program out there (in the field of psychology), but a sign of a revolution in psychology itself, of a new emphasis. It is certainly not just another university program, but I agree with Jayden54 and Pan Dan (and implied by The Way) that the former version of the article gave no indication that it was noteworthy. I added the following to the article:
"Positive psychology", the study of optimal human functioning, is an attempt to respond to the systematic bias inherent in psychology's historical emphasis on mental illness rather than on mental wellness. Some humanistic psychologists developed theories along these lines, but without solid empirical support. The pioneering research of a new generation of psychologists has led to a renewed interest in this approach, providing a firm scientific foundation for the study of human happiness and optimal function, thus adding a positive side to the predominantly negative discipline of psychology. In this sense the program is unique, representing a very important milestone in opening this important area.

I'd appreciate giving this article a chance to improve and demonstrate its notability (if the present version is not sufficient for people already) rather than just deleting it. -DoctorW 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The content has no Neutral point of view. Tonytypoon 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The understanding of WP:NPOV immediately above seems to contradict what it actually says on the cited page: "The neutral point of view: 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." If anyone feels that a view on the subject of the article has not been expressed adequately or fairly, please add it. -DoctorW 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV trash. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:25, 28 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:49Z

Future Technology[edit]

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

WP:OR violation. ju66l3r 15:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Delete The article as-written is unsalveageable, but I think the topic of "Future Technology" is actually a justifiable encyclopedic category. While one might accuse such an article of being a magnet for crystal-balling--I have some print encyclopedias that have a similar subject. I'd say delete if this article can't be improved quickly. Tarinth 15:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: This is both original research and crystal balling. If someone can make an article with "documented" possibilities, that might be different, but this is bald speculation. Heimstern Läufer 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only way an article like this can work if all the information is properly sourced. Jayden54 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And suggest the editor to go to wikibooks. Tonytypoon 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This recreation was caught by our copyvio bot, which states is a copyvio from this page (although I can't load it right now). As soon as someone confirms this is indeed a copyvio, I can speedy delete it. -- ReyBrujo 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page is search engine spam which appears to include some old Wikipedia content. If there's any copyright violation going on, it's on their part. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the tip. No speedy delete then, at least not for that reason. -- ReyBrujo 21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced original research. --ShadowHalo 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eli Falk 12:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is unsalvagable original research. Dr. Submillimeter 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research and Crystalballing. However, as a previous editor mentioned, I could see a legitimate article on this topic; there are plenty of legitimate articles on the topic. However, the article can be recreated after deletion if someone wants to make a proper article. --The Way 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; NOR. Yuser31415 04:59, 26 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:51Z

M40 Minibus Crash[edit]

M40 Minibus Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable road accident. The law change mentioned happened 8 years after this event, which had no influence on the law.(http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506857.hcsp) Nuttah68 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete unless sourced, and the sources show (or at least suggest) that this was a factor in the law being changed. It might be possible to write a decent article about it, but it seems unlikely. Trebor 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't show that this particular crash is the reason for changes in the law. There are also hundreds of fatal car crashes every single day, they are not notable for an encyclopedia. --The Way 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Car accident. Tonytypoon 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pan Dan has added citations for articles in books and in newspapers, covering this event and its aftermath, that span a period of 10 years. The campaign to change the law (The event did provoke a review of the regulations — see Phil Revell (2001-09-18). "Training, not tinkering". The Guardian.) was but one of the things that ensued from the event. The cited book discusses the controversy that the ensuing coverage of grief by two students sparked, for example. Then there was the criticism of the BBC that was sparked. This event is also singled out, as "the" M40 minibus crash, by this charity and by this government agency. There are hundreds of fatal car crashes every day. The way that we distinguish which ones should be included in Wikipedia with their own articles is whether they are the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works. As per the citations provided by Pan Dan, this one is. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Drew30319 00:19, 29 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. --Ezeu 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes[edit]


Start off[edit]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The user who created this page decided that another page, already a featured list, was too long. They then cut down the articles greatly, and put them in three seperate articles. He also decided that they should be featured, as the original one was. Couldn't think of any speedy deletion criteria that fit, but I think that it should be speedied anyway. This is the first of them, I am also nominating-


Comments[edit]

J Milburn 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The original article is List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. J Milburn 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope the three proposed articles can be deleted with as much speed and efficiency as possible. None of the three articles contribute anything to Wikipedia- they were blatantly ripped from the original page, which had no length issues whatsoever and was one of the premiere articles associated with the Avatar Wikiproject. There's no reason for them to remain active. Y BCZ 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that the intent is to basically split the single list of Avatar episodes into one per season, because it does seem rather long already, and is likely to double in size again. I don't know that just creating the articles is a good idea, but it is something worthy of discussion and consideration. So I can't recommend speedy deletion or any hasty action. I'd like to hear from some more people actually. I actually find the objections here to be a bit troubling. I do think asking for opinions first would have been the way to go, but I don't see any gross wrong-doing in the actions taken. It is not an insult for content to be split from one page, but rather the point of the GFDL. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem I have with this action is that it was undertaken by a single user (one who does not possess an account, to make matters worse). This comes after a number of users including myself collaborated and put hours of work into getting the original list to reach Featured status. The user who created these three lists did so on a day where many users are not likely to leave comments immediately (due to rather obvious circumstances regarding the date), thus those users who I am certain would support my reasoning will not likely voice themselves for some time. I myself will be leaving shortly after posting this comment. The user who created the articles has not taken any action to improve the articles after their creation- thus, they contain no information that could not be found on the original article, thus they contribute nothing whatsoever. The alternative to deleting the three articles is to revert the original page to the status the user set it to after creating the newer trio: as a method of navigating the new pages. This is hardly a status befitting a Featured List, and I am certain a number of users would not allow this to come about (including myself). This is the reason I initially called for the deletion of all three articles, and the reason I continue to support this action. Y BCZ 17:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first objection is untrue, the person does have an account. User:Zach111493 is a user, with an account, even if a recently established one. This may mean many things, but I remind you to Assume Good Faith, and that you recognize that as a new user, they may not know the best protocols to follow. That you and other users have worked hard on these pages is also not a good objection, since none of your content has been removed or deleted. That this was done on a holiday doesn't matter much, is there any hurry to act on this decision? Nope, taking a few days, weeks, even months on this wouldn't hurt. There's no false information on the pages that I could see, or anything remotely libelous. It's not a problem in need of hasty action. Now as to the question of whether or not lists like the original episode guide should be split, I don't know, but I can imagine many series where it might well be helpful to break things into articles for each of the seasons. OTOH, I can understand the desire to have it in one comprehensive page. However, there is no need to be possessive about this page. That it is a featured list doesn't mean we can't decide that it might well be improved by splitting it. It does mean that anyone who wished to do so would be well-advised to seek consensus before doing so, but that they didn't so no reason to get upset. A little patience on your part, and following "Don't bite the Newbies" might help a good bit. As it stands, you should avoid calling things BS and saying they contribute nothing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is with all these happy smily people on Wikipedia? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you may know, it's often a more effective method to use honey over vinegar. Not all the time, but in this case, I think practicing a little moderation might be helpful to some folks. FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using honey attracts bees. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are actually wrong in saying that no content was moved. Content was moved, and a lot of it- almost all of the information on the original list was cut out and used as content for the three new pages, I simply reverted it all back. That's virtually vandalism. My reverting the information back does thus make the three new pages obsolete- they are not valuable to Wikipedia because they contribute no new information.
The fact that he didn't have an account really doesn't matter- he edited a very large portion of the original article without consensus from other users, which was met with disapproval. Thus, I called for a consensus to revert this change. I have thus far not attacked the user- I have said nothing directly to him at all, and only passively addressed him as "some user with no account." I am instead attacking his actions, and I feel there is a great difference between taking action against the two targets. Finally, the fact that it is a major holiday does matter, because the change was enacted upon this date when very few users were online to speak against the action- I believe I was the only online member of the Wikiproject when it transpired. Obviously, these things do not matter at the present moment, but I believe you should hold my rather aggressive approach to resolving this incident against me. I understand that Zach made the edit with good intentions, however we all know what the path of good intentions may lead to. I am willing with all my heart to forgive him- so long as he learns his lesson. Now, Manticore, please stop arguing for the page's survival using an ad hominum argument- it should not matter at all how I act in arguing so long as my points are valid. I view this action as a mistake that should be corrected quickly and efficiently, so that we can all move on. Y BCZ 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any removed content. Moved? Sure, but that's the closest you'll get to removed, and that's not a real problem. It's still there in the history. More importantly, it's not vandalism, virtual or otherwise. If you want vandalism, wait till you see somebody replace an article with some random pejoratives. That's vandalism. This isn't even close, and you shouldn't act like it was. At most, it's a mistake, and to be honest, you could have dealt with it much more effectively than you did. A kind, considerate word would probably have worked just as well, and you could have made the pages into redirects without even bothering with a call for deletion. There is no hurry here, so what if it's a holiday. It's a television show, I like it myself, but I'm not going to claim there's any pressing hurry. I think you need to take a step back and realize that there was no harm done. The page you have contributed to is still there, it was easily fixed, and at most Wikipedia's servers are using up a few more kilobytes of space than they would. That's not a big deal. Yet to me, you've gotten all riled up, as if this was something that needed to be taken care of now. It's not. The fact is, there is no need for an aggressive approach. No major revert wars occurred, no trolling, no vandalism, in other words, no big deal. And yes, how you act is very important. If you don't believe me, try WP:Civil where you can read for yourself the thoughts of others on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 05:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's you that got riled up, Y was simply doing the same job we all do DAILY. DAILY we get large amounts of things done to pages without concensus. DAILY we revert repeated vandalism. DAILY we explain to users why their edits were changed and have to hear the shouting from them. But today, when Y was simply doing the same job he's done day in and day out (normally those deletions happen right away as with the recent page created for Avatar Characters), you decided to step in and start dismissing our actions, the very same actions that got this article into FA status to begin with. It's true that redirection could have worked, but redirection does not always get the editor to stop (and if you don't believe that, i've got a few history pages to show you, (how many times have we deleted Kataang or Zutara?)). 06:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't feel I'm riled up, nor do I feel that would even appear to be so from my words. If I have given that appearance, let me assure you that is not the case. I'm troubled, sure, but not upset. Your concerns about vandalism are certainly valid, but you needn't worry about expressing them, I've dealt with my share of it too, so I'm quite aware of it. It's not a problem limited to the Avatar pages, but one unfortunately endemic to Wikipedia. There are many reasons why it happens, but that it does happen so pervasively is a reason to keep a cool head. However, unlike actual vandalism, or articles like Kataang or Zutara, this was a potentially reasonable decision. At the least, it didn't violate any explicit principles of Wikipedia, aside from seeking Consensus first. But since boldness is encouraged, it's not a great problem. Nothing was vandalized, no bad content was introduced. Since it was objected to, it would have been better to assume good faith, inform the editor of the objections to that bold action(which was not done until after this began, aside from some inappropriate talk page comments), revert the moved content(which was done anyway, so not a problem), and so the only problem would be the existence of these pages. Which is not actually a great problem. It's a few extra kilobytes of disk space, and if quick action was really wanted, a couple of redirects would have put the pages out of action immediately. Or you could have spoken to the creating editor, and asked them to request the pages be deleted. A gently worded request might have accomplished that very easily. Instead, we get a person calling the action BS on the talk pages and this nomination which has problems with folks being a bit overzealous. I'm sorry if I am saying it in a way that offends you, but I do find that to be a matter of concern, and so I have politely tried to express it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say, the reason these articles annoyed me personally was that they were brand new, and claimed to be featured status despite the fact that they had not been through the usual featured system. Whenever I have seen this before, they have been spoof articles, that needed to be deleted. J Milburn 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case I'd say it was a result of a new user copying and pasting the information without realizing that certain parts weren't appropriate for a split. Ignorance, maybe, but certainly not any kind of spoof or vandalism. As things go, there are a lot worse things to worry about. FrozenPurpleCube 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original author of these articles has requested that they are kept, on the talk page of one of the articles. I have left a note on their talk page abour voicing their opinion here.
You might wish to try User:Zach111493 instead, as that person created the articles. May indeed by the same editor, may not, but it is better to try to find a user than an IP address. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, one person simply saying "it's better" doesn't mean it's true. I see a lot of people supporting the delete, and backing up their opinions logically. I cannot say the same for the other side of the decision, though. Sorry, but we can't just make everyone happy. Y BCZ 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been less than 24 hours since the nomination was made, and you yourself have argued that it's a holiday. I think you may wish to wait and see if people come up with anything.
  • Comment: Aside from this talk page, I thought it might be easier to move around with different sections and a guide at the top. Zach111493 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regardless of what is done at the end, all three lists should be put through FLC once more as they are essentially new articles. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They won't be staying. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone has made the articles into redirects anyway. I guess that would have been the best course of action in the first place, that is partially my fault, but Y was rather angry, and out for blood. Apologies. I guess this should stick then. J Milburn 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, unfortunately, now that this process is started, it does have to remain. However, I do think that this is a clear lesson that sometimes a bit of moderation can be a better way to accomplish a desired goal, and that stepping back from an initial angry reaction can be a good thing. There are things to get upset over, this never amounted to that. FrozenPurpleCube 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I proposed a new idea for the itunes page or the episodes page, the itunes section, look at this talk page. New idea for format Zach111493 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the place to discuss that. In any case, the main article is a featured list, meaning that drastic changes would probably be a bad idea, and there would be a lot of people who wanted to discuss the matter. If I were you, I would copy out your new format idea to a sandbox within your user space, then link to it from the talk page of the article. It might be worth linking to it from the WikiProject as well. Explain why you think the new layout is better, and discuss it with the members. J Milburn 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

  • Delete and/or redirect-Entirely unnecessary. Not to mention, the episode list has a currently hidden section designed for when new episodes are announced but yet to air. This also leaves broken links galore all around, for no significant gain. Furthermore, this was a featured list before, so any arguments that it wasn't functional seem rather groundless. What's more, there are featured episode lists far, far longer than this one. Its pointless, done with no consensus, and the articles should either be deleted or redirected to the existing article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


  • Delete If it is done to this seires, then why isn't done to the rest of the tv shows that are featured lists? Answer: FLC 1A. Having them all together makes them useful, by sepperating, their usefulness is decreased. The Placebo Effect 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOW. A page with all the episodes on it will not, as we currently know, ever get above 60 episodes long, having them on multiple pages just makes it clunky when trying to find things when you can just as easily find them on one page with a key. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Odd format for an AfD, by the way. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect/Merge We already have an article about this subject with season 2. This article is quite unnescessary, and I recommend redirecting or merging.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 05:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unwieldy, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These shouldn't stay, but would make poor redirects. J Milburn 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this made[edit]

Well...[edit]

I thought that it would be better but, I was proven otherwise. Zach111493 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it falls under Speedy Deletion due to author's request... J Milburn 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Yell at me for what I've done) Zach111493 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for help[edit]

References[edit]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:52Z

List of non-player characters in The Sims[edit]

List of non-player characters in The Sims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is more fancruft similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pre-made_characters_in_The_Sims. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, Wikipedia is not a game walkthrough guide. Nothing in the article asserts the notability of the characters listed (note generic "characters" such as "Babies" and "Butler" in the list). This information is probably suitable for a gaming wiki.

