Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 30 July 2 >

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 of the debate was Merge to Chinese Silver Panda - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese panda coins[edit]

Nothing but a list of years that particular coins were minted; not really any content NawlinWiki 00:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WP:MUSIC and WP:RS primary here. Proto///type 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (song)[edit]

No citation from a third party, no indication of notability, nothing to merge meaningfully into. - brenneman {L} 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would argue that it is notable, although it may not perfectly fit according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs, which is currently just a proposed policy after all. It is at least fairly well known as an internet phenomenon, and I would argue that the article, though short, does add an important piece of information about it by stating that it is not a System of a Down song as is commonly believed. A quick look at the talk page for System of a Down shows that this is a fairly widely held belief. I'll admit that it might be hard to find sources for something like this, but I still think that it is notable and the sources issue can most likely be worked out.--Derco 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just another meme, not worthy of cleanup or research. -- Mikeblas 00:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:MEME; hasn't been subject of any major media works--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable meme. SM247My Talk 02:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:MUSIC, WP:MEME. --Randy Johnston (‽) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and because of the recently closed AfD. If the nom wants sources for this, a better way to start might be to leave a message on the talk page and/or use templates, rather than prodding in violation of prod rules and rapidly renominating on AfD. --JJay 02:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...because of the recently closed AfD"? Did you see the 6-2 delete-keep vote at that AfD? -- Kicking222 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing has changed since the last time, still notable due to the misattribution to System of a Down. Still an excellent example as to why we need to figure outa guideline for net memes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we have a third party source for the misattribution? - brenneman {L} 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfrotunately, not anything that would be acceptable at this juncture, as this had its heyday a number of years ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge info into articles on System of a Down and/or The Legend of Zelda. I'm all for articles on net memes, but this isn't a terribly important one. Penelope D 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:MEME. The AfD renomination policy does not apply because the previous result was no consensus, and there aren't many contributors to this article (just one or two). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really notable. Its only claim to fame is the fact that a bunch of people thought it was by SOAD, but that's not article-worthy in my opinion. WarpstarRider 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable to begin with, and no sources to boot. Titoxd(?!?) 05:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn internet phenomenon. Possibly merge a line about it's existence into The Legend of Zelda. MLA 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Legend of Zelda article, or a more relevent one if availible. --Ted87 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable internet fad. No reliable sources. It fails WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and also WP:MEME. It just fails. - Motor (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 No content whatsoever. Ste4k 10:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor; misses WP:MUSIC by a very long way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unsourced and it's simply non-notable. I think Motor summed it up pretty well. -- Kicking222 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. -- GWO
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:MEME and above hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:MEME. put misattribution on System of a Down, if it can be sourced. --Samael775 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Samael1775. Zos 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please take note. I just substantially rewrote the citations. If your delete vote was on something other than notability grounds, please reevaluate the article. I'd suggest reevaluating the article anyway. On notability grounds, furthermore, this squeaks by fairly well; the misattribution became fairly notorious. Captainktainer * Talk 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link provided in the article seems to say nothing about the misattribution? - brenneman {L} 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable both for its common misattribution to SOAD and as a meme (separate from its SOAD connection). The citation for the misattribution still needs work, though. On a personal note, I had been under the impression that this song was recorded by SOAD until I read this article, and I believe many others still are. --Michael 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - really not worthy of its own article -- Alias Flood 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with something. Joeyramoney 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable song. It's already mentioned in The Legend of Zelda series article, so there is no need for a separate article. --Musicpvm 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate to spoil the work of editors who know what they're doing, but this article barely says anything about its subject, and everything nontrivial it says, it has no reliable source for. Mangojuicetalk 13:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge somewhere and delete, or just delete, per Mangojuice et al. -- Hoary 07:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I enjoy the song, I agree with deletion reasons listed above. Wickethewok 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good song, and I appreciate the effort of the contributors, but is there really anything much to say about it? I see the article for the band itself has been deleted, elsewhise I'd suggest redirecting there, with an appropriate section. Luna Santin 07:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Legend of Zelda series - it's worth a mention, but as is the case for most other songs, doesn't need its own article. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Purple Hippos[edit]

Insufficient notability, small membership roll [1] --NMChico24 04:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The clan has been the second most influential online community to Ensemble Studios, after HeavenGames. I think that's quite notable. Anyone who has ever visited HeavenGames knows of both the Flying Purple Hippo and the clan. Just because you know nothing about a topic, don't assume it is of "insufficient notability". Furthermore, 462 members is hardly a small membership roll, compared to most online groups that have wikipedia entries.
If you find other Wikipedia entries for online groups with fewer than 462 members, I suggest you nominate those for deletion as well. Cheers! --NMChico24 21:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From their website - "We have 462 registered members".--Andeh 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root Souljah[edit]

This artist fails WP:MUSIC with no releases on major labels, no listing at allmusic.com, and nothing for sale at amazon.com. A web search for this name reveals about 40 matching pages. Mikeblas 00:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Sorry, but there isn't a sufficiently overwhelming majority for deletion here to be called 'consensus', and lists like this can be sourced - the counterpart for films is significantly better-sourced than this. This list isn't intrinisically unverifiable.

Given the concern expressed over this list's sourcing (most if not all delete supporters cite this as their reasoning, and many supporters also admit that this is a problem), I encourage editors to be WP:BOLD and remove every single song that doesn't cite a reliable, well-respected source. Don't worry, you probably won't have to spend the next few weeks defending your edits - in my experience, when people find lists in Wikipedia they add their own pet thoughts and then never look at the article again, so if you remove those thoughts you don't encounter any opposition. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)[edit]

This article fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in every possible way. The group of songs listed seems very random, and there are several listed that I would definitely not consider the worst ever. At the end of the day, there is no way this article can be NPOV. Many of the songs follow with explanations of why the user PERSONALLY feels the song is one of the worst ever. This article is mostly original research. I don't see it being useful in any way, as it will always be filled with personal opinions and views. --Musicpvm 01:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November, 2005. The result was "keep".