Additional comments: 1) This has nothing to do with the notability of The Sims, only the notability of this page. 2) I am not arguing against the idea of creating lists of notable characters in a game (there are plenty of examples of that), but there's no reason to have an infodump of non-notable characters like this. When games, TV shows, films and books have lists or pages made for specific characters, there is a good reason for it (such as the character becoming important elsewhere, influential, or a cultural icon) and there's no reason to believe that's the case here. Tarinth 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question/Discussion What policy/guideline might be applicable here. I'm not saying there is not one, just that I can't seem to locate one. However, if I see one that is applicable, I'll post within a few minutes. Navou talk 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V is the overriding principle (as it always has been), although WP:WAF is equally applicable: There is nothing to say about these characters that is not solely in the context of the game itself. Nifboy 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears WP:NOT#DIR is applicable here. Navou talk 18:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incidental characters fail WP:FICTION. Also there is no storyline in any of the versions of The Sims to play through. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These characters are, as TheFarix stated, incidental. -- Kicking222 19:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is neither a game guide or a collection of indiscriminate information.-- danntm T C 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine even fans coming here to look up this cruft. -Freekee 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:21, 27 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:53Z

Garrison Golf and Curling Club[edit]

Garrison Golf and Curling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy (no reason given). Non notable sporting facility maintained by Canadian military. Nuttah68 16:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable per WP:CORP/WP:ORG and for the fact that I can't find anything noteworthy about this company or club. Jayden54 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A7 per original request. No assertion of notability. If SD not acceptable regular Delete. skrshawk 00:14, 25 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 Nom withdrawn and Speedy Keep. Navou talk 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpy Arcade[edit]

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

Reads like an ad Navou talk 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Site and its associated software is used by millions of users. 3 million Ghits. Extensive media coverage. Easily meets either any of WP:SOFT, WP:CORP or WP:WEB (take your pick). The article content didn't read like an ad to me, and it even includes a section on criticism; but if you don't like what it says, perhaps you should attempt to improve it. Tarinth 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion It just comes across to me as a self promoting article without cites other than the products website. Navou talk 17:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of better cites or sources isn't by itself a reason for deletion, especially for something that can be quickly verified as a notable product/vendor/company. There's quite a wealth of articles written about it on the Internet that you could probably add a few more neutral references in the time it took to go through the AfD-listing process. Tarinth 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes #1 of WP:SOFTWARE (proposed): "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." --- RockMFR 17:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is inane. Gamespy is an obvious keep. Thedreamdied 17:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep instead of an AfD, may I suggest Template:Advert as a clean-up tag? FrozenPurpleCube 17:48, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:53Z

Jim Lawler[edit]

Jim Lawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melted Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saso (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Middle Ages (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Can Do Nice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big Group Hug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Warmed Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Self promotional walled garden. Architecture co. deleted after prod, also nominating his band, releases and record label here for various failures of WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - non notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. The band has more than two albums, but their label isn't notable which means their albums don't qualify for WP:MUSIC. Jim Lawler doesn't pass WP:BIO in any way. Jayden54 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability. --Wildnox(talk) 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all lacks sources to pass there respective notability guidelines.-- danntm T C 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; articles seem only of interest to their creators.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:25, 24 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 Renaissance College Hong Kong. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:54Z

Phoenix International School[edit]

Phoenix International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No sources, non-notable, should be deleted. CraigMonroe 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --- RockMFR 17:27, 24 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. (Carried out by Yanksox.) Picaroon 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Cookie and Kang[edit]

The Adventures of Cookie and Kang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

So apparently a webcomic hosted on freewebs doesn't fit into CSD[29]. Am I supposed to be nominating geocities and angelfire websites instead? - hahnchen 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable at all. Only assertion of notability is calling it an Internet meme. --- RockMFR 17:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#A7, db-web, surely? Would delete myself but for deep wiki-love held for Samir... Deizio talk 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, web content which does not assert notability. (Use {{db-web}} or one of the other specific CSD templates rather than {{db}} in future to avoid getting bumped from speedy.) Demiurge 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do use db-web. Using db should make no difference, unless admins don't actually read. - hahnchen 17:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - non notable and no assertion of notability. Jayden54 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article doesn't assert notability beyond a completely unsupported claim that it's an "internet meme". Claims like that need proof. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:13, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:55Z

Dreamcity[edit]

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

Recreated speedied article about a theatre group. Notability asserted in the form of a mention in the Washington Post. StoptheDatabaseState 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The author claims they have been mentioned in the Washington Post, but there is no source for this. Notability not verified. Heimstern Läufer 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Claims not verified. --Fsotrain09 00:42, 29 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 WRT54G. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:58Z

Tomato (firmware)[edit]

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

Previously speedied, recreated. Router firmware, don't see the connection with WP:SOFTWARE. Deizio talk 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously speedied because the editor mistakenly thought it was a self-promotion for a commercial software venture; it is a notable open source software project. Router firmware for the WRT54G has been notable due to the popularity of the router and the large user community[30], with many of the other firmware projects already on Wikipedia as noted on the Talk:Tomato (firmware) discussion. This particular project has attracted attention in the WRT54G community[31], and a quick Google of "tomato firmware" received 12,100 hits. Mr. Zarniwoop 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I fail to see how your comment addresses the WP:SOFTWARE guideline. "Attention in the WRT54G community" does not translate to establishing notability, and neither source above seems to fit WP:RS. There are 108 unique google results, fairly unspectacular. [32] Maybe it's just firmware? Deizio talk 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But according to WP:RS, attention in the WRT54G community does correspond to notability, unless I'm misunderstanding this sentence: "The number of users has been considered for some time a criterion for notability". You also get many more Google hits by searching for tomato wrt54g [33] which accounts for the fact that the software is not normally referred to as "tomato firmware". Cheesey 11:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't understand what your interpretation of that sentence is. Deizio talk 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation of that sentence is that software can be considered notable simply by having a large number of users. Cheesey 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline refers to that as "controversial" and "not feasible", not as an indicator of notability. Deizio talk 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, possibly, redirect. I was the original CSD nominator, and I still stand by that decision. The fact that this is is an open-source project and not a conventional company does not in any way mitigate the need for reliable sources and independant verification, none of which this article has ever demonstrated. There are a whole lot of these articles, by the way, a list of which is conveniently located at Talk:Tomato (firmware). Whatever happens here should happen to most of them. Depending on whether or not the content at WRT54G#Third-party firmware projects meets inclusion guidelines, these articles could be redirected there; I don't think there is more than a one-line blurb that Wikipedia can dedicate to these projects with the current level of referencing. Serpent's Choice 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that whatever happens to this article should also happen to all the other WRT54G firmware articles - if one such article is not suited to Wikipedia, then none of the others are either. Maybe it would be worth adding an AfD message to the other articles on that list to encourage further discussion. Cheesey 11:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you guys know more about firmware than me, I just spotted an article which failed several policies and guidelines. If this is deleted I suspect you could use it as precedent to delete similar articles if they do not meet the relevant criteria. Deizio talk 12:58, 28 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:04Z

Petaylish[edit]

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

One man's constructed language without any evidence of its spread, usage or notability. The only source is the creator's geocities. This can probably be speedied A7. - hahnchen 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. --- RockMFR 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. - Aagtbdfoua 20:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I know I'm not registered but I'm a long-time member of the ZBB, the board this was posted on. Hahnchen says there is no evidence of its spread or notability. I can back that up: its spread is confined to two message boards totalling around 500 people, very few of whom have expressed more than a passing interest in this project; its notability is zero. 62.136.127.251 21:05, 28 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 totally non notable unverified, unverifiable no reference sources . Dakota 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis System of Acting[edit]

Symbiosis System of Acting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability (Note: this post is copied to this forum due to relevence) Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

January 19, 2003 Courier-Journal Article ID: lou2003012007205388: Director hopes film lures bit of Hollywood to Louisville

Included in that article are references to my work on several major films, and supports my status as a professional and NOTABLE filmmaker. The article written by Nancy Rodriguez was supported by interviews and research by the journalist.

Contrary to stevietheman and Dhartung's claims, I have read the article and the definition of "Notability" as provided by Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article is supported the article mentioned above as my reputation as a filmmaker within the Louisville businss community was sufficient to provide me support during my productions, including from major business leaders based entirely on my name recognition. By the very definition of "Notability" whether on a local, national or international level, my contributions to the film communities in Louisville, Florida, London, Los Angeles, NYC have provided me respect based on name recognition within the communities. International recognition will come as a result of the upcoming release of Midnight Snow. However, I have become aware that there is an effort to promote regional and locally related articles. If nothing else, the article would qualify for a Louisville based circulation based on local notability resulting from the article in the Louisville Courier-Journal (which is an internationally recognized publication).

Regarding Symbiosis System of Acting, this is an "Acting Method" no different than any method taught to actors, such as the Meisner Method. Since I have already qualified by argument for inclusion of this article, Symbiosis System of Acting would qualify by default, just as the articles relatd to Meisner's techniques. However, the category is called "Acting Methods". An acting method by itself doesn't become notable. It is notable through a grassroots effort through teaching. 183 students of acting have been taught this method since 2004. That isn't necessarily a small number considering that it was only developed into a formatted program during the past decade. That doesn't make it any less important than Meisner or Strausberg which has been taught for several decades with an established following. But the definition of Acting Method would qualify Sysbiosis System's inclusion as an article about Acting Methods because it is exactly that... an Acting Method. Exclusion of more contemporary techniques such as Symbiosis System, Dawn Wells Film Acting Boot Camp or Bob Fraser's "You Must Act" programs would make the category on Wikipedia's Acting Methods incomplete since most of the Meisner, Stanislavsky and Strausberg techniques are relevent to stage acting only and are mostly outdated. There are too many qualifying techniques being used today in film acting that under the guidelines you are addressing would be disqualified and would thereby render Wikipedia as an out-dated resource.

Qualification of an article is not left for interpretation by Editors. However, I do feel that the Editors, who are not attorneys, should consider that by interpreting written policy, they are setting a precedence that would have to be followed very carefully on all future articles. As courts are careful about "interpretating" law, Editors and Administrators need to be careful about interpreting policy, otherwise Wikipedia could quickly become an outdated and unreliable source of information based on unnecessary exclusion of so many relevent articles.

Vanispamcruftisement

Vanispamcruftisement (IPA: /væ.nə.spæm.kɹəf.ʼtaɪz.mənt/; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau term comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. The term was coined by Freakofnurture to describe an article nominated for deletion which exhibited all the above properties, being an article apparently created by the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom.

Contrary to steveietheman or Dhartung's claims, neither article qualifies under the above definition. The J. Kristian O'Daugherty article was written by Ilson Lakosky about a film director. There are no services... no company... no advrtisements anywhere, including on my website at www.jaykofilms.com. What any reader is directed to through external links, are pages discussing the film industry, still photography, an extensive resource on acting under the Symbiosis System of Acting, and ten galleries of original, and obviously professional quality photographic work. Everything that any serious artist's website might contain. The reference to JayKO would be no different than referencing Askew in an article about Kevin Smith. They go hand in hand.

The Symbiosis System article doesn't promote any service which payment is expected. In fact, I've noticed that Ilson provided most of the structure of the system in the article, although somewhat incomplete. All information provided to the public about Symbiosis System of Acting allows the reader to apply the system without having to attend classes or purchase any services, books or materials. In otherwords... Free Use of the acting system by the reader without obligation.

As to my position on the threats of Legal Action, I do find Ilson's remarks somewhat inappropriate. Any legal action would have to be made by me alone and that is not my objective. I'd prefer this matter be resolved without further disruption and in a professional and respectful manner. If it cannot be resolved through these debates, then Wikipedia's adminstrators were wise enough to provide Dispute Resolution when conflicts arise. Hopefully we can all come to a fair agreement on how this should be handled without having to engage futher procedures.

I will stand by my opinion that the Editors need to apply reasonable standards when reviewing articles and submitting them for deletion. What may be appropriate for one category may not be for another. You should consider each topic carefully and apply standards that relate directly to the subject matter being adressed in the article.

God bless and Happy Holidays to everyone this season. --Jkris97 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • In reviewing Wikipedia's category of Acting Techniques, there are just 5 entries (including Symbiosis System of Acting). In reality, there are many more techniques and programs than those 5. Based on the arguments of Dhartung and others, I can understand why there are so few. If these same guidelines are being applied to other entries, then Wikipedia will never become a reliable resource of information on this particular subject. Just the Dawn Wells Film Actors Boot Camp or the Bob Fraser programs would be disqualified as "spam", yet both of those programs are valuable to the CONTEMPORARY film acting community and information about these programs should be available under any datebase or informational resource that includes Acting Techniques or Methods as a category. Each are different, just as Symbiosis System is. But just like Symbiosis System, they lack the history, but that doesn't make them less important than Meisner or Stanislavsky. In fact, for film acting, Symbiosis, Wells and Fraser's programs are more important because they are part of the evolution of acting itself and a part of the history of modern film acting. The arguments being applied to this debate is based on "opinions" rather than an understanding of film or theatre. Just like you wouldn't go to a Psychiatrist if you need brain surgery, you also wouldn't go to a computer tech if you want to understand filmmaking, theatre or photography. When making decisions about film, theatre or artistic articles and categories, Wikipedia needs to use editors and adminstrators who are competent in this fields to make those decisions rather than rely upon editors who lack any true knowledge (or interest) in these areas. Would Britannica hire computer experts to draft, edit or make decisions regarding Film Editing? No, they would hire someone with direct experience and knowledge of film editing. Sorry Dhartung, but your computer experience doesn't make you an expert in this particular category. --Jkris97 21:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeat: While notability is a guideline on which we can be slightly flexible in the interests of having a useful encyclopedia, verifiability is a policy on which we must be firm. We need verifiable information sourced to reliable third parties. Name recognition within a field is not the same thing as notability. If this is not an acting technique that has been written about by independent, trustworthy publications, there is no possibility of writing a complete, objective article on it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dhartung, I regret that you have made this personal with your debates in the associated forum. It's clear that your objective is the deletion of both of these articles with prejudice. Based on your arguments, there's no question of that. You keep referring to "notibility" and yet in the other forum (J. Kristian O'Daugherty) you fail to recognize the reliability of a source such as IMDB which was purchased by Amazon.com but operated as as an independent entity. Read their guidelines, Dhartung. As I made clear in the other forum, if the articles need to be rewritten or reclassified then so be it. But you can not accurately claim that my career hasn't been notable under the definitions you have offered. I would love to see you try and get a job as a still photographer with Warner Brothers shooting stills for any $100 million PLUS film production. You wouldn't even make it past the front gate. I have five of those productions under my belt. So please consider what your motivation is in this, and look a little closer at the source of my credits on the internet (IMDB) and demonstrate to me the reason why IMDb should not be taken as a serious nor reliable source. My work is deplayed on any website that includes X-Men: The Last Stand, Superman Returns, Poseidon, The Queen and Babel. Could you make such a claim?--Jkris97 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry you think I've "made this personal", but I have not. I reiterate that articles must follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'm glad you are proud of your professional accomplishments, but our requirements go beyond people who are proud of their work. We have repeatedly explained why IMDB listings are not proof of notability, and those are irrelevant to the discussion of the notability of your acting instruction theory anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the verbiage above; wikipedia is not a forum to make non-notable things appear notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion Request from Subject

It pains me to come to this decision, but I personally prefer not to have Symbiosis System of Acting nor my name associated with these discussions further. I appreciate that Ilson Lakosky considered me accomplished enough to draft an article documenting my film work and my development of the Symbiosis System of Acting. However, based on these discussions, I am request that all traces of my name and my acting program be immediately removed from Wikipedia, including all discussions in these forums. I will also expand that to include future articles that may include my name or my work, even if it passes Dhartung and Stevietheman's definition of "Notable".

At this time, I am finding ABC, CNN and MSNBC's questions concerning the value of Wikipedia and WikiNews more accurate than I prefer based on two very unpleasant experiences I've had, both centered around the decision on one of this organization's editors. Therefore, I ask that my request be immediately implemented without delay.--Jkris97 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am sorry you have found this unpleasant. There was never any such intent, of course. As a matter of policy it is impossible to erase your username and associated contributions, and an articles for deletion debate is permanently archived for maintenance purposes. It is also impossible for us to honor your request that you never appear in the encyclopedia, for instance, in any future film credits that may be included in articles, or to guarantee that no article will ever appear in the future. Nor do we have a process for deleting articles at a subject's request, otherwise it might be impossible to write articles about notorious or unpopular public figures. I am certain that the closing administrator will count your request appropriately as a delete vote. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and subject request. Montco 02:57, 25 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 - Absolutely frivolous nomination, AFD isn't cleanup, move or merge. hahnchen 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Live[edit]

Perfectly appliciable to move to Xbox. --Meryl Kiniry 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Afd is not for discussion of merging content. --- RockMFR 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable on its own. Just H 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I think this is obvious. --Wildnox(talk) 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Meryl Kiniry already made a frivolous AFD for United nations including changing other users responses to attempt to further his goal. This AFD is pure disruption and borderline vandalism. --Wildnox(talk) 19:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nothing more needs to be said. Guinness 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I'm with Guinness- discussion is not even necessary. -- Kicking222 19:57, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:31Z

Kevin Nadal[edit]

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

This article seems to be self promotion with no serious claim of notability --Kevin Murray 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no serious claim to fame here. --Wildnox(talk) 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though I'd love to see the self-wedding photos. TruthGal 03:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Mr. Nadal is well-known in the Filipino American community. It is unfortunate that others are deemed as not notable enough, when there are a lot of comedians and writers on wikipedia who aren't questioned even if their credentials are equal or less. I believe that whoever wrote the original entry may have wanted to increase awareness of Filipino Americans, since we have been a group that has been invisible in all forms of media, education, and government. How else can we as a group get any recognition?--24.193.35.18 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)PMT[reply]
    • Comment - The person who created the article has the username "Hotbachelor" and the earliest versions of the article contained the unsourced assertion that the subject of the article was names one of America's hottest bachelors by People magazine. It's probably fair to assume that the article was written more out of self promotion than to oincrease awareness of Filipino Americans, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia in the first place. If someone is "invisible in all forms of media", they don't meet WP:BIO by definition. Geoffrey Spear 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Davidpdx 07:04, 29 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, allowing for improvement of the article that currently has borderline evidence of notability. —Centrx→talk • 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moondance magazine[edit]

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

This article looks like an advert, does not look like it meets WP:WEB. This article was deleted by Radiant!, and is now recreated. Ideas? —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as recreation of a deleted page. --Wildnox(talk) 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't think 'speedy as recreation' applies, since it was speedied before, not AfDed, but sources look slim, and it seems a fairly obvious ad (written in first-person, soliciting submissions, the usual) and might be speediable on those grounds. Biggest claim to fame seems to be an honorable mention (for which I note a quote is presented and not sourced). Can't see how this could meet WP:WEB. Shimeru 20:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be patient. Currently reformatting article. All first person references have (hopefully) been completely deleted. I will source the UNESCO award quote and give more detailed information on as soon as possible. Do have the 1999 committee head (UNESCO) name. ---Lysanzia 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just worked on article again to comply with article format policies - please review - Happy Holidays - All thanks. --Lysanzia 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tone is better now, but the other problems still remain. Has this magazine been mentioned by any independent, third-party sources? The information about the award itself (as opposed to the magazine's receipt of it) doesn't belong -- it would on the UNESCO Prize for the Promotion of the Arts article, though (addition: if we had one...). And I remain unconvinced that an honorary mention makes this magazine noteworthy -- a reference to the award in an independent source (not UNESCO or Moondance, and not a reprint of a UNESCO or Moondance press release) would go a long way toward addressing this issue. Thank you for your efforts to address the issue, though; you've made a good start. Shimeru 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More information (again) for article has just been added. Still working to improve entirety. Please check newest version. In reference to noteworthiness of publication. The start date for the mag (1996) places it as one of the earliest serial online mag/journals. 187,000 readers per issue may have some merit also for this case. UNESCO gave web awards up to the year 2003... so current pages showing the award for 1999 (which applies here) are much harder to produce but might be found. I'm looking now. It is possible for me to contact UNESCO directly to get an email letter issued on this for your validation needs. Thanks for all your suggestions. --Lysanzia 06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Much more info on magazine history etc has just been added. All admin and eds.. please help review. Hope to have the "deletion" banner on this article lifted soon. All thanks.--Lysanzia 07:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to Weak Delete -- it's a much better article, but I still see no independent sources. All of the links provided are to Moondance's site, except for one to UNESCO (referencing an UNESCO award -- so not independent for that purpose) and one to the IMDB (referencing the magazine's creator's former career, which doesn't seem relevant to the article -- and IMDB certainly doesn't mention the magazine). I would support relisting to allow extra time to find sources, because I see a good-faith effort is being made and I don't think a firm consensus has yet been reached, but without at least one independent source confirming the information, I'm afraid I can't !vote keep. Shimeru 07:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I missed a couple of the links at the bottom. There are, in fact, a few more that are not to Moondance's site. However, none of them seem to actually mention Moondance. Shimeru 09:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recreation should only be speedily deleted if it's substantially similar. That is not the case here; the page I deleted was very short and lacked sources, the page as it is now has neither of those problems. I'm not entirely happy with its layout (e.g. the list under 'readership' should be prose instead), but that's a matter of cleanup, not deletion. However, the weird thing is that I can't find mention of Moondance in any of the sources mentioned, except for the Unesco one ([34], [35], [36]). >Radiant< 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moondance magazine Article Deletion -Revision

Hi Radiant! Just added many external links to many university (collage level) sites that have this magazine listed in their cirriculum (most are Women's Studies Depts, some English Depts and a Political Science Consortium of 80 universities). I am pleasantly surprised so many universities are using this magazine in their classes.You can link over to review this at Moondance magazine. I'm cleaning up and trying to improve all other aspects. All thanks for your continued help. --Lysanzia 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I'm impressed that it has been around for so long, but its Alexa ranking is over 2 million; I have a hard time believing it has the readership that it claims. Maybe it has that many "hits" per month, which could translate into maybe a tenth that many actual readers? Still reads like an advertisement. --Brianyoumans 10:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianyoumans... Trying very hard not to include "pitch" language in this article. Will check on readership claim numbers and correct. Perhaps this number is page views? Thanks for your help and assistance. --Lysanzia 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. List of "Academic Cirriculum[sic] Inclusions" appears to establish notability, even if it's in a small sphere. Argyriou (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly, subject evidently has merit but lack of sources is a real issue here. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Guy, Thanks for taking a look at the article for Moondance magazine. I have just added a large number of sources (embedded citations [37]) for the magazine and its use in the public eye(spec. w/academia). The info added is a list of universities inside the U.S. and one in Spain that currently does use the quarterly in their their class cirriculum(s). When you said the article needed more "sources" not sure you had a chance to see this. If it's alright could you detail more comment info (in the AfD discussion [38]) about your needs that makes you want to delete this article? After I know more I can then adjust the material accordingly. Working now to closely meet all Wik standards. Thanks.--Lysanzia 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing (again) to Weak Keep. I'm concerned that a lot of the new links look less like curriculum usage than like pages of links to websites vaguely related to women's studies. I'm not fully convinced that these pages are substantially significant. However, I'm willing to accept them for now -- as an indication of notability, all those listings do put it at least marginally above a random website. Would still very much like to see a solid secondary source, but I'm willing to err on the side of caution for now and revisit the matter in a couple of months if necessary. Shimeru 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This looks like something that should be notable, because of the UNESCO honorable mention and the fact that a few university departments link to the magazine, but I'm not sure how we're supposed to write a verifiable article without reliable, independent sources that have more than one line about this organization. The result is the article is based solely on the organization's website, and that isn't encyclopediadic. I mean, for all the Gender Studies departments listed that are linking to this page, no one has written anything about this?? Find one or two, and the case for keeping this gets stronger. - Aagtbdfoua 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote Reference Links are coming for this article. All thanks on the guidance everybody. --Lysanzia 00:18, 31 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:32Z

Maximum Capacity[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • lakes doesn't know wrestling if he thinks this guy should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayfabe11 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete notability not established through reliable or verifiable sources. Metros232 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Maximum Capacity, Minimum Notability, based on the article so far. Am willing to reconsider if facts establishing notability are added. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what proof do you guys need? check out zero 1 max site http://www.zerooneusa.com/MAXaround_06.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayfabe11 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Yes he has worked for ZERO1-MAX. This does not mean he's notable. He hasn't held any notable championships and hasn't been a notable person in professional wrestling by any other way. You should add him to some wiki dedicated to professional wrestling, he has no place here so far. ↪Lakes (Talk) 15:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom... you dont even know the guys name or anything about his actual history... and as far as i can tell he hasnt had any significant impact on sport entertainment --- Paulley
Whatever info do you need? there are a lot of other wrestlers on this site that have done far less than Max, yet they stay. Tell me what needs to be done and ill get it done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayfabe11 (talk • contribs)
Well ok, first of all that career section needs to be wiped out and his real name should be noted at the top of the article with a breif mention of the persona.. the career section is very badly toned (which means it reads like your trying to hype up/sell this character... you need to write it like you have never heard of this person before and have no preference on him what so ever) and for the most part i dont want to know about the character i want to know about the man... when/where was he born, what did he do with his life before wrestling, where did he train, what made his position in Zero one notable... and all of this must be cited information. If you can write a true biography then the artcile should stay --- Paulley 23:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a newer wrestler that isn't very notable. In response to Paulley's comments above: fixing the article is good and all, but the wrestler is still new. Not every article can just be kept on Wikipedia by cleaning it up. Encyclopedia: not a fan's guide to every wrestler new or old. RobJ1981 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he needs a bit more experience before being listed unfortunately. NegroSuave 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, how long do I have to put all this together? I'm going to have to do some research.

You should take as much time as you need to put together a proper article that shows this is a notable and important person. Gather your sources and do a thorough job. If he's not notable enough now, but you believe he is on the path to stardom, maybe you want to wait a little while till he gets a little closer to there. Wikipedia will still be here, I promise. If the article is deleted and later on it becomes possible to write a stronger one, you can create a new article about the topic, but it can't be pretty much the same one that was deleted, it should contain sources and proof of notability. You might want to explain on the talk page of the new article why it the subject is more notable or the article is better sourced than it was when it was deleted.
I know this is your first article and that you are obviously a fan of this wrestler. Please don't be offended or discouraged and please contribute in other ways beyond this one article if you have the interest and inclination to do so. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes I am a big fan of his, he's my hero. I know he's on his way to stardom and just was a little offended you didnt feel the same way. I redid the page and will continue to improve it.

  • Abstain but pretty much what Paulley said, I like to know more about the person than the character. If you can create a good article then I would be all for keeping it. Govvy 12:09, 29 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. --Ezeu 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ygyde[edit]

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

Contested prod. I can find nothing about this 'language' in any major papers (using Lexis-Nexis) or using Google Scholar. Google does give a fair number of hits, but most appear to be Yahoo groups, blogs, or similar non reliable sources. At best, this appears non-notable, at worst, a hoax, or something made up in school one day. As such, I think this should be deleted, unless notability can be established. Author replied to notice I put on his User Talk stating:

I suggest that you compare Ygyde with other oligosynthetic languages, for example, Sona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sona_language) and aUI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUI). Ygyde is superior to both of them. The Ygyde site (http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm) is the equivalent of a small book (114 letter size pages). Let Ygyde be judged on its own merits.