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2005. The result was "keep".

  • Delete as per nom. Unbelievable this article is now in its 3rd afd nomination. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for "funny" lists dreamed up in your spare time Bwithh 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Marminnetje 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can never be anything but entirely subjective. ~ Matticus78 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Keep - the arguments presented by others for keeping are convincing, particularly those presented by Captainktainer. The 3rd nomination also bothers me the more I think about it. --ElKevbo 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, should this AfD also apply to articles such as List of films that have been considered the worst ever, Films that have been considered the greatest ever, and Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever?--TBCTaLk?!? 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article cites sources and is not POV, it is referable to polling, sales and the like. Same applies largely for the others. This will always invite debate, but the listings are not referable purely to the editors' opinions. I would definitely vote delete if this were a ranking page, but it is merely a list of some songs that have garnered spectacularly bad reputations, reviews and opinions. SM247My Talk 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any problem with this, since much of the content is cited and based on things like polls and media coverage. I also don't think this and the other similar lists should be continually nominated for deletion even after being kept through previous AfD attempts. Amazinglarry 04:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is admirably well-sourced and cited; there's no problem with it. Penelope D 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is subjective and indiscriminate. Fails WP:NOR miserably. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At the very least, remove every entry that does not have a verifiable citation. (and namedropping isnt good enough. If VH1 did a poll, its probably online somewhere) Resolute 05:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is criminally insane, just look at the title! --Superbeatles 05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is bad procedure to keep renominating articles for a start. This is not OR as it clearly cites sources such as:
The Cheeky Song (Touch my Bum), The Cheeky Girls (2003): This song was voted the #1 worst pop recording by Channel Four viewers
this would be "bad procedure" if wikipedia readers were a static population. I just found the article by chance (random page select) and found it assinine and un-encyclopedic. Anyone can put together a "worst of" list. That's what Blogs are for. Jackbox1971 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. I am sure there will be plenty of people who will find this interesting and enjoy it. I did. Tyrenius 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 06:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what's verifiable (polls, opinions of music critics and so on). Junk what isn't. BigHaz 09:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it refers to actual lists of disliked songs, it picks and chooses which songs on those lists to include, presumably according to the contributor's own opinion on the song. Lurker 10:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, as listcruft. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. KleenupKrew 10:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 No content whatsoever. Ste4k 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you read articles, or just vote "Speedy- no context" on every single one? This article has a pretty ludicrous amount of content. -- Kicking222 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the policy? and yes I viewed the list, and there wasn't an article there. And content is verifiable. Ste4k 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about as well-sourced as a list of this type can be (and what isn't sourced can and should be deleted). Yes, it's POV, but it's consensus POV. -- Kicking222 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No content, POV --Splette Talk 15:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per NPOV. Zos 16:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, NPOV, and unencycolpedic. amazon.com reviews are not valid sources. --Samael775 17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The contributors have done a good job sourcing their statements and providing relevant context, which is what an encyclopedia should do. If there's a problem with selection bias, the appropriate response is "fix it," not "delete it." If you don't have time, that's fine, but don't deny someone else the opportunity to fix the article. I'd also like to second the "bad form on nom" comments. Continually renominating things for AfD because the "right" consensus wasn't achieved is just wrong. Captainktainer * Talk 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the last times this article was nominated were in November and December 2005, so I don't see what the problem is in nominating it again over 6 months later especially when the majority of the problems mentioned in the last two AfDs were not fixed and it continues to fail NPOV and NOR miserably. There are thousands of polls constantly taken all across the world by many different organizations (television shows, magazines, websites, critic lists, etc). Even if a song is voted #1 on some random worst song poll, I don't see how it is automatically eligible to be considered the worst ever. This article picks and chooses certain songs to display. Many statements are opiniated and do not even mention sources and others that do, do not even provide a link to the actual poll data. No matter how much cleanup it goes through, it will always be an extremely POV list. This is as unencylopedic as it gets. --Musicpvm 17:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ramseystreet 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The point of this article is to express what people think are bad songs. It's a total opinion. Green caterpillar 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic. We've been through this before with other lists. Where does it end? "List of songs in English that someone doesn't like"? "List of songs in English that make someone want to puke"? The whole thing about "indiscriminate lists" is that a list should be helpful in some fashion. Lists like List of 00 ZIP codes or List of Acts of Parliament in Singapore may not be particularly encyclopedic, but they serve a function - they show redlinked articles that need to be created. Something like List of NCAA college football rivalry games or List of NCAA Division I-A Football Programs is useful, because it shows you more information than you can get out of just a category. But this list doesn't really serve a purpose - it's just an indiscriminate collection of data. BigDT 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article is woefully subjective, and as tired an argument as it is, I don't see how this article could ever truly be made neutral. Also, opinions (which is basically what this amounts to) don't belong in an encyclopedia. --NMChico24 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are building an encycolpedia here! Collecting indviduals comments in this manner feels very much like OR. And then we have personal/non-source opinions like Photograph's cloying, obvious sentimentality and omnipresence on radio in early 2006 led to it being named by some as the benchmark of bad songs for the twenty-first century. Really! Inner Earth 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is precedent. As TBC mentioned, there are a number of other articles with similar titles; why have these, particularly List of songs in English labeled the best ever, not been AfD'd along with this one? Since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus here, I suggest re-listing as a combined AfD with every such "labeled best/worst" article. ~ Booya Bazooka 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NPOV (on Wikipedia's part anyway) and not OR (look at all the references). I've always liked that song "Atlantis", though. --Joelmills 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is generally considered good etiquette to link to the prior AfD's. In this case, I can only find AfD #1. ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Reading the article I have one editorial comment: There is no such thing as consensus in matters of musical taste. I might say Keep but only if this list can be renamed and restricted to songs that have been voted worst songs in meaningful polls (with a definition what meaningful entails). Barring this, I have to go with Delete as indiscriminate list. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about List of songs voted the worst ever? As it's an English encyclopedia, I don't think it's necessary to specify the language. Tyrenius 03:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be ok with that, as long as there is some mechanism that makes clear what can go in and what can't. ~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wouldn't quite work as some of these were not "voted" on. The title would need to be something like List of songs labeled worst ever. And I don't see why we would have to specify criteria for inclusion in the list as the criteria would be the same for any other article: NPOV reference to a verifiable source. --ElKevbo 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an additional criterion for lists which is WP:NOT indiscriminate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note. I have just been through the article and deleted the editor's own descriptions of the songs (which I feel are probably accurate as it happens). However, he does give the source of the "worst song" tag in each case, so it is not OR (i.e. it's not his choice), not is it POV, as it's not his opinion. I think the article could be expanded with more research and should cite more references, but I feel it is something that will be of interest to readers, particularly if brought up to standard. Tyrenius 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem here is that the author has simply picked and chosen whatever entries he dislikes from these lists and included them in this article. That is both OR and POV. The only possible way this article can avoid violating both these policies is if the article was rewritten to show the top five or top ten of various "worst song lists" from reputable sources, ie VH1, BBC, Rolling Stone, etc. However, in that case, it is merely listcruft, and violates WP:NOT as it would be an indiscriminate collection of information. Resolute 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Unencyclopedic. If someone wants to start a blog they should just go to blogger and do it. Blogs are for venting one's spleen. Or message boards... Jackbox1971 05:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information In order to make an informed judgement on this article it might be helpful to study the List of lists of songs and evaluate this one (and the arguments for its deletion) in the context of the other lists that exist. For a comprehensive view see List of topic lists. Tyrenius 05:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. How many times are these articles going to have to go through AfD? I think we should lose the "in English" qualifier though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This lacks any substance as a serious article. This is only pop culture blog material. It was also added to the AntiWikipedia which makes it even more ridiculous to keep. Just get rid of it all together.BrandNew21 10:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per trialsanderrors. No consistent mechanism for inclusion is stated or implied. "A consistent member of "Worst Songs" lists" is simply too vague to be of any use. Also "worst" is a de facto superlative, but some entries on the list are merely cited as "near the top" of pundits' lists. --DaveG12345 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ridiculous listcruft, inherently unqualifiable. Suggest Salting as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, collection of trivia compiled from various sources of trivia. No criteria for exclusion exist. Reads like those sports trivia, that you find, say, on sweets wrappers. Dr Zak 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mmx1 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've just spent some time trying to tidy up the article - deleting sections which have no sources or which are contradictory. Putting in references and links. I dislike the idea of long standing articles being deleted - especially articles which have survived two previous delete votes - but this article, and the two related articles: Films considered the worst ever and List of songs in English labeled the best ever do seem trivial, non-encyclopedic and attract the wrong sort of attention. I like the humour. I can see how such articles can become popular. But if we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously then we have to say that articles like this are great fun, but they belong in a general interest magazine and not an encyclopedia. As much as any of us like them personally and want them to remain, they do nothing good for Wikipedia's credibility. Such articles are the one's the media focus on when it comes time to drag Wikipedia's name through the mud. For the greater sense of what serious editors are attempting to achieve on Wikipedia we have to let these tongue-in-cheek, trivial articles fall by the wayside. SilkTork 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as each song listed is cited, this seems to be a relevant, maintainable, useful, and NPOV-able list. Wickethewok 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With sources referenced and careful writing, this will be a fine article in the vein of Films considered the worst ever - CNichols 02:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.... Why not? Piercetp 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forgive me, but I'm not seeing the excellent citations a bunch of you are mentioning. The criteria for inclusion are vaporous and subjective (see WP:NPOV), and two of the six sources cited are nothing more than lyrics pages. I hate to say this, but I'm not convinced of the article's encyclopedic notability, or of its factual objectivity, or if it even has any capacity to become factually objective. There's evidence of cherry-picking by editors -- one source lists 100 songs, another 50, another 40, and the last one 20; how, then, do we find the article itself listing 21 songs, if not by an editor's own opinions? See WP:NPOV again, along with WP:NOR. One of the sources is even a forum, which runs afoul of WP:V. As I see it, none of the pages cited make any serious effort to provide the means by which they've designated any of these songs as "the worst ever," and none of them strike me as particular authorities on the matter. Citing a few op-ed pieces from an incredibly minute sample of mostly-unheard-of websites doesn't quite cut it, for my tastes. Sorry. Luna Santin 07:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the people electing "Keep", please explain how the current "cleaned-up" version of this list passes WP:NOR - it still contains