However, this does not address the problem of notability - Aagtbdfoua 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The possible utility of this language doesn't override the fact that it doesn't appear to be widely recognized. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Google search for "Ygyde" gets 2510 matches. --EarthFurst 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as I state in the nom, all the ones I looked at do not appear to be reliable sources, but I did not look at them all. Can you highlight several or any that meet this criteria? - Aagtbdfoua 21:42, 24 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 per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six Laws of Adam[edit]

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

POV fork of Noahide Laws. There are six laws, to which a seventh was added, but no primary source refers to the original six as "Six Laws of Adam". JFW | T@lk 19:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge into Noahide Laws if possible. --Wildnox(talk) 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's nothing to merge. I don't know exactly what's "POV" about this fork, but it is completely unnecessary and contributes nothing new. — coelacan talk — 12:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, waste of time and probably a WP:NEO. IZAK 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is solid evidence for this expression being used in a notable context. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is referred to in the Talmud, numerous commentaries and Maimonides. What more can you ask for? Where does "Seven Laws of Noah" come from, exactly the same sources. Please {{hangon}}, im getting the exact quotes. frummer 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept is mentioned, but not by this term. In any case, the content is really only relevant in the context of the Noahide laws. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concept is mentioned with this (translated) term in the Midrash, Mishna and a Gemara, and in Yad Hachazaka of the Rambam. I'm sourcing. Furthermore they are relevant out of the context of the Noahide laws too, since they where in place for ten generations until they where broken, that was an important era in the Torah time-line. frummer 03:48, 29 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 {{db-nocontext}}. (aeropagitica) 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complex numbers exponential[edit]

Complex numbers exponential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

While a very impressive math problem, that's about what it is. A math problem. It has no encyclopedic value. American Patriot 1776 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should be speedied, as there is no context, unless I misunderstand what context is in WP:CSD - Aagtbdfoua 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone shows up to give context. --Wildnox(talk) 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the article's talk page (and, in fact, in the first version of the article), the page's author notes that everything contained therein is original research. There's also no context whatsoever. -- Kicking222 21:22, 24 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. --Ezeu 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Moalem[edit]

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

"Prominent figure in the field of evolutionary medicine." Gets 578 Google hits. Most relevant publications on a very narrow area of iron homeostasis in neurodegenenative disease, mostly unproven. Fails WP:PROF in my view JFW | T@lk 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is kept, an urgent vanitectomy is required. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is claimed but I couldn't find any sources to back this up Jayden54 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - the New York Times article mentioned by Evolu does mention this person and calls him an "expert" so he does appear to be quite notable, although I'm not entirely sure if that's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Weak keep for now. Jayden54 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What measures does the NY Times use to determine who is an expert and who is simply churning out some mildly interesting stuff? Citation index will do, prominence in international conferences? Don't always believe the papers. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do not Delete - I am the article's primary author and based my view of 'prominent figure on the New York Times article on his theories which describes him as an 'expert' see references —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evolu (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • News resources are well known for lazily copying material from press releases. Remind me, on what grounds does Dr Moalem get the designation "expert"? 10 articles on PubMed, mostly speculative. JFW | T@lk 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It is bogus to claim that coverage in the NY Times does not count for notability because the "just lazily copy press releases." They are a reputable newspaper whose editorial policy screens out non-notable press releases. See WP:RS and WP:N. Edison 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So the question comes back: on what grounds is this researcher labeled "prominent"? Getting published in Med Hypoth is not equal to being prominent! JFW | T@lk 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a scientist there is no notability but as an author there is, but the book is not released why not delete the page, once the book is published someone else can take it upon themselves to write a page if they are so inclined Evoluu 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • what in the study of evolution is not speculative? User_talk:Evolu
  • Weak Delete I'm not sure a single mention in the NYT assures notability. --Wildnox(talk) 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayden.Edison 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10 Pubmed cites, one of which is an erratum. I'd bet JFW has more than that! This page is vanity and a clear delete -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that is a compliment. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The following is a quote from Notability (people): “Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person” Included in that list is the following: “Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.” This criterion alone qualifies Dr Moalem for inclusion in Wikipedia as an author, based on the three independent reviews of his books linked from the list below:
Reviews:
Rebuttal to some comments above:
  • The mention above of 500 plus Google hits is low is not accounting for the quality and content of the discussions within the Google hits; furthermore, Google hits are not meant to be an exclusionary criterion, but a support for inclusion in some cases. There is no specific number within the guidelines to justify that any threshold must be reached to attain notability.
  • There is so much discussion on the web about this man that the allegation of this being a vanity article is absurd.
  • The editor nominating this article for deletion is judging the quality of the subject's work; this is offering a non-supported subjective opinion, which is inappropriate at Wikipedia.
  • The nominator cites the Professor Test as grounds for delete, however, the subject qualifies on his sataus as a notable author -- he doesn't have to pass both tests. --Kevin Murray 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Kevin Murray 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider either of the first two "reviews" to be independent, considering the obvious COI. Any website that is trying to sell you a book will call its advertisement a "review" but it is hardly unbiased. Now, I'm not trying to imply that only negative reviews qualify, but I don't feel that an advertisement counts as a review. If an impartial (no COI) source reviewed the book, that would qualify, but an advertisement is simply an advertisement. SWAdair | Talk 11:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*After rereading SWAdair's comment about the reviewers selling books thus having conflicts of interest, I went back to Bookstandard and Kircus sites - they are independent sources which sell their reports either through subscription or individually. There are ads at the sites, but the sites don't directly sell the books from what I've seen --Kevin Murray 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*I think that SWAdair is spliting hairs. This isn't a murder trial here. We as part time volunteers should be reasonable and not be forcing each other to visit the library daily to support notability with printed material, when online commercial sources reprint reviews, this should be sufficient. Why spend all this effort to disinclude what may be notable -- let's err toward inclusion with accuracy. --Kevin Murray 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The google test seems to be a circular series of references in this instance. There seems to be no evidence from related professional organizations or by virtue of a note-worthy trail of speaking engagements that he hold a position of notariety. The book for which he recieves most hits seems not to be of much importance either in his field or within pop-culture. Are there any evolutionary biologists hanging around that would like to explain why I'm wrong with my impression?Droliver 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Droliver seems to be critiqing the work of the subject (primary reseach) rather than evaluating notability using WP guidelines. We are judging whether the article's writer has supported notability. Whether Droliver thinks the work is meaningful is irrelevant. If Moalem's books only received poor reviews he would still be notable as an "author". Notability and admirabilty are not the same. --Kevin Murray 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the introductory paragraph to more accurately reflect his notability as an author rather than a leader in medical research "Sharon Moalem is a recognized author and researcher in the field of evolutionary medicine. Though notable as an author, there is little published evidence that he is yet recognized as a leader among his peers. There is some critisism of his published theories regarding diabetes as being "junk science." --Kevin Murray 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above the book has not been released then he can not be considered an author yet in my mind. As for the field of evolutionary medicine, I don't think it even qualifies as a field yet since I could not find it as a recognized field of study at any leading university Evoluu 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JFW and Droliver. Specifically, Moalem's record fails to meet either WP:Bio or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Recommend related trimming of the bibliography section of Evolutionary medicine, where Moalem has been added and linked to three times and inserted second in line as one of "the most prominent scientists" in the field. If Moalem's record matched that of the other "most prominent scientists" listed there, this would be an obvious keep. Unfortunately, Moalem does not appear to meet our criteria for notability. I'm trying to AGF, but it is difficult not to see this as promoting a soon-to-be-released book by Sharon Moalem. SWAdair | Talk 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SWAdair, are you seeing him as being on the Grassy Knoll as well? Are you allegingg that Wikipedia editors have conspired to promote his book. Let's stick to the facts here and cease being so judgemental. --Kevin Murray 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there is some puffery at Evolutionary medicine. I tagged for NPOV, asked for citations at the paragraphs, and editied-out some of the more blatant issues. Clearly influenced by a Moalem disciple. But that is irrelevant to this article. --Kevin Murray 00:43, 30 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:06Z

Zabar's[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable to me. It does attempt to assert notability, otherwise I would have used WP:CSD#A7, however I don't think it is sufficently notable to warrant inclusion in WP. Guinness 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral after the comments below, I'm on the fence. --Wildnox(talk) 20:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 135,000 Google hits for "Zabar's", with 27 of the first 30 being related to the grocery, and 744 of the first 1,000 hits are unique. "Zabar's"+"Upper West Side" gets 16,800 hits (surely all of which are relevant) with 692 of 1,000 uniques. This is not a keep !vote, but merely a note that some of these hits probably assert some amount of notability. -- Kicking222 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extremely prominent and well-known institution, local I suppose but New York City has quite a number of people in it - article needs expansion, I'm not the right person to do it but the right person will come along. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well known doesn't mean that it's notable. It certainly doesn't IMHO meet WP:CORP. WP:LOCAL suggests that an article on a local subject must be full and comprehensive for it to have its own article. If somebody were to make it so, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom, but until and unless that happens.... Guinness 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Claims are completely unreferenced. If they could be verified, I would change my vote. Shimeru 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that a source has been provided and it seems likely more might be added. Shimeru 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced in New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not well (at all) cited in the article itself. (By which, it doesn't even meet WP:VERIFY either). It may well be that the subject is worthy of inclusion, not being from New York, I wouldn't know that, but the article itself in its current state is certainly not IMHO worthy of inclusion. Guinness 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: a better way to say this is, "If you have the time, could you please add those citations to the article so that we preserve evidence of notability?" It is very frustrating to see an AFD nom, point out that there are available references, and then to get "Well, they're not in the article yet, are they?" which seems counterproductive.--Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That may be true, but that wasn't the motivation for the nom, and I wasn't aware of available references. It's about article quality. At the time of the nom, the article simply wasn't good enough for WP, and didn't meet inclusion criteria. Now it is. (Kudos to Dhartung and Norton for making it so). Guinness 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood, and I did see that you withdrew the nom, which is not a marker of a stubborn nominator, to say the least! (Another suggestion I thought of (that I'd like to see more) is "Okay, I'll withdraw the nom if those references are added".) Anyway, this is definitely ready for a speedy close. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will add more after the holiday dinner. And I invite Guinness2702 to New York City to sample their blintzes hot from the frying pan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Per Norton and Kicking. Edison 20:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep famous. - crz crztalk 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Zabar's is a venerable institution on the Upper West Side, mentioned in many novels, appearing in movies such as You've Got Mail, and so on. 481 Google Books hits. About.com's food editor calls it a top ten online gourmet food vendor.[39] It should be easy to source any claims in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom Okay, the NYT article establishes enough notability for me. I still think it needs expansion and improvement, but I guess it's sufficient for it not to be deleted. Guinness 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in case there's any question. As notable (and as well-documented) as any grocery store could be. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable New York City establishment, that is well-referenced in The New York Times and elsewhere. And can you pick up a pound of lox for me while you're there... Alansohn 19:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, anything else? Terence Ong 06:42, 26 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:07Z

Jefferson Mall[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Yanksox 20:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really get this... that a PROD is contested doesn't mean it has to go to AfD, and no other rational was given. This mall gets 171 results in the last 6 years in a search of articles in the Courier-Journal, Louisville's newspaper of record. Some are full articles just about the mall. This is independent non-trivial coverage... this meets WP:N. The mall is one of the 3 largest in a major city, it was the largest when it opened... but mostly there's plenty of reliable information and it's referenced. --W.marsh 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have enough reliable coverage to make it pass the notability guidelines and it has some references. Jayden54 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator should state an argument for deletion. The prod cited notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't. A contested PROD, is a contested PROD, and I am bringing it here for consenus, thank you. Yanksox 00:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He didn't say you had to, he said you should. --W.marsh 02:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No deletion rationale presented. While references were not in place when the prod was placed, two were by the time of the AfD, along with some other expansion. Further expansion has occurred since. Shimeru 03:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Just H 03:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (also, what is a "PROD"?)[reply]
  • Keep With the large merchants mentioned and size, it seems to meet the standards of many malls included in Wikipedia. There is no specific notability standard yet for malls although there is much discussion on the talk pages for notability. At notability precedents the following is mentioned: "While the notability of large malls is in dispute, strip malls and individual shops are not generally notable." So what is small? I would say that a mall with Dillard's, J.C. Penney, Macy's, and Sears, and 120 stores could not be considered small. Since the leadership of Wikipediea is undecided on largeer malls, how can we arbitraily delete this article? --Kevin Murray 07:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established in article and sources meet WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CORP. Alansohn 19:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I live in Jefferson County (Louisville) where it's located and was a resident when the mall was built. I am very certain that the mall was the largest in all of Kentucky upon its grand opening. I will need to source this of course, but this to me is the central reason I find this subject to be notable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:50, 26 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:08Z

List of Toronto Transit Commission stations[edit]

List of Toronto Transit Commission stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This list is a duplicate of {{TTCstations}}. -- Selmo (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the list article has substantially more information than the template, and information about a currently operating transit system in a major city is certainly notable. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list has a well-defined scope, and provides added value of information over the template.-- danntm T C 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep substantial added value compared to category Fg2 07:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeWikipedia is specifically not designed to be a book of lists. While this is valuable information, the article title should not begin with the word "list." It seems preferable to merge this into the article about Toronto Transit Stations, where it is more likely to be found by a search. --Kevin Murray 15:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contains plenty of useful, verifiable information. Lankybugger 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substatial information of a major transit system in the largest city in Canada. --Oakshade 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per informational comments above; and cleanup so the first word is more palatable. Neier 09:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep: There is no remotely viable justification for deletion. – joeclark 21:45, 28 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 deleted. -- Longhair\talk 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakhub[edit]

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

The website in question does not deserve a mention in any reputable logbook of knowledge, such as Wikipedia. The website is an attempt to voice nationalist propoganda in a medium as powerful as Wikipedia. This underground website has been made by nationalists who have made gross factual inaccuracies and childish errors. Kindly delete this effort of listing an underground, nationalist website on Wikipedia. Freedom skies 20:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - dangerous for the project --D-Boy 20:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Before anyone deletes this I would like to talk to a Neutral moderator. Neutral meaning non Indian.

Check out this screenshot and understand that Neutrality is a term my fellow Indian friends dont understand. http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG Half of them are members of extremist Hindu forums, who try illegal ways of getting me shut down.

THIS IS NOT an advertisement. This is a description of our argument. Its one thing you dont wish to read it, but another that you wish to stop other people from reading it.

Unre4L 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Website was created less than a month ago. Doesn't show up on Google or Alexa when the address is searched. --Wafulz 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Search for "pakhub home" on google

Even though I fail to see your argument. Unre4L 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try this --Wafulz 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not in question. The site is only given as an external link. The main body of the article describes the dispute in question.