such blatant POV as "Aqua's satirical dance number is not strictly noted as the worst..." (so it should NOT be in this list) and "'Disco Duck'... Near the top of The Book of Rock Lists' list of worst #1 hits" (so it should NOT be in this list), and that's just the first few lines. This list must use solid verifiable criteria for inclusion, or it is just obvious editorial picking-and-choosing per Luna Santin et al. These two examples prove the point categorically. Since no such selection criteria have been asserted or seem likely ever to be asserted, this is an obvious Delete as intrinsic NPOV and NOR failure with no hope of credible fix-up. WP:LIST#Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members is absolutely clear on this. It is not enough when it comes to lists to cite a random unnotable source per entry - criteria must be clear, self-evident and unbreakable from the start, and must apply to every entry in the list. --DaveG12345 11:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the last comment. This list included plenty of material that should not even be there. This list is no different than an article at a humor magazine or a late night show skit.24.90.233.29 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The simple solution is to establish criteria and apply them, e.g. the song must have been called the worst ever by an individual of note, or it must have been called the worst ever on a notable medium such as TV, radio, press etc., or it must have topped a worst ever poll. The top three or five songs of such a poll could be a cut-off point. Anything else should be deleted from the article. Tyrenius 05:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP do we keep nominating things around here until we get our way, come on. It is sourced material dealing with notable material and just because you dont like it doesnt mean it shouldnt be kept, I dont like the New York Yankees yet I havent nominated them for deletion yet.--Kev62nesl 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'll bite the bullet and check the citations, to back up my arguments. There are four pages cited, Channel4 News (notability?), Maxim, Freerepublic.com (blog/forum, fails WP:V?), and popculturemadness.com (notability?). I'll go through and list the rankings in that order (C4, Maxim, FR,PCM). A number is the song's placement on a list; an x means the song does not appear on the list; a yes/no applies to FR, which did not order their list.
  1. Achy Breaky Heart, by Billy Ray Cyrus (9, x, yes, 17)
  2. Atlantis, by Donovan (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  3. ...Baby One More Time, by Britney Spears (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  4. Barbie Girl, by Aqua (8,x,yes,x)
  5. The Cheeky Song, by the Cheeky Girls (1,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  6. Disco Duck, by Rick Dees (x,x,yes,15)
  7. Having My Baby, by Paul Anika (x,x,yes,11)
  8. Hollaback Girl, by Gwen Stefani (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  9. Honey, by Bobby Goldsboro (x,x,yes,13)
  10. I Love You, by Barney & Friends (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  11. Ice Ice Baby, by Vanilla Ice (46,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  12. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, by William Shatner (x,x,yes,x)
  13. MacArthur Park, by Richard Harris (90,x,yes,1)
  14. Millenium Prayer, by Cliff Richard (2,x,yes,x)
  15. Mr Blobby, by Mr Blobby (6,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  16. Muskrat Love, by Captain & T. (x,x,yes,6)
  17. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, by The Beatles (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  18. Seasons in the Sun, Tery Jacks (x,x,yes,4)
  19. Shaddap You Face (46,x,x,x) (only one mention)
  20. Tutti Frutti, by Pat Boone (x,x,x,x) (strikes out)
  21. We Built This City, by Starship (83,x,x,x) (only one mention)
As we can see, six of the songs mentioned appear nowhere on the cited pages, and five of the songs only appear in one of the cited pages; that's half the page that's barely or never mentioned in the references. I'm curious how we listed #1, #2... then #6... and suddenly jump from #9 to #43, with regards to one page -- subjective cherrypicking, anyone? Maxim, probably the most notable source, is only used once. One source is a blog or forum, and isn't really admissable as a source... but that's one of the most-used sources in this article (removing it as a source puts seven more songs into the only-one-mention group, upping the ante to at least 18 of 21 songs we might call inadequately sourced). There doesn't appear to be any strong consensus between the cited pages, and I seriously question the argument that the pages cited represent any serious majority opinion among notable critics and organizations. If somebody wants to keep this sort of content, I'd encourage very strict criteria and listification to the effect of "songs called worst by X," instead of a central list (though a central list might link to other lists). The centralized page seems too high of a POV risk, to me, even before we address questions of notability. Luna Santin 11:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per numerous previous AfDs.  Grue  14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is obvious from the above research by Luna Santin and others that this article needs editing. Instead of deleting the whole article, the unsourced material should be removed and replaced with cited content from other well-publicized "wort songs" polls. I think we should leave the article here and give users a chance to do this. It definitely has a chance to be a useful and informative article. Amazinglarry 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, arbitrary criteria and a potentially limitless list that's loaded with opinion and original research. Wikipedia really isn't an indiscriminate collection of information... an article has to have a point, and simply cataloguing what you think are bad songs, or digging that the someone, somewhere once mentioned that they think it is crap does not make a valid article. - Motor (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per numerous previous afds why do people keep trying to erase this Yuckfoo 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the second nomination shouldn't have happened -- not enough time passed, and I suspect the second nomination may have been in bad faith. For that one, I offer no defense. This one, though, it's been nine months since the original nomination, and that's time for a lot to change. Not to say I can't sympathize with you, I do, and your question is valid, I just wanted to point out the passed time. Regards, Luna Santin 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve lots. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The consensus to keep on the 2nd nomination was founded on the unfairness of the nomination coming so soon after the first. The consensus to keep on the 1st nomination was founded on the principle that the sources checked out. Based on Luna Santin's research the sources do not check out. SilkTork 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But delete all songs not supported by cites. Stephen B Streater 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too subjective. You can add pretty much any song to this list as long as you can cite a newspaper critic or some other wannabe musical elitist who doesn't like it. A major criterion for inclusion to this list is thus someones POV. --Ezeu 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. As long as it is not the wiki editor's POV then it does not contradict NPOV. Tyrenius 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not true. Picking songs from random worst song lists and creating a "worst songs" article out of them is VERY POV whether sources are cited or not. The way information is displayed (even if it is cited) can make an article POV, and in this case (with the random inclusion of songs), it definitely does. --musicpvm 22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea is to have as comprehensive as possible compilation of worst song lists and establish objective criteria, not to pick and choose which songs. Please read my points earlier. Thank you. Tyrenius 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Luna Santin's research; indiscriminate (WP:NOT) and OR is not quite AFD bingo, but it's quite enough reason to delete this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided that songs included are derived from lists from *reputable* sources, eg Rolling Stone or whatever recognised music publications there are. Nothing from people's random blogs or bulletin boards should be included. And it shouldn't just be a case of "critic X doesn't like song Y, therefore Y is included", the song in question should be agreed by several *respected* authorities to be among the worst. Prefereably the list should mainly include songs featuring regularly in different sources' "worst songs of all time" lists. I don't see any difference between this article and "films that have been considered the worst ever" or other similar articles.Georgeslegloupier 07:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if Wikipedia were an indiscriminate collection of information, this list is far too subjective and cannot be considered anything approaching NPOV. Even with "reputable" sources, the writers there would be compiling their own subjective worst list, to sell a few magazines; this is not the Washington Post reporting events at the capital or multiple scientific experiments validated in peer-reviewed journals. This is POV at every step of the way. See also Luna Santin's, DaveG12345's, and Musicpvm's comments above. Note that the other AfD's were 8 months ago, both by different users; no one is trying to bulldoze through a delete. Further, in the second AfD, half (7 of 14) of the keep votes have the quick re-nomination as the major, and in many cases only, reason for Keep. That is, that second AfD was largely a keep in the interest of maintaining proper process and was so dependent on the outcome of the first. —Centrx→talk • 07:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note as I've already pointed out, this is a misunderstanding of POV. It is the wiki editor who must be neutral. It is not our job to assess a subject (i.e. the people labelling something a worst song) for neutrality. To do so would actually be OR. Tyrenius 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you explain the "misunderstanding of POV"? From what I can gather, you are advocating this list as a valid article because numerous reliable third party polls and whatnot do exist to provide this article with material. I hope that is correct. However, the problem with POV in this article to me at least, is that editors can cherry-pick from these various sources, in order to include the songs they feel are "the worst", and in order to exclude those songs they do not feel are the worst. Because the inclusion criteria are so very broad, POV problems are inherent to this list article. To go the other, "inclusive" route, and include everything from every "worst song" list ever made, would inevitably give us an article of unwieldy length with probable copyvio issues. So either way, this article topic is simply unworkable in WP, and the problem is its inherent POV issues. I think the WP:LIST#Lists and criteria for inclusion of list members guideline makes the point very well for cases like this, and I believe Luna Santin's research bears this out. --DaveG12345 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have interpreted me correctly, up to the point where you mention "cherry picking", which would obviously be POV and hence not acceptable. There must be objective criteria establshed. I have previously suggested the following:
The simple solution is to establish criteria and apply them, e.g. the song must have been called the worst ever by an individual of note, or it must have been called the worst ever on a notable medium such as TV, radio, press etc., or it must have topped a worst ever poll. The top three or five songs of such a poll could be a cut-off point. Anything else should be deleted from the article.
The current version needs severe editing on that basis. --Tyrenius 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little possibility of reasonable criteria for this. Do we say "4 reliable sources" must list a song as worst? None of the entries qualify for that. So then we say "1 or 2 sources", but then we can easily find a bunch of "Worst" lists that do not list the song. The so-called "reliable sources" must have considered the matter carefully and decided that the song is not worst, but they are not going to publish "the 1 million songs that are not the worst". Maybe just list every song that has ever been in one of these lists, but then the article has 500 entries and becomes really long and rather unmaintainable, do we then split it off into "List of songs labeled worst ever by Rolling Stone", "...by Maxim", etc. —Centrx→talk • 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really something for the article talk page. However, the article is not called "worst songs", but "labeled worst songs", i.e. a song has been called the worst, not that it necessarily is the worst. There may be a song that is held by majority opinion to be outstanding genius, but could be in the list, because some notable person has called it the worst song ever, or it topped a poll somewhere. That's how I'm reading it, anyway. Tyrenius 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here. How many lists of bad songs can there be in reputable sources? Take the worst from each list. Stephen B Streater 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, if the current article is immediately hacked down to include only the songs voted the worst (i.e. number 1) on the various "Worst Of" lists, and if the criteria of the article are adjusted to make it absolutely unequivocally clear that inclusion involves being voted the worst (i.e. number 1) on any such reputable and reliable third party list, then I would happily change my stance to Keep. But! If an editor were to subsequently remove such stipulations from the criteria for inclusion, or to edit them in any meaningful way, or to reciprocally do such a thing, to the extent that an edit war or wars were to ensue over this article, then I would expect a very speedy delete process for the article, without any of this AfD discussion having to be trawled through yet again. Because as it stands, this is an inherent POV article worthy of deletion IMO. It can only be kept under the very strictest caveats, which I believe (even if they were implemented or implementable) may even violate WP's core policies per WP:NOT.--DaveG12345 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be for an article of songs "voted" the worst. At the moment, this is songs "labeled" the worst. Tyrenius 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the quantifiable difference, and why this article cannot be renamed if needs be (i.e., if "labelled the worst" proves, as it increasingly appears to be, utterly unworkable).--DaveG12345 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy closed. The restored version is substantially the same as the version deleted at the 2nd AfD. If you want an article undeleted, please use Deletion review. This goes for both admins and non-admins. --Kimchi.sg 03:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Face Man[edit]

I've restored Burnt Face Man and created this third nomination, with reasons. The first nomination was deleted about 6-3 in June 2005, which was a valid deletion. The article was recreated and has been rebuilt since November 2005. A second nomination was created a month ago - The nomination didn't last long, as several pointed to the previous nomination. It was speedied.

My argument and reason for the restoring is that the AfD was over a year ago - Things change with time, and this is a well-known animation. I hear mention of it a lot, and it's known quite well with school students and young people who I know. This popularity has came since most episodes were created, which was after the initial AfD. Much like Firth's other project Devvo, which has become known almost universally with UK teenagers, this is growing in popularity. I visited Wikipedia earlier today simply to look it up, and had to view it in the deletion log. Why have an encyclopedia if things I'm going to look up are deleted?

Sorry for the long nomination text, but I personally believe that this should be kept, and even if it is deleted, that it needs a full AfD - The first nomination isn't really much reasoning to delete it, as times change. By that logic, a year ago we could have deleted Theo Walcott, and prevented it from being created now because of an early AfD before he was notable - Is that good for Wikipedia? So yes, keep. :p Esteffect 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lesniak[edit]

President and CEO of a small, strip-center computer store. Cannot find anything on google at all about him other than refering to that. No martial art hits at all. Doesn't meet WP:BIO My vote? Delete Beaner1 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I too had some fun. Delete, Em-jay-es 06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Martians Band[edit]

"Appears to be promotional material for a non notable band.DeleteTheRingess 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velfrom Sauna Belt[edit]

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORP guideline. Reads like an advertisement. Prod and Prod2 removed without comment. Gwernol 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Velform Sauna Belt which I had originally redirected to Velfrom Sauna Belt but was reverted by the author. Gwernol 09:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just PRODed that as no-one had deleted the templates there; this one ought to go the same way, speedily, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ADS; non-notable product from a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Only 70 Google results [6]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ste4k 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant vanispam. SM247My Talk 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, good grief. Blatant adcopy of silly late-night product. Some utterly unverifiable claims there as well. Kuru talk 03:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ADS, WP:N, and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And, I have to do this - "Absolve all those you have excommunicated." "Resign those powers you have arrogated." "Renew the obedience you have violated." "Lose inches off your hips, thighs, buttocks and ab-do-men." Tevildo 10:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like spam, probably is spam.--Andeh 10:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom. Zos 16:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled Dick[edit]

This band's single album hasn't any verifiable resources, may be a hoax, etc. It appears to be sole sourced research, advertising, etc, and no objective secondary sources are available to make such a consideration. Ste4k 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Note: At least one editor's comment below has been altered by a third party and never reverted. It doesn't seem worth cleaning it up now, but for future reference... --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Farrell[edit]

Political candidate with no particular notability - Delete. BlueValour 02:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is still in the proposed guideline stage. Shouldn't some of this discussion go on over there? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a major party nom to a nat'l legislature (see previous AfDs). At the very least, shouldn't some of these be consolidated? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tried. Whenever they get consolidated the process always bogs down because one of the candidates has actually received some national coverage and may well meet notability guidelines. Fan1967 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Almost notable, but not quite. LotLE×talk 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now on the grounds that she seems to be a current congressional candidate again this year [9]. Current congressional candidates do rate articles, although the articles should probably be brought up for AFD later if they lose and don't run again. But for now...why not? KleenupKrew 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It would be highly unfair to delete this article unless you where also deleating the article of her opponent congressman Chris Shays. I say this as a representitive of the Farrell campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.37.68 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment A sitting U.S. Congressman is notable, and warrants an article. Because of WP:NPOV, his page would not be allowed to become a means of campaigning. And the old standard of Equal Time has pretty much fallen out of use. --DarkAudit 01:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet standards of political figures WP:BIO.
  • Delete unless made WP:NN and WP:V in the next 4-5 days :p Zos 16:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO, while chris shays does. do you really think people will choose not to vote for someone because they don't have a wikipedia page? --Samael775 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't care about the fish bowl. The article hasn't any reliable secondary coasters for the words written in my mouth, which makes me vomit two main policies, both WP:VER and WP:NOR. Please review sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the reliability guidelines as well as the guidelines on autobiographies before comparing this article to another article that hasn't anything to do with this one. Ste4k 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this article really an autobiography? If so, why not just turn it into a stub? Major party candidates are notable. BigDT 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree with that. I think that it is best to retain respect for the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia which hold that I am a divine being whose mother sews socks that smell. Ste4k 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BIO includes "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". I'm assuming that if she is the Democrat candidate for congress, she has received significant press coverage or will in the very near future. Unless I'm really missing something, under this guideline, any major party candidate for congress ought to be considered notable once they have their party's nomination. BigDT 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because they're a 'major party candidate' does not make one notable. Some races can be won by default if no one else shows up. (Nick Rahall won the WV 1st district nomination unopposed. Granted, he's the incumbent.) --DarkAudit 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take away the candidacy, and you have someone who's only gotten as high in the political ladder as town government. I'm sure she'll get plenty of local media coverage -- which, unless she wins, will almost certainly vanish utterly after November 8. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several other candidates for US House and Senate in Connecticut for 2006 have their own articles such as: Ned Lamont (Merely a primary senate candidate, granted in a hot race), Chris Murphy (Dem candidate for CT's 5th District), and Joe Courtney (Dem candidate for CT's 2nd district). The latter two have only held positions akin to Farrell. Keep this article or delete them all.--RexRex84 03:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care if she stays or goes, and I'll never vote for her, but I can say the article is accurate, and can volunteer to reference the statements from local press in the event the article is kept. Sandy 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, candidates should only have their own page if the page about the election is too large. In the case of Farrell, there is not even a page about this House race. If there was, the proper naming convention would be Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Pig Fan Prototype[edit]

Original research / using Wikipedia as personal webspace. This is literally the prototype ruleset for a game somebody's written - it doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the Internet. McGeddon 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Jacob[edit]

Failed attempt to be a candidate. Non-notable. Delete. BlueValour 02:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. That is just a proposed guideline. These discussions should be combined. All of these are going to just repeat the same debate, be the outcome of keep, delete, or whatever. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - how is this a keep - on your own guidelines since he failed to become a candidate he should go? BlueValour 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failed candidate in a congressional primary. Not notable. -Will Beback 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable unsuccessful political candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another failed candidate who fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not quite strong, but definitely not "weak". Jacob got some pretty wide press coverage on CNN and other national media. Probably not so much because of anything about him personally as that the primary was treated as a "harbinger" of the mid-term Congressional elections, and of GWB's immigration position. 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)
  • Delete He sold me my house, and the roof leaks. WP:BIO Ste4k 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He just lost the primary so is no longer a candidate, hence no longer needs an article. KleenupKrew 11:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless made WP:V. Zos 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete though he recieved some press coverage, if he doesn't run again, this is just the bio of a Utah real estate developer. --Samael775 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Cordingley[edit]