I thought this was suppose to be a discussion. Not a bunch of people typing speedy delete Unre4L 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're disputing then- this is an article about a website. The website meets speedy deletion criteria --Wafulz 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Delete; per nomination; there's no need to drag us into your pissin' match. --Mhking 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dispute which you can find all over the net. I used one site as an external link. Unre4L 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article qualifies for speedy deletion as a non-notable web site, and as a spam article. --Mhking 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to similar article describing this dispute. I am willing to edit the current article to make it abide by the rules. What exactly do you wish me to change about it? Unre4L 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute does not meet notability criteria, sourcing criteria, verifiability criteria, or original research criteria. I don't have the slightest clue of what this article is about. It says it's about a website and you say it's about a dispute. Either way, none of the policies or guidelines I've mentioned are met. --Wafulz 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed references to the website in the main body of the articles. I wish to expand the article to describe the dispute in more detail. I will need more time for this. I suggest removing the speedy Deletion templates while I expand the article and add whatever you are requesting. Unre4L 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page and contributions, it's pretty clear you have a conflict of interest and an agenda here to push your own point of view. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Just because you dislike how articles are named or how they refer to India/Pakistan doesn't mean you can label it a "dispute" and then create an article. --Wafulz 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide you with dozens of links showing I am not the only person who is disagreeing with this subject. Like I said. I will carify all this, all I need is another chance to expand the article. Unre4L 22:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertising space, neither is it a discussion forum. Your site violates norms of factual accuracy and any effort to publish an underground site whether it's about Jesus being alien or Pakhub, will meet with an afd tag. Indian or not Indian is not the issue here, the issue is do underground, factually incorrect websites with two articles and a forum deserve a mention in Enclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia ? Can we write an enclyclopedic article about people who spell worse than porn sites? The answer is an emphatic no. Live with it.
Freedom skies 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Delete the article. but please note this place is full of Hindu extremist who have attacked the site, and been on my back since I argued with them. They will obviously make sure nobody willing to argue will be heard. Mods like you show you couldnt care less. Good luck. I am out of here. P.s You should take a look at the so called Indian history articles if you think I have a conflict of interest. Unre4L 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to make an article describing this dispute in detail. Please let me know more about how I can do this without breaking any rules or offending anyone here. Unre4L 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try finding citations from Stanley Wolpert, or someone similar. Using JSTOR is a good way. Freedom skies 22:34, 24 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.

Unre4L, you might try to put this on your user page.--D-Boy 05:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all, except redirect Sunshine On A Rainy Day and Sunshine on a Rainy Day to Zoë (singer). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:18Z

Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)[edit]

Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
A Girl Like Me (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A World Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Been There, Done That (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Better Be Careful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breathing (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High On Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High on Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lay Your Love On Me (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lay Your Love on Me (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Sign Of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Sign of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
She Was A Friend Of Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
She Was a Friend of Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Something So Beautiful (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spell It OUT (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spell It O.U.T. (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunshine On A Rainy Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Who The Hell Are You (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Who the Hell Are You (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You Are (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I've merged all the nominations - plus others, together. The articles up for nomination also include A Girl Like Me (Emma Bunton song), A World Without You, Been There, Done That (Emma Bunton song), Better Be Careful, Breathing (Emma Bunton song), High On Love, Lay Your Love On Me (Emma Bunton song), No Sign Of Life, She Was A Friend Of Mine, Something So Beautiful (Emma Bunton song), Spell It OUT (Emma Bunton song), Sunshine On A Rainy Day, Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song), Who The Hell Are You (Emma Bunton song) and You Are (Emma Bunton song).
  • This is part of the song project on wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Being part of a WikiProject does not grant immunity from AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. -- Kicking222 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song and there's nothing special about it. Jayden54 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator, please combine these songs into one nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. Thanks, nominator. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Dhartung. Danny Lilithborne 02:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Nothing of importance here that I can see. If there's nothing to say about a song aside from its title, length, performer(s), and topic, there's no reason it should have its own article. Putting the info at the album page is quite enough. Shimeru 04:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom KnightLago 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Very few songs are notable enough to have an article, and these songs certainly are not notable enough. And, as another editor already mentioned, just because these are the product of Wikiproject does not mean that they can't be deleted. --The Way 20:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Sunshine On A Rainy Day to Zoe (singer), as her version was a UK top ten single and is a valid search term. Delete others.Eludium-q36 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sunshine on a Rainy Day and expand for information on the Zoe single and mention Emma's. Also Keep any songs that were released as singles from this album. No opinion on the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these songs were released as singles. Rimmers 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, redirect "Sunshine" per others. All of these were solely album tracks. SKS2K6 06:33, 28 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z

Breathing (Emma Bunton song)[edit]

Breathing (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 ) The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. -- Kicking222 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song and there's nothing special about it. Jayden54 22:55, 24 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z

No Sign Of Life[edit]

No Sign Of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. -- Kicking222 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song and there's nothing special about it. Jayden54 22:55, 24 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z

Who The Hell Are You (Emma Bunton song)[edit]

Who The Hell Are You (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. And in case anyone wonders, yes, I have read (all four sentences of) all of these articles, as opposed to simply copying and pasting the above response without any thought. -- Kicking222 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song and there's nothing special about it. (And I too read each article, even though they were all almost identical). Jayden54 22:54, 24 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z

Lay Your Love On Me (Emma Bunton song)[edit]

Lay Your Love On Me (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. -- Kicking222 22:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song and there's nothing special about it. Jayden54 22:53, 24 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 as author requested by blanking the page (G7).--Kchase T 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Translations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on speaking foreign languages. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, can be speedy deleted as blanked by author - db-author. So tagged. Tubezone 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of WP:CSD#G7, where the author explicitly requests deletion or blanks the page (which we take as such a request). A3 applies to pages that start almost empty, but most admins can figure out what you mean if you confuse the tags.--Kchase T 05:55, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:32Z

Francesca List[edit]

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

Contains a claim of notability - that in two appearances on a short-lived game show, the subject became "the Ken Jennings of the tween set." No source for this claim. Other claims like "[she] is loved by all" suggest that this is posted by a friend of hers. FreplySpang 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unsourced, nn notable contestant and possible WP:COI.--John Lake 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and John. List does not in any way pass WP:BIO, and judging by the tone of the article ("loved by all"?!), COI issues are certainly not out of the question. -- Kicking222 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable per WP:BIO and lack of any sources. Jayden54 22:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Subwayguy 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody could have become notable under WP:BIO by virtue of being a contestant on Studio 7 due to the low viewership and lack of significant media attention to the program. --Metropolitan90 01:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure she's a great person, but being a game show contestant does not confer notability.-- danntm T C 02:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it probably qualifies for speedy deletion (I originally db-dio'ed the article). Notability issues. MidgleyDJ 07:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Yeah, I speedied the original version but then the author put in an explicit claim of notability, which (IMO) is enough to disqualify it from CSD A7. FreplySpang 15:35, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:32Z

Teesside Futsal Club[edit]

Teesside Futsal Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Futsal team of the University of Teesside. Contested speedy. Don't think it is notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion Samir धर्म 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I found a BBC news article but I still don't think this club is notable enough to be included (there's nothing really notable about it). Jayden54 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for un deleting it.... at the minute its unfinished, i feel its worthy of its place on the site as we will be going professional next season, plus Futsal is an up and coming sport.... please give me at least a month to finish the page off, im a uni student so i dont get alot of time, Thanks

  • Delete Futsal is a very minor sport in the UK, and there are no professional clubs that I know of. Nathanian 20:52, 26 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.


Teesside Futsal Club; It is small minded people like you and the FA that are holding Futsal back.... There are professional teams, such as Tranmere Victoria, Futsal even has its own FA Cup which the winners of that go into the Uefa Futsal Cup. Its going Fully pro next season with its own Premier League. The National Team have played over 40 matches so to say its minor is incorrect, please undelete it

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeAnNa[edit]

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

I can not determine the notability here, I nominated for CSD per A7, but deletion was contested. We shall discuss it here. Navou talk 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete non-notable nonsense page, which should have been speedied to begin with. --Mhking 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - no claims of notability, and without even a surname, this is also context-deficient. Pseudomonas 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've re-inserted the tag seeing as this is pretty clearly nonsense. --Wafulz 21:58, 24 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:33Z

Amazing (Emma Bunton song)[edit]

Amazing (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the song project on wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. -- Kicking222 22:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song, and doesn't warrant its own article. Jayden54 22:46, 24 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:34Z

You Are (Emma Bunton song)[edit]

You Are (Emma Bunton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the song project on wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable album track. There's barely any information that is not already on the album page. (And yes, I am still reading every article.) -- Kicking222 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable song, and doesn't warrant its own article. Jayden54 22:46, 24 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.

Tinsel and Marzipan[edit]

The result was keep: Nomination withdrawn. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsel and Marzipan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't think am not sure if this album is notable: Made by what appears to be a non-notable group and few Google hits. Heimstern Läufer 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth an inclusion for what is mentioned on the internet. I don't think Wikipedia articles should be based on the number of Google hits a topic has. It is mentioned on other notable websites, which I have included as external links. The single charted in the Irish Top 40 too. Also I notice the person who has nominated this article for deletion is from California and therefore is presumably not Irish. There are possibly numerous articles I could find from California which have little relevance to me but I would not try to delete them as I know they may be relevant to someone elsewhere. Wikipedia is a worldwide project, is it not? Shouldn't it have articles that are relevant to a certain country even if not on a large international scale? Strong Keep. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 22:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put this a different way: Is there anything to suggest that this album qualifies under WP:MUSIC? I realise criteria for including albums are controversial at this time, but I'm having a hard time finding anything to show that either the album or its creators are notable. Heimstern Läufer 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the external links provided are from notable websites- in fact, they are all promotional. Unless the claim of reaching the Irish charts can be sourced, this is just another non-notable album from a non-notable band. Delete. -- Kicking222 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can source it. Give me a mo. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 22:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23 --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are all those who oppose this article from America? Aren't there any Irish to offer an opinion? --86.40.99.82 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tinsel And Marzipan is a charted hit on IRMA, the Irish Recorded Music Association, as of the week ending on December 21 2006 and is theofore notable under WP:MUSIC. P.S. I'm from California Laganojunior 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Changed to) keep, as the single's position on the national charts is now properly sourced. -- Kicking222 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it certainly looks a lot better now... I do wish there were clearer guidelines for albums at WP:MUSIC. Here's my only real concern with the current assertion of notability: being ranked on the charts could turn out to be a passing phenomenon that is forgotten soon. (I'd say this if it were on the charts in the USA, too; it's not just because I'm not in Ireland.) But in the absence of clear guidelines on this, I'm just going to go neutral on this one. Heimstern Läufer 03:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It was only just under development yesterday, I hadn't time to finish it immediately. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 12:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to remove the deletion notice now or would anyone object? --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 12:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea that a song ranking on the charts may soon lose any notability. Likewise there are many notable songs and bands who have not ranked in the charts. It seems an unfair policy that perfectly decent songs should be disregarded simply for not appearing there. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 12:09, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:35Z

Apside[edit]

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

probably not notable per WP:MUSIC —Swpb talk contribs 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC, although a claim is made of a national tour through Brazil but I don't think that satisfies the WP:MUSIC touring criteria. Jayden54 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with previous commentors on WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. Ideally this article should only be resurrected by somebody not associated with the group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skrshawk (talk • contribs) 00:28, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:35Z

Kultur[edit]

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

Simply a dictionary definition. WP:NOT &c.Bookishreader45 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kultur. Punkmorten 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sometimes, it can be worth an article for a word in another language if it describes a mode of thought, cultural fact, or something else beyond just the definition of the word itself. This i not such a case, though. Heimstern Läufer 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, evidently there was previously more content on this page. But it looks rather POV and unencyclopedic to me. I'm going to have a closer look. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - offers only a dictionary definition so delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jayden54 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think there's an important article on [Kultur und Zivilisation] to be written which appears to be a significant historical/ideological debate within German discourse, but this article's just a dicdef Bwithh 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. There is a potential article here, but this isn't really even a good start. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and perhaps merge with culture (with substantial revision). The 19th century German ethnological concept of kultur (roughly equivalent to "civilization" or "high culture"--so that there were kulturvölker vs. naturvölker or "primitives") gave rise to the modern anthropological concept of culture (a more general and generous usage whose meaning is a "way of life") through the work of Edward Tylor and Franz Boas. --Media anthro 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now that the nonsense content was removed, it is obvious that there is no point in this article. LARS 15:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF. —ShadowHalo 22:58, 28 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 speedied by Pilotguy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:36Z

Republik Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:SOFT. According to the article, this company has ceased development on its product because it failed to attract funding. Tarinth 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Definitely fails WP:CORP. skrshawk 00:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. Getting a lot of these of late. --Dennisthe2 03:06, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:37Z

AMMORPG[edit]

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

Not a recognized neologism. Does not appear to be a recognized term in the industry. The majority of items in the list are redlinks, and one other that is currently in AfD. That leaves one item of possible notability, but that's not enough for a list-type or category-type page. Tarinth 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Tarinth 11:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only gets about 1,100 Google hits as well (and that's INCLUDING Wikipdeia and its mirrors). TJ Spyke 23:16, 24 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:38Z

XORG[edit]

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

Neologism. The term hasn't gained acceptance, and according to the XORG page it was a term made up by a single company. Nothing in the article suggests that the term has expanded its use beyond that company's marketing. It is possible that some of the content in this page could be merged with the MMOFPS article. Tarinth 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dennisthe2, please try entering XORG as all-uppercase. The X.Org you are referring to is unrelated. Tarinth 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did. I mean, if you think it would be a pointless redirect.... --Dennisthe2 22:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more harmful than helpful, since it might lead people to think that X.Org sometimes uses an all-caps acronym. Tarinth 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, well said. --Dennisthe2 05:07, 28 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.