Most of the article was a hoax about him playing Corky on Life Goes On. With that deleted, all that's left is that he's an assistant coach of a professional US lacrosse team, which is not notable. NawlinWiki 02:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not-notable per nom. BlueValour 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Asst. coach in that particular league does not guarentee inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable assistant coach. Also, few relevant Google results [10]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A coach would be notable, but an assistant coach is not. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I missed the hoax while working on it myself. --Brad101 06:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wolfe[edit]

Failed candidate 4 years ago! Not-notable. Delete. BlueValour 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Randy Johnston (‽) 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable unsuccessful political candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 06:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failed past political candidate. KleenupKrew 11:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major party nominee for the US Senate. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Republican candidates for the Senate in West Virginia are mainly sacrificial lambs. He got barely any notice in his home state, at least in northern WV. --DarkAudit 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'd like to agree with Youngamerican on this one, but where's the verified information? Where are the sources? And DarkAudit has a point on this one- the Republican party in W.Virginia is fairly dead for Senate races, and it's not likely that he was even a credible candidate. The article's been around for two years; if there were information out there it would have been found by now. Captainktainer * Talk 21:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, as the article was expanded to assert notability mid-AfD, and all editors entering this discussion since that expansion have argued for keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same Same[edit]

Contested prod. Taking it here for debate so no vote --Arnzy (whats up?) 02:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:MUSIC. Only one album on a major label. This is the only establishment of notability found and it doesn't yet meet the two album guideline of WP:MUSIC. --Randy Johnston (‽) 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Music --NMChico24 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Music - the bar in those guidelines is set so low that anyone who can't get over it has to go! BlueValour 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheap redirect to The Moffatts. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe they fit the guidelines for Notability for many reasons, but mainly because the band "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Both members of Same Same were formally members of the band The Moffatts which easily meets several of the criteria for a notable band. I intend on adding more information to the article and believe it is enough information to warrant a second page instead of just a redirect to the Moffatts article. - Albertane 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, as Albertane mentioned, two of the band members of Same Same were previously part of The Moffatts, thus passing one of criterias for WP:MUSIC--TBCTaLk?!? 03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some more documentation of the band's notability to the article. Please take a look at it and feel free to change your recommendations. As I find more articles and information, I'll add more as well. Thanks. Albertane 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per TBC. --DarkAudit 03:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Moffats. Basically the same band; no independent notability. -- GWO
  • weak keep per albertane. --Samael775 17:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They pass WP:VER but they need to lose the advertising on the bottom in the external links, and they need to be real careful about original research and lose the POV. Ste4k 19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:MUSIC for having members of another notable band and by the media references. --Joelmills 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Starr (politician)[edit]

Serial loser. Not-notable. BlueValour 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a failed candidate for a sub-national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Randy Johnston (‽) 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, another non-notable unsuccessful political candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failed past politcal candidate. KleenupKrew 11:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm going to buck my usual trend and say delete on this. No real media attention, no real relevance to the race, no objective reporting, really. Article hasn't done a good job of showing anything in the way of sources. Captainktainer * Talk 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somathencialence[edit]

Neologism unused by anyone except the author of the article. Historical note: User:Jitse Niesen listed this for proposed deletion, but the author removed the {{prod}} tag. —Caesura(t) 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Caesura. Penelope D 04:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sole google hit is the Wiktionnary entry which, by the way, is also contested. Pascal.Tesson 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in case it ever becomes a word I might one day have to spell... --Howard Train 04:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... or pronounce for that matter... Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And for being Just Silly. Tevildo 08:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused neologism, doesn't fit on WP. Sum0 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. —D-Rock 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why can't this be speedied? —D-Rock 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only pages which satisfy the narrow criteria for speedy deletion can be speedied. As far as I can see, none of these apply. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought G1 applied, but I guess I have a very broad definition of "patent nonsense." —D-Rock 13:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is definitely patent nonsense but too many people have seen it now, and we'd never get away with speedying it. Delete anyway. Adam Bishop 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is only something that someone couldn't expand even if they wanted to because they don't know what the article is talking about or where to look for information. This article is talking about a non-notable new education method. Jon513 18:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Nydas 15:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this policy supports deletion, as does don't include things made up in one school day. Perhaps it would be a nice gesture to point the creator towards other articles they may be interested in editing? EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to sister site move it to wikisource or another sister site and give the chap a head start on original research. Who knows, he could found a discipline/university/country, etc. I'd sign up for his mailing list, that's for sure. 82.131.188.85 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and do not transWiki. Nelogism. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article talks in the first person about how the concept should be adopted by others, and the article's author, David Little (talk · contribs), admits on the talk page that this is xyr "very first invention". original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A8 - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Fingers Down[edit]

Was originally prod'd, and tag was removed with no reason. It appears that this band fails WP:MUSIC. Delete Yanksox 03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BAND; no allmusic profile--TBCTaLk?!? 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOR and WP:VER Ste4k 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio [11] (see the biography section: it's a direct cut and paste, down to the typos). That said, does being on the entire Warped Tour let the band meet WP:MUSIC? With a hundred bands on the tour, I would say maybe not. Also, their label, Ibex Records, only has one other band on their roster. --Joelmills 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did I miss the copy-vio?!?!? That qualifies as a speedy delete. Yanksox 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum information and relativity theory[edit]