Delete ★MESSEDROCKER★ 07:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Rescue Hunters[edit]

Power Rangers Rescue Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can't find any source to verify its existence, even through its own links, and it is partially written in foreign languages. Also it is most likely Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive as that had the same working titles. Laganojunior 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If it turns out this is another working title, then redirect to Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. --- RockMFR 23:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable. Also, is possible the main contributor to the page is a sockpuppet for another editor (User_talk:Solarmax) who seems to have created similar articles in the past (but this is purely speculation on my part). Guinness 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive, most likely taken from the Spanish wikipedia page, and the links point to PROO, it appears to be another working title. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a working title of anything, it's a pure fan-fic that's interwiki'd from the Portuguese Wikipedia for no reason. The working titles for Operation Overdrive were "Relic Hunters" and "Drive Force".—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:11, 29 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:36Z

Sunisa Kim[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. According to the article, the subject's claim to fame is being a model for automobile tires and having appeared as one of the throngs of dancers on Soul Train. As for her modeling career, the article says she's been on "some covers," but fails to mention any of these covers. No individual fact contained in this entry is individually sourced. The final line of the article - "Still single, her ideal man is "charming, intelligent, charismatic...and taller than me!"" indicates that this page might better be suited on Match.com than Wikipedia. TruthGal 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NN. Given that I am 5'10", do you think age is important?--Anthony.bradbury 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article says she was "Playboy Cyber Girl of the Week", seems to be a notable model/pornstar --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's not even mentioned in the text of the article - it's buried at the bottom as if it's the least notable thing about her. Playboy's Cyber Girl Of The Week began in 2000. If there were an entry for every one of them, that would be 364 Wikipedia entries for each "cyber girl." As for Sunisa Kim being a notable pornstar, she's not even that - no DVDs by her show up at the web's biggest porn sales site.[40]TruthGal 01:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fabhcún 20:10, 25 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, defaulting to keep. Please note that if an article is appropriate for Hebrew Wikipedia, the same applies for the English Wikipedia as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Raz Portugali[edit]

Yoni Raz Portugali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NN Article claims that subject is a journalist and writer, but a Google search fails to turn up a single article by the subject. TruthGal 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article doesn't appear to establish notability, and the only links are to articles written by not about the subject. Guinness 00:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a notable writer in Israel. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I ask, Malevious, how did you determine that Portugali appears to be a notable writer? I can't find anything he's written.TruthGal 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Portugali had published a poet book and his articles are monthly published in the business magazine on Firma, Globes - Israel's leading business paper." Just because we haven't all heard of him on this side of the world doesn't mean he isn't notable. how many of the people on here are notable here but over in Israel wouldn't know them from a stick.--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, the article doesn't assert notability (whether or not he indeed is notable), and doesn't cite any sources to back that up. From what's in the article, he doesn't meet WP:BIO. Guinness 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • also seems to be an editor for an Israeli magazine as noted in Maayan and Free Academy. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll give you that it's close on notablility, but I'm not entirely convinced and it definitely needs sources to back it up. Unless someone can improve it before the discussion is up, I'm sticking to my "vote". Guinness 00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is there an Israeli wikipedia someone can check? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • All I'm saying is, if he's a famous writer, why am I having such a hard time finding anything he's ever written?TruthGal 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because i can't read Hebrew. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oy! Okay, how about this - a search at Jewish National & University Library (in Israel, but the search site in English)[41] doesn't turn up any books by Yoni Raz Portugali. (I'll sway you yet!) TruthGal 01:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • No results searching for Yoni Raz Portugali,but what about searching for "יוני רז פורטוגלי" his name in Hebrew? it turned up a few results yet they're in Hebrew so once again i cant read them :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A Google search for יוני רז פורטוגלי returns 6 hits. The only Hebrew I know is from my Bat Mitzvah, but my math is pretty good - 6 entries doesn't equal notable to me. I clicked on all 6 of the articles retrieved by Google. Here's what they are: (1) The Wikipedia entry (2) A Google Video of a soccer game (3) Another Google Video -the English text attached is "Shot in Bucharest, Romania - Nimrod Kamer, Yoni Raz Portugali and Toony are guests of Hotel Classa Vilor." (4) YouTube versions of the previously-mentioned Google Videos (5) & (6) "Israeli shows in USA & Canada information Website" (couldn't find the subject of the article on these pages). None of the entries returned by Google contain writing by Yoni Raz Portugali (or יוני רז פורטוגלי) despite the fact that this is supposedly what he's famous for. I'm begging you to watch the production value of any of these videos and come away believing this is a person of note in any country.TruthGal
                      • [42] I Found 495 answers for yoni raz. Shmila 20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I checked these returns from Google. Here's what they are. The first one is the subject's Wikipedia page in Hebrew. The 2nd Google entry is also the Hebrew Wiki. The 3rd is an entry in another Israeli online encyclopedia. The 4th is a food magazine. The 5th is one of those YouTube videos I mentioned earlier. If the subject's writings can only be found in Hebrew, then at best he's only entitled to an entry on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia. In any event, I can't imagine that anyone would make the case that this paragraph from the article has any place in an encyclopedia: "In 2005 Portugali had absorbed the stylish fashion of the Dandy and started dressing up accordingly..." TruthGal 07:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article doesn't assert sufficient encyclopedic notability and has WP:V issues. Bwithh 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they wrote about him in "Haaretz daily" last friday (as an example).[43] Shmila 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've never mentioned him in the English language version of the site.[44]. Seems like this is an appropriate entry for the Hebrew Wikipedia,[45] not the English one. TruthGal 07:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Portugali is also a renowned food critic [46]. He is also a middle East journalist - and published video works in Cairo [47]; hence not only Hebrew speakers know him - Arab speakers as well - and they relate to his works in the Enlish language - mostly they do not understand Hebrew. Marina T. 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "they relate to his works in the Enlish language" (sic) Can you provide a link to one of his articles in English? TruthGal 06:11, 27 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:38Z

Oren Zarif[edit]

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

Fails WP:NN Hardly anything on Google about the subject, which would discount the claim of article that subject is "famous." Article also seems to indicate that the subject's claim to fame is wanting businessmen and politicians to listen to him (with the implication that they don't). Article claims that the subject's "long-time rival" is Uri Geller, but there's nothing to that effect under Geller's entry. Finally, one of the three reference links provided is an interview by "by publicist Yoni Raz Portugali," who is currently nominated for deletion as well.[48] TruthGal 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question as I am still relatively new to this process: Do I need to actually say Delete or is that assumed (as I nominated the entry for deletion)? TruthGal 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The supporting references do not appear to be non-trivial, and the information in the article is weak, not suggesting sufficient notability. --Kevin Murray 17:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known quite well. Many google notable refernces Marina T. 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure as the article's author you'd feel that way. However, there are only 17 Google references. And I did a search at Israel's largest online newspaper for this person and only came up with two search results[49] neither of them were about the subject being a psychic - in fact, both of the articles were about the subject adopting a parrot who wouldn't stop swearing (much to the annoyance of his neighbors). The articles describe Zarif not as a famous psychic, but as "a Ramat Gan resident practicing alternative medicine."[50] If this person were truly famous, the headline would begin "Zarif's Dirty Bird..." or "Famous Psychic's Naughty Parrot..." - instead, the headline leads with the bird ("Cussing parrot’s sentence: Death") and the subject is referred to as a "Ramat Gam resident."
Furthermore, the article is still of questionable accuracy - especially with regard to Uri Geller, whom you claim is Zarif's "long-time rival." After hundreds of edits since 2003, there is no mention of Zarif on the Uri Geller Wiki page.[51] I'm now beginning to believe this entry is a joke and should be a Speedy Delete.TruthGal 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daniel J. Leivick 17:45, 29 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.

Kerri[edit]

The result wasSpeedy Delete Canadian-Bacon 02:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't seem to verify this term for TransWiki inclusion, additionally WP:NOT#DICT may be applicable here. Navou talk 00:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even worth TransWiking. Fails WP:NOT#DICT --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as personal attack / nonsense. So tagged. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Subwayguy 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Guinness 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the author of the article said, the term is "quite recent", and is probably not verifiable.Laganojunior 01:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is, though a different spelling, a proper name. I'm calling attack page as such, as this rings like material from Urban Dictionary. Speedy Delete G10, with a stipulation that I'm overriding user:zetawoof's G1. Apologies if I step on toes. Or paws. --Dennisthe2 02:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete either attack or nonsense, this does not deserve the full five days.-- danntm T C 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Dennisthe2. Danny Lilithborne 02:47, 25 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 neologism for which no independent reliable sources about the term were offered. GRBerry 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service 2.0[edit]

Community Service 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Few if any Google results for phrase; non-notable; autobiography Subwayguy 00:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN neologism, WP:AUTO violation (check the username of the article's creator). -- Kicking222 01:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm definitely biased to keeping it, since I wrote the article and since I'm the "inventor" of this term. If the submission isn't neutral enough, I would happy to work with you all to make it neutral. Nevertheless, I do think that the term does accurately describe the great new Web 2.0-based projects out there today (not just my own, but other projects like Kiva.org). The mission of these projects is clearly social stewardship focused--yet we can't quite lump them with the broad term of "community service" because they are truly driven by technology. Anyway, I don't make the rules here, so my feelings won't be hurt if you all decide to axe this. Sooner or later though, this term (or some permutation) will become accepted by the mainstream. Thanks, everyone! Ebahnx 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)ebahnx[reply]
  • While we understand your bias, we must suggest you adhere to Wikipedia policy. Please see this one for notability, and this one for the Wikipedia take on neologisms. According to this article we're writing in, the issue isn't one of neutrality, it's a case of the fact that it non-notable, and as is demonstrated by the sheer lack of google hits (though not a reliable source, nevertheless), very much a neologism. As such, I cast Delete. --Dennisthe2 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it necessary to point out the problems of conflict of interest. --Dennisthe2 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THanks for the resources--definitely want to follow the rules. Ebahnx 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebahnx (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete own research, NN Fabhcún 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The articles author admitted that he made up the term, meaning it is purely OR and has a COI. However, I would like to thank the author for being polite and recognizing that we do have policies regarding this sort of thing. --The Way 20:35, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 15:23Z

Eri Moriyama[edit]

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

Of all the entries I've nominated for deletion based on WP:NN non-notability, this subject is the non-notablist. Article only offers 2 pieces of infomation about the subject.

The first: the subject "does work mostly for Pepsi." Does she fill vending machines with the stuff? One can only wonder, as there are no independent sources or citations offered.

The second: the subject is "well-known for resisting the common trend for import models to get breast enlargements." Well-known enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia? You decide! TruthGal 01:06, 25 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. I could opt-out and take the easy path (close as "no consensus"), but that would be wrong. The arguments to delete are plenteous and well-argued, while the keep arguments are (save one or two) entirely unconvincing.--Ezeu 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)[edit]

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

This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions (Sept 04 - keep, Dec 05 - keep, Feb 06 - delete, then recreated, March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, then recreated, AFD April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus), and most recently AFD July 06 - no consensus.

As Proto said it in starting the 5th AFD for this article 6 months ago, "Frankly, it is time this went." I agree. It has now been 6 months since this article was last nominated for deletion. During that period the article has been tagged as needing verifiable sources, none have appeared. And it is my belief that none ever will. This article is simply not verifiable. The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all. As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth. Such a thing should not be tolerated in any true encyclopedia. Delete KnightLago 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, you read a message on a forum, or you are involved with www.savethegame.org, 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]}}
Given that there is an external site canvassing for this article and that we've had a few SPAs already (plus a few Lazarus editors), I think its time for this banner, sadly. Serpent's Choice 14:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unverifiable and mostly nonsense also seems to fail WP:NFT --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could the author not be playing The Game? Obviously he's heard about it. You're playing the game as well. --Liface 08:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This again?) No, I'm not - that's a logical fallacy. Just because a person has heard about the Game, doesn't mean they chose to play it. You may like to think they're playing it or losing it, but that's of no consequence to them. Bwithh 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's of no consequence to them doesn't mean they're not playing it. The first rule, "knowledge of The Game is the only thing required to play it", really should be written "knowledge of The Game means you are playing it", but that's informal writing. Hraesvilgr 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah if you rewrite the accepted standards of logic and the meanings of words in your own head, you can pretty much mould the world into whatever you like Bwithh
I can't find where you explained why this is a logical fallacy. Someone does not have to give consent to be a player of a game. In the example I gave in previous discussions, I can create a new game right now called Kernow's Game. Whoever next edits this page will win Kernow's Game. Now the next person to edit this page will win Kernow's Game whether they want to or not. I'm sure that many of the gladiators of ancient Rome did not want to participate either, but if they got killed they lost. If you think about The Game, you lose. Kernow 14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer and also note the lack of violent force exerted to control others involved in the current version of the Game Bwithh 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De Morgen is one of the most popular Belgian national newspapers. The existence of savethegame.org is irrelevant to whether or not this article is verifiable. And of course he's playing The Game, we all are. 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not. That's a fallacy. see above. Bwithh 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That you think a topic is silly is definitely not a justification for deletion. Rdore 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with a special nod to Bwithh above and his commentary on this. --Dennisthe2 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable sources. Shimeru 04:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many is enough? 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple." Shimeru 09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for arbitrary requirements! 71.63.10.204 23:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is 'more than one' arbitrary? Proto::? 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, but only if we are into Wiki polices, like WP:NOTABILITY "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." This article has ONE small newspaper article. Sethie 04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Game must been known to 100,000 people from the De Morgen article alone, and it existed for at least 3 years before this was printed so is definately notable. 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete nn. Just H 04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the game exists, is notable, and will never die. --Liface 07:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Prove it with multiple reliable sources. Proto::? 10:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information on previous AFDs given at the top of this page is incorrect. The Feb 06 deletion was of a different article about the same game. It was deleted because this article existed. All the above delete votes claim this article to be unverifiable or lacking reliable sources. It has a reliable source, the De Morgen article. This article is verifiable and has a reliable source, and hence should be kept. 61.7.151.188 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of the De Morgen article is disputed Bwithh 09:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, User 61.7.151.188 has a whopping 2 edits to his name, both of them.... on this AFD. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, lacks multiple reliable sources so fails WP:V, and has done so since it was created. Proto::? 10:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Roisterer 10:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A social engineering fad. Not notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost by definition, this is something made up one day. It isn't a board game or a computer game or anything similar; its a meme. It has been mentioned in one (1) newspaper, in a way that doesn't appear to be remotely close to the tone of a traditional newpaper article. I suspect this was a humor piece, at best. Furthermore, the presence of a website with the self-stated goal of convincing otherwise reliable sources to cover the topic for the purpose of earning recognition as a verifiable topic here is disturbing. Keeping in mind that the article itself suggests that knowledge of the game is scant in the article's likely audience (but high in places with heavy Wikipedia participation), I do not think it is a violation of good faith to believe the website's goal was successful, and that this article exists because De Morgan did not realize it was being used by those wishing to prop up a Wikipedia article. With the danger of incestuous amplification so high in this case, we should be demanding correspondingly stringent references ... not one unserious article in a relatively minor foreign-language newspaper. Serpent's Choice 12:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. For the purposes of accuracy, it should be noted that the De Morgen article appeared before SaveTheGame.org was created. —Seqsea (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NFT, and probably more. --Richmeistertalk 17:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. AgentPeppermint 20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this article quantifies a point of human existence Nardman1 20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:SIR, and please don't try to be a lawyer. --Dennisthe2 23:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that WP:IAR obviously dictates that in extreme cases you shouldn't be anal about the lack of sources. Nardman1 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:IAR is for. It is for times that process interferes with the encyclopedia, not to evade the encyclopedia's core policies and inclusion requirements. Serpent's Choice 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, but I would also like to point out that there are no sources other than my own first hand experience that indicates that, during the Rodney King riots in LA, an arbitrary channel flip produced the sentence, "That car is about the size of a football field." Nonetheless, while it happened, it is not here - except for my mention of an otherwise humorous event that you would have had to be there for the experience. Point being, it may have happened, but we need proof - and lack of article here is not proof that it didn't happen. --Dennisthe2 00:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be FuzzyStern's first and only contribution to wikipedia. Sethie 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(yes i can't find my old login, oh shucks) FuzzyStern 22:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case (I'm not saying it is or isn't), my appologies. The game has had issues with soliciting people to come here and vote.Sethie 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I play the game and just lost, you bastards. I'm certainly not putting this page on my watchlist ;) But its unsourceable at the moment. One newspaper article and the 'savethegame' website are a starting point/ If and when this gets reported on in more media, then an article can be written. I have a strong feeling that will happen. But for now, no --Robdurbar 22:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and definatly don't protect. We have established that it is something that exists to a certain extent which has a reasonable chance of becoming verfiable. Any unsourced entries that fail to pass A7 can be speedied. --Robdurbar 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given this article's history, if it is deleted, I strongly suggest salting. Any effort to build a verified, properly-cited version can be assembled in userspace and taken through WP:DRV. Keep in mind this was already deleted once twice, and its recreation was arguably out of process the last first time. Serpent's Choice 00:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) -- clarifying myself[reply]
To be anal so was its deletion, with rather more justification for being out of process. --Kizor 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant the first deletion, the one upheld as "keep deleted" via DRV. Frankly, the fact that we've had to go through this much nonsense at all, regardless of how well process has been upheld, should justify ensuring that, if deleted, it can only be recreated again if there is consensus to do so. No more unilateral actions, for the best interests of all sides. Serpent's Choice 06:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook groups are not a reliable source Bwithh 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of Dec 25th, Westerly has 4 edits.Sethie 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of Dec 27th, WP:BITE is still a guideline. rspeer / ???ds? 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook groups, used as a source for modern sociological research, can certainly indicate that the topic is known to a broad and diverse number of people, and that The Game is not confined to only one school or geographic region. Zachlipton 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Googling for I just lost the game will get you almost 10,000 results. If we can have 57 unsourced variants of Tag (game), why can't we have The Game (game), which has a newspaper article? --Bkkbrad 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This doesn't look like a winnable battle at this point. Until there are more verifiable resources, people will keep on VfDing this article. I hope that once verifiable articles are found, they will be collected on SaveTheGame.org until the article can be recreated. --Bkkbrad 02:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INN. Tag (game) is a train wreck at the moment. It shouldn't be something to aspire to. Serpent's Choice 01:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Googling hits does not satisfy WP:N. Most of the hits are off blogs. Sethie 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:INN says "Notability of internet memes is widely disputed." Just because you say it's not notable is your opinion. Nardman1 02:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where I said it is not notable? I said a large # of google hits does not satisfy WP:N, which says, ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other."Sethie 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your scroll bar is broken. Right up the page: "I don't care whether it is "notable" or not, I care if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. And it does not. Please read the wiki guidelines instead of making up your own definitions. Sethie 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)" Nardman1 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern about my scroll bar. Now, please show me, in that quote, where I say it is not notable! I say, "I care if it meets WP:N, and it does not." Sethie 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then Clabbers, Egyptian Ratscrew, Bloody Knuckles, He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not, Pin the Tail on the Donkey, Thumb wrestling, all have inadequate verifiability status. Games are inherently less verifiable than than academic subjects. Perhaps the real discussion should be about the standards for verifiability of individual games? --Bkkbrad 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time! Sound like a great discussion, but NOT here. Please disucss that: [[52]]Sethie 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) A great many articles require further verification. That is one of the long-term challenges facing Wikipedia. Someone with a book about children's games can probably reference many of the above, while some articles in that vein will eventually be merged elsewhere or deleted. The article under review here, however, does not appear to be verifiable, and, furthermore, has been through the AFD process now six times with no better documentation to show for it than one Dutch-language newspaper article that, based on its apparent tone, clearly had a generous editor. Serpent's Choice 02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just upgraded the references of all the articles mentioned above by Bkkbrad. The only one which still has problems in my opinion is Bloody Knuckles. (He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not was interesting - French origins with references going back to at least the 19th century Bwithh 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOR, and i suppose a whole bunch of other polices as well dposse 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Doesn't in any way fail WP:NOR. --Clyde 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not failing one guideline as a reason to keep? Interesting vote!Sethie 03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote wasn't based on that alone, I was just responding to the vote above mine. This article has survived for years, and should continue to survive. Its topic, along with its history, are notable for many reasons, and should be included in this encyclopedia. --Clyde 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If it didn't fail WP:NOR it would be fully referenced and sourced. It isn't. --Richmeistertalk 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Longevity in wikipedia is anot a criteria for inclusion. "Notable for many reasons" is not a valid criteria per the wikipedia guideline WP:N. Having multiple sources however, IS. And this subject does not. Sethie 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt this has been an ongoing debate since 2004, since march 06 this notice has been soliciting sources for the article that meet WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY standards and it has only found one non-english reference. As for salting this article it has been previously deleted the recreated and deleted also been to DRV with keep deleted then it was recreated anyway, if its deleted any recreation should only occur via WP:DRV or WP:AN/I where notiablilty, and verifiable source can be discussed and reviewed first. Gnangarra 03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - In my opinion, "The Game" has transcended generations, and I am incredibly surprised that nobody has written a scholarly article about something such as this, because it was a meme before a meme came into existence. Andy Saunders 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And until someone does, it is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Richmeistertalk 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the article (with much more than a passing mention of "The Game") needs to be published in a reputable journal or book from a reputable publisher Bwithh 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, no reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain why you feel the article is original research? Rdore 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shit, I just lost the game >_< --- RockMFR 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason given as to why we should keep the article. Proto::? 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sentence above has eleven words. --AceMyth 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single newspaper article of somewhat dubious reliability is not enough to satisfy the verifiability concerns here. No other sources have been found in the many months since this whole thing started; thus, this is not an appropriate topic for this encyclopedia. WarpstarRider 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there proof of the newspaper's suddenly dubious reliability other than the fact that you're against keeping the article? --Kizor 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said nothing about the newspaper; I was referring only to the article itself, as many others here already have. WarpstarRider 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. losethegame.com has a forum which claims 2356 users as of when I posted this. There are also links to four different Facebook groups, totalling 3,956 members, one of which having 1,878 members and one having over 1000 members at the University of Cambridge. You can also see there are people from multiple schools; I count about 40 universities in the first 100 people of the first group, as well as many universities with many players. I quickly found more groups with 3,975, 776, 767, 662, 484, 382, 292, 225, 215, 164, 150 and 114 members, and at least 70 more groups, starting here. (There are also 500+ group "hits" when searching "I lost the game", and many of them seem to be similar groups, raising the number even more.) That's easily 10,000 members, and even with a high incidence of overlap (which I haven't seen, considering the other groups aren't usually found in the "related groups" section, which seems to highlight groups with large overlap), there must be at least 4,000 considering the one group of 3,975. The groups state similar rules, if not the same rules, just using different words. To me, considering I'd guess that most people on Facebook are real people with real names, and that Facebook is a major Internet site, it looks like this is an activity participated in by many people from many places in the world, from a source that can't be discounted. It also seems unlikely that someone would join such a group without at least learning about the game. Also, while it is true that many groups link to the Wikipedia article, if the article was removed it wouldn't stop people from playing the game. Most of these groups are unlikely to change or be removed and anybody with a Facebook account can check that these groups exist. I'm not sure how best to include this in the article, but based on this, The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me. Telso 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The forum and Facebook group membership don't count for much - the only thing you need to join a forum is a registered account. The only thing you need to join a Facebook group is to have a existing Facebook account and to click a couple of buttons. In any case, even if such membership data was interesting, the Facebook group with 1,878 members you cite has a messageboard with just 3 discussion topics and a whopping 31 posts plus a pictureboard with 279 posts with brief "hello" messages from people[53] Bwithh 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most groups on facebook of comparable size have only a few posts to their message board. Are you seriously suggesting that this group on facebook is popular because of sockpuppeting? Rdore 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment facebook and losethegame.com do not qualify under WP:RS. No matter how many people know about it, it still doesn't pass wikipedias policys (WP:V WP:NOTABILITY) as well as it falls under WP:NFT. And everyone seems to say that so many people play the game and have heard of it, yet know one i know has every heard of this game. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BwitthTelso you do a lot of great research and conclude, "The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me. " without refferencing the wikipedia POLICYS on verifiablity, reliability or notablity. Please, refference the policy not your opinion about the subject.Sethie 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I conclude that "The Game seems verifiable, reliable and notable to me"(???). Anyway, I referenced the policy WP:V and related guideline WP:RS in my very first comment in what after all is a joined-up discussion revolving around these source issues. I can keep repeating "Fails WP:V and WP:RS" in every comment I like if you want. Bwithh 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notability does not need to be established by reliable sources. Only the facts of the article require reliable sources. Rdore 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to say delete. I've been looking around the internet for sources to verify the game, but I haven't found any. To be fair, I have heard of the game at my school, but, as User:Serpent's Choice noted, knowledge of the game is not enough for its inclusion in the encyclopedia. —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break for ease of editing (1)[edit]

  • Delete per all delete votes above. Reliable Sources problems. Anomo 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt the earth, fuse the salt with nuclear fire The COI, POV-pushing, disruption, and self-reference problems created by the off-wiki campaign to generate press for this meme for the specific purpose of getting it into Wikipedia far outweigh any apparent crossing of the subject over the boundary of Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There are many somewhat notable subjects that aren't in Wikipedia and we will get by just fine if this stays one of them. (Encyclopedia Dramatica is another). This is one of those situations were a consensus departure from the notability/RS guidelines is the right thing. We should only relent on this deletion if the subject becomes truly iconic (e.g. it's on the covers of Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated all in the same week), at least 100x higher threshold than "notable". 67.117.130.181 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically you are saying that because you think the topic is silly, even if it is notable, the article should not exists? I don't see how this is any better than the delete vote at top which just said "dumb". Rdore 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it was silly, I don't mind silly, there's tons of silly stuff in Wikipedia that I'm ok with. "Dumb" is different and is a good reason for deletion (we are not here to propagate stupidity). This particular article and the off-wiki efforts to get it into Wikipedia are WP:POINT#Gaming the system and deletion and salting is the correct remedy. Per Foundation counsel Brad Patrick:
Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now. [54]
He is talking about corporate spam/COI but it applies to this stuff too. The article is nowhere near important enough for it to be worth our tolerating such manipulation. Brad also says "ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur" -- difficult in a case like this, so we should ban (salt) the article instead. 67.117.130.181 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"we are not here to propagate stupidity" - this is your personal opinion that the game is stupid. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Beyond which the goal of the article should not be to recruit people in to the game, but simply to present information about what it is. Your quote is also definitely not relevant. It talks about looking at other ways to prevent people who have a financial interest from manipulating because current measure aren't working. In addition, that doesn't even look close to an adopted guideline, it's just a discussion of how to deal with that issue. An issue which is only tangentially related to the one here because clearly no one is going to profit from the game being kept on, or removed from wikipedia.71.225.71.44 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is known to be real and notable. There is no doubt of its existence and nature. To destroy the article is to harm Wikipedia as a reference work. It has been noted that the De Morgen article is in a foreign language. If that's an argument, you're free to nominate the tens of thousands of articles on non-English things that rely on non-English sources. WP:V states that foreign sources should be treated the same if there's a published translation or the original is cited, as it is here. It has been noted that the existence of this article creates controversy and bad spirits. In no way is that more damaging than the alternative, letting one party have its way because it shouted louder. --Kizor 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against the De Morgen article is not that its in a foreign language. The argument is that the article does not appear to be a news report subject to the factual vetting process assumed by WP:RS but is rather a whimsical column. Furthermore, this column is the only published source that had been found. Moreover, the column asserts that this game is predominantly played in the USA and the UK - the two major English-speaking countries - and yet only this one Flemish newspaper column is available as published source. And keeping such an article with such tenuous and sligh referencing does do more harm than good to Wikipedia as it suggests that other articles can get away with such minimal and dubious referencing too, making a mockery out of WP:RS/WP:V. Bwithh 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Bwithh here. I don't care at all that the article is in Dutch. A quality source is a quality source whether it is in English, Dutch, or Bantu. But this is not a quality source -- it does not read even a little bit like a serious newspaper article, and it is the only remotely appropriate source besides. WP inclusion policies typically require multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable coverage. This is not multiple. It is arguably less than reliable and quite possibly less than independent: the efforts that the game's advocates have been using off-WP serve only to raise the necessary bar; when an advocacy website states that it is attempting to arrange for media coverage for the purpose of concocting reliable sources, it should be absolutely guaranteed that WP will hold every single proposed reference to the highest possible standard. Wikipedia is not for this kind of bald-faced system gaming. Serpent's Choice 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Bwitth that the Dutch newspaper reference is lousy in terms of reliability and with Serpent's Choice that any new sourcing should be held to the highest standard. However, good documentation or not, I don't share Kizor's view that Wikipedia is harmed (in any substantial way) by losing this article. See WP:BIAS for how there's already a huge amount of stuff that we don't currently document that we really should (maybe we'll get to some of it, but for now, we're not exactly suffering from the absence). This article under discussion is just a drop in the bucket compared to that. It would matter if it was an important article (and we do rate some articles for importance). If it's unimportant, we can by definition afford to lose it no matter how thoroughly documented it is. The bottom line is: notability by RS is an argument favoring inclusion, but not an automatic discussion-stopper. In this case, it's outweighed by the other issues. 67.117.130.181 10:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguements are moot." - Mailer Diablo (Admin who closed last AfD as No Consensus). Nothing has changed since the last AfD... Kernow 14:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, nothing has changed, it still doesn't pass WP:N, which insists on MULTIPLE sources. Sethie 14:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but has WP:N changed since the last AfD? I don't remember it requiring multiple sources before. Kernow 14:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I really don't know much about the history of wp:n.... What I do know is that the first sentence of wp:n states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" and that this article does not cover that.Sethie 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's approach to notability has evolved substantially since July. As of July 6, when the previous AFD closed, the essay on notability looked like this. That differs in a number of substantial ways from the current WP:N guideline. A great deal of community work, debate, and sometimes conflict went into the changes. Articles that were acceptable in July may not be now, just as articles that were acceptable in, say, 2004 may not be now. Consensus (and the guidelines) can -- and does -- change. Serpent's Choice 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People pointing out that editors have only made a few contributions to Wikipedia (e.g. "That would be FuzzyStern's first and only contribution to wikipedia.") are wasting their time. As it says at the top "this is not a ballot". It is irrelevant how many contributions they have made. All that is important is the argument(s) they provide for whether or not the article should be kept. Kernow 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as that template itself notes, in AFDs where there is a reason to suspect outside organization might influence the discussion, it is completely appropriate to indicate which participants have little other Wikipedia presence. That is because established editors are more likely to understand concepts like verifiability, notability, and reliable sources as they are used here than are newcomers and outsiders, who, in this case, could conceivably include individuals rallied from savethegame. Serpent's Choice 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As close to patent nonsense as I've seen outside articles speedied within minutes. The only reason I don't go for "delete and salt" is that there is at least one actual phenomenon called simply "The Game," a word game once popular in New York theatrical and social circles (whose rules I've completely forgotten). Robertissimo 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This could be handled by giving the word game article a different name at first, then requesting a page move to recover the protected name. 67.117.130.181 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you think the topic is goofy is not ground for deletion. Rdore 02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I come not as a drone propelled by the senseless campaign to support the article (indeed, I was unaware of such a campaign until reading this AfD), but as an interested project participant. Article quality could certainly be improved, but it seems rather unfair to call this "patent nonsense." As additional evidence for verifiability and notability, I offer a Facebook group dedicated to the game [55] with 4,000 members spanning the US. The game exists, it's been around longer then the Wikipedia article, and this article presents a publicly visible view of the game, not hidden behind the login walls of social networking sites. While outside campaigning for VfDs is certainly to be frowned upon, the article should be reviewed on its own merits, not the actions of its supporters. Zachlipton 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Facebook defence" has already been commented on above. Furthermore, the outside campaigning is but one element of the argument against this article (incidentally, even if Facebook groups were admissible as evidence - the 4,007 members of this Facebook group have made only 93 discussion board posts and 612 "hello" wall picture posts, meaning that at best, 17.6% of the group's members have made the most minimal contribution (one post) to the group) Bwithh 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was looking for other sources, and the other Wikipedias seem to have the same problem. The only different sources that are listed there are a page at bbc.co.uk and insertcredit.com. The BBC article is a user-created article for the "Hitchhiker's Guide Encyclopedia". I'm having issues figuring out if the article is reliable, since it does appear to be peer edited. I was unable to determine much about the relability of the other site. (If this is not an appropriate place to discus this I will gladly move it the the article's talk page.) —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC article you mention is on H2G2, which is peer edited, and not at all a reliable source. It would be like someone creating a Wikipedia page and using that as a reliable source for a further Wikipedia page. Of course, this does happen (see Walled garden). Proto::? 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of what I had assumed, but I figured a second opnion would help. Thanks. —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced per verifiability and reliable sources policies. The five pillars are there for a reason, as far as I can tell. One of those pillars is neutral point of view, which cannot be acheived without the aforementioned policies. This isn't the place to argue notability or verifiability, this is the place to decide whether the article does that on its own. BigNate37(T) 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The correct response for NPOV is not to delete the article. It is to put an NPOV tag on it and work to make the point of view neutral. Rdore 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been kept, it has had cleanup tags (as far as my limited inspection can tell), but it hasn't been fixed. I have no faith in this article's future. Let it be recreated when an editor can sufficiently address the problems with respect to core content policies. BigNate37(T) 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has a reliable source. The article is verifiable. There is no requirement than notability be established by reliable sources, only that the facts in the article are verifiable. The game is certainly notable based on it's large internet popularity. Many delete nominations seem to be in bad faith: It's silly so there shouldn't be an article on it. Rdore 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N requires MULTIPLE SOURCES. End of story. Sethie 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People have mentioned numerous web sources. My point was that the threshold for what is a reliable source and what is a source for proving notability are not that same. Rdore 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states several times the need for "published" and "reliable" sources. Only reliable sources can be used to judge notability. WarpstarRider 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of the notability guideline, it seems that the wording has within the past month or two been changed from something along the lines of "multiple independent sources" to having the words published and reliable in there. Furthermore, from reading the talk page it sounds like this is a controversial change. I don't think that judging the notability of this article on the basis of a controversial portion of a guideline is a very convincing argument, especially when a lot of the pro-delete side here seems to be acting in bad faith. Rdore 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that when you don't like current wiki guidelines, you just, well ignore them. Also thank you for clarifying that you aren't very skilled at WP:AGF.Sethie 03:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are delete votes that have comments like "dumb" and "mostly nonsense". There is another comment of the form "this has gone on long enough." I don't consider it an assumption that people making comment have already decided what they want and will do whatever they can to force the deletion through. Also that guideline which was changed a month ago, and labeled as "consensus" despite a vocal minority being opposed to it. Beyond which the guideline even explicitly states that guidelines are not set in stone.71.225.71.44 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we have numerous sources, including one or two reliable ones, why is there only one source mentioned in the article? I'm afraid I haven't registered for the website which would allow me to stare at the Dutch source in bewilderment. Hence, delete unless fixed. If this wasn't the sixth nomination, I'd be willing to assume the article would be fixed after the AfD, but that doesn't seem to work for this article—it's not like it can never be recreated if someone takes the time to write it properly. BigNate37(T) 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There areplenty of website about the game that could be cited. I was not of the impression that "hasn't been cleaned up yet," is a reason for deletion. 71.225.71.44 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that you assert that there are many websites about the game. However is it true any of them could be cited? Do any of these websites pass WP:RS?Sethie 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of WP:RS reads "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages." I think that plenty of information can be verified about the game and it's popularity simply by looking at a large number of individually somewhat suspect sources, many of which have been cited above. (See for example the rules listed in [Mao (game)].) If we can verify facts about the game, from this reading it seems that the existence of any reliable sources at all is not necessary. 71.225.71.44 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really Really Weak Delete Per Nate I'd like to keep it, but it'll take a cleanup. Just H 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I already voted. Just H 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i'll put a graph for the votes on the talk page. Just H 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Also the first rule of common sense applies: If something is contemporary, domestic and supposedly popular, it shouldn't be a problem to find sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sodium-free delete, no prejudice against re-creation. The concerns raised about the article seem legitimate, and the absence of other sources over time is increasingly telling. -- Visviva 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Keep. I know this game exists because I have heard my son and his friends play it for several years (and they clearly did not invent it or they would have claimed credit). From the past deletion discussions and the widespread locales where Wikipedians have stated that it has been played, in my view its lack of coverage in the press is not an indication that its existence is in question, but rather a indication of how uninteresting The Game is to those who don't "play." I think it is stupid but I also think it is widespread and is barely encyclopedic enough to keep. -- DS1953 talk 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AFD listing says that "The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all." It doesn't. There's no reason there can't be a decent news report or similar about the game, it's just that we haven't found a good one in English yet. The article even has a reference, it's just that it's in Dutch, and the website's registration system is currently broken so we can't read the article. It is verifiable, it's just not adequately verified yet. The listing then says "As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth." That's not true either. Anyone can and does add their own nonsense, as with any article: this is a wiki. Like any other article good changes are kept and unverifiable POV nonsense is argued about and removed. Clearly we need to improve the references for this article, but it's just as clear we shouldn't delete it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: I had no idea how popular The Game was on Wikipedia; see Category:Wikipedians who play The Game and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_the_game (which was a template that got moved to User:Scepia/The Game loser --Bkkbrad 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Rdore appears to be attempting votestacking, notifying only "keep" voters from the last AfD of the current discussion. [56] WarpstarRider 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is notable, it exists, and we can't prove it. It would be nice if there were more sources to explain it, but as it is there is only the one source and so there is no way that the article can be guaranteed accurate. There are solid reasons why WP:V is policy.--ais523 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I understand that memes are not individually notable and/or verifiable, but they are an observable sociological phenomenom. Perhaps a re-categorization as an example of memetics would be a good compromise? This article has been helpful to me in explaining The Game to people, and I've been playing since (roughly) 2001. I would also agree, though, that it needs some work in bringing it up to an encyclopedic standard. Cheers, Oons 216.91.240.14 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really couldn't give a crap any more Yeah, everyone involved in this discussion (even the most ardent defenders, if they're honest) knows that it fails WP:V and it really should be a delete and salt until such time as the community comes to a new consensus that it does (i.e. more sources), but the reality is that sheer weight of numbers means that it's going to be closed as no consensus ergo de facto keep. C'est la vie. The article has been maintained in an almost unchanged condition since the closure of the last AFD (save for the usual stripping out of vandalism, and debates about whether to include User:Kernow's website in the list of links), which means that no interesting worthwhile sources have been found during the previous umpteen nominations or the however many months since. Either people were so ecstatic about it being kept that they've been partying ever since and were too busy looking for the one or two proper sources that could so easily settle this once and for all, or those sources simply aren't anywhere to be found, or (most likely) having had the article declared kept thanks to one pansy-arse source, they decided that their work here was done and crawled back to their rocks. Kinitawowi 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mini-essay posted here, moved to talk page by someone who deemed it irrelevant. It's under "another opinion". In a nutshell, there are more fundamental issues of policy interpretation at hand here than mere citation could resolve, and until they are decided one way or the other, I fear this dispute will be primarily swayed by merits of numbers and loudness. --AceMyth 07:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cook, and pass the salt and pepper. That is to say, delete, salt and recreate when somebody finds good sources. 'Til then. oTHErONE (Contribs) 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's interesting though, so I copy-pasted it to my userspace. oTHErONE (Contribs) 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, has anything related to this been BJAODN'd? 58.178.78.40 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (I am not a Meatpuppet. I am abstaining, so I can't possibly have any effect.)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Although this has not yet reached the main-stream media, this is probably a pop culture phenomenon. Go to any school in America and say "I just lost the game" and view the results. -AtionSong 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, Harvard referencing does not allow for crediting a citation to "any school in America." The definition of reliable sources is a little more narrow than that, and if you could point to a published source it would be much better than making generalised statements of cultural familiarity. The fact that I've never heard of it outside of Wikipedia is just as irrelevant as the fact that you have. BigNate37(T) 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break for ease of editing (2)[edit]

  • Strong Keep. Not liking something is not a reason for deletion. The article is notable, and verifiable, albeit currently by a single source. There is scope in this encyclopaedia for the frivolous as well as the mundane. Fiddle Faddle 00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but the people all my shool (even though they're morons) have better things to do than play this game that no one I've asked has heard of(and i've asked quiet a few people). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N clearly states "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic." An article with only one source is neither notable nor verifiable. --Richmeistertalk 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Don't Destroy, while absolutely not a policy, has a great deal of sense for cases like this. Fiddle Faddle 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As of 30 December, Wikipedia:Don't Destroy is undergoing an MfD —W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please stop talking about it, wouldn't you like to win for a little while?? --207.155.200.222 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:N has changed significantly since the last AfD. It now requires multiple published sources which this article does not have. Editors that want this article kept should really be discussing WP:N and whether a topic with only one published source can still be notable. Someone should find out the reason it was changed to require multiple sources in the first place. Kernow 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have commented below, WP:N is a guideline, not policy. A little "common sense" tells us that this article is an example of "the occasional exception" to WP:N guidelines on multiple sources. Kernow 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From WP:N: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Kernow 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Regardless of the number of available published sources, this is a real game with widespread popularity, and is obviously notable. Alereon 07:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly for pragmatic reasons. At this point, it should be obvious that Wikipedia policy doesn't make this a slam dunk delete or a slam dunk keep. (Anyone who included "speedy" in their vote needs to put their view of WP policy in perspective, I'd say.) This AfD is nothing but the old deletionist vs. inclusionist debate rehashed for a thousandth time. If the policies and guidelines about inclusion are clearer someday and happen to swing it toward "delete", bring it up again. But right now, the choices are a sketchy delete and a sketchy keep, and sketchy deletes create many more hard feelings. rspeer / ???ds? 07:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is any keep vote which could convince me, this is it. BigNate37(T) 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has one reliable source right now, and needs at least one more to pass WP:RS. But WP:RS is a guideline, not policy, so occasional exceptions are allowed. One is enough to satisfy WP:V, which is policy. I think in this case we can allow the article to stay. It would certainly be nice to have more sources since the article can't expand beyond what is currently there, but I don't think it should be deleted until more are found, since the source provided seems reliable. VegaDark 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really bothers me that people try to observe guidelines only when it is convenient to do so—guidelines are not sacrosanct, but shouldn't be discarded without very good reason. One source in a foreign language which requires registration (which someone above suggested was not working at the moment) should hardly be the exception to the guideline's two reliable sources. Ideally someone who wants to keep this article can just find a published, accessable source, and make this all moot. BigNate37(T) 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only because the whole point of this game is to forget about it. therefore by deleting this article, we wikipedians are all winning. i am sure that the continued existence of this game in increasing numbers of social circles will cause this article to be brought back again and again. the repeated deletion only serves to exemplify the purpose of the game, so delete away, winners of the game! --Someones life 11:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I guess I base it on the fact that if this were a band and all the bands fans were clamouring keep, and had some foreign language reference I couldn't access I'd say the same. Steve block Talk 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. It requires stretching multiple policies/guidelines to justify keeping this article. At some point, we reach the elastic limit. Foreign-language sources without reliable translation are a stretch to WP:V. So is an article that depends on subscription-only sources. A single source cannot satisfy WP:N, so we need to stretch that guideline. Keeping an article on a topic that derives much of its notability from its presence in Wikipedia is a stretch to WP:COI. I just don't stretch that far. If we aren't going to salt, we may as well not bother deleting. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no doubt that the game is real and that some people have heard of it. I also have no doubt that I'm real and some people have heard of me, but I don't get an article. We all know why. Mikeliveshere 19:45, 30 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_24&oldid=1081094789"