This "article" consists of the "introduction" to a very bad article by former User:Carl Hewitt, which I was manipulated by Hewitt into writing. Mercifully, after an RfA which found against Hewitt, he deleted the content he had written. Thus, as an "orphaned introduction", this "article" makes no sense and is not likely to ever make sense. CH 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--CSTAR 04:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too OR-ish. The basic topics are covered in other articles, but this feels like an essay on the topic. LotLE×talk 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research. Needs wide application to back it up for notability and inclusion in an encyclopedia. --NMChico24 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect' to Grand Theft Auto (series) Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: Double Pack[edit]

This page contains no information that isn't already on Grand Theft Auto III or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The fact these two games were bundled together isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. Ace of Sevens 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It isnt a distinct game, it does not need a distinct article. Resolute 05:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not its own game, so this article is not needed. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series). Redirects are cheap. Oldelpaso 08:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wouldnt it be a better idea to mention on each article something like "this game can now be purchased as part of a double pack with ???? (Neostinker 11:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, but mention "GTA: Double Pack" and "GTA: The Trilogy" (which was later released on XBox only containing all three 3D GTA games) in the appropriate articles. There's no content these articles even could have that wouldn't exist elsewhere. My god, I'm voting delete on a "Grand Theft Auto"-related article? I must not be feeling well. Like, seriously. I've played "Liberty City Stories" for the PS2 for 30 hours over the past 10 or so days. I played "San Andreas" for about 200 hours. Is this possible- a deletion vote? -- Kicking222 12:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series). At least have some reference to it. +Falcon9x5 12:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series), and mention on the GTA3 and vice city pages that they were bundled together in the double pack. --Samael775 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NNBB6listcruft. Ste4k 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) (redirects are cheap) and mention on the two game articles that they were bundled together. BryanG(talk) 03:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the heck? Keep. SushiGeek 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since no other article could possibly conflict with the name, and just list it under another article or two. I'm not sure if I see anything to establish notability -- hell, the double pack isn't even available anymore, and the triple pack which replaced it doesn't seem to have an article. Luna Santin 07:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-written enough and has an interesting section on the porting process. It wouldn't do any harm to keep it. -Robmods 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete discounting new users and annons. Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senile Team[edit]

Non notable software company having a grand total of 4 employees. Their fame comes from developing Beats of Rage, a freeware game with some devoted fans. Fails WP:CORP quite obviously. Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 04:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded, I would tend to agree with the above, but Senile Team are not actually a company, so WP:CORP doesn't really apply. I do believe, however, that they are an important and certainly notable influence on homebrew gaming, as the success of their first projects, Beats of Rage, clearly demonstrates. The article does need to be expanded on to be of any use, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.143.61 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete WP:VER no secondary sources. Ste4k 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability. Four employees and one freeware game don't equal notability unless many people have heard of them (i.e. Napster in the good ol' days). --NMChico24 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their first game has become synonymous with customizable game engines, just like band-aid is with elastic bandages, or to put into better terms - like MAME is with arcade game emulators. Their second title is one of the most anticipated games in the retro gaming community. MetaFox 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beats of Rage is quite popular. The article needs work, though. Ace of Sevens 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fancruft/vanity.--Andeh 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UT
  • Keep Suggestion: Check the meaning of the word "encyclopedia". AshKaiser
  • Keep The importance of the company does not so much lie in the freeware title "Beats of Rage", but rather in its open source game engine which is the only engine around to make oldschool sidescrolling beatemups with. It is still being developed further by an ever growing community of programmers and modders. The next release of senile team "Age of the Beast" will do the same for sidescrollers of the "Golden Axe" type.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arshia Mahmoodi[edit]

See Arshia (AfD). Vanity page about an architect, claims to have won some awards, but I haven't checked into it. I considered adding this to the Arshia nom, but felt it was a little late, plus, deleting this article has one fewer reason: at least it's the guy's full name. :) Delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damjan Alaica[edit]

Tongue in cheek "biography" of a high school teacher by his students. Fails Wikipedia:Notability  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  03:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cute, but fails WP:BIO. Possible candidate for WP:BJAODN. Yanksox 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, not worthy of WP:BJAODN. --Kinu t/c 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO and technically WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, unfortunately, because I found it really amusing. Tyrenius 06:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article about a retired high school teacher isn't only not notiable, but not relevent in any way. --Ted87 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you want, but not because it is not factual, but because it is a person whose importance does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability Jmatt1122 13:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonuva[edit]

Hmmm, interesting, however, most probably original research, or a dicdef. Neither of which belong on the encyclopedia. In the case that the article is retained, my idea would be to add it to the son of a bitch article, or any related one. OMEN 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:WINAD, and even if it were, this doesn't seem particularly useful. --Kinu t/c 04:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom has got it right. Tyrenius 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no content. Ste4k 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm amused, but at best it's a dictionary definition ... BigDT 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I can't believe this wasn't speedied for nonsense. --NMChico24 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you have the wrong idea of what patent nonsense is. Please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and familiarize yourself with what actually falls within the remit of the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dictionary article placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There appears to be no scope for transforming this into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/event/thing. (The concept is, of course, son.) Delete. Uncle G 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Will (message me!) 21:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMM Profile[edit]

non-notable show. The article series would end up being just a list of the shows, nothing interesting to say about each episode. Mikeblas 03:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, they just keep coming! --Superbeatles 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable show on a notable channel. --Ted87 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 09:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other shows from that same station with articles, and maybe one in 25 years, someone who watched it will think, who was that artist they profiled? And then they'll turn to this, and they will know. But delete the series, just have them link to the artists article.Jmatt1122 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article (we have Behind the Music, the American equivalent), but delete all of the individual show articles. BoojiBoy 16:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no content. Ste4k 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete all related articles about particular shows and months that popped/pop up. SM247My Talk 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I have actually seen the show a couple of times, and it's just a cheapo clip-show, some old interviews and music vids trown together with a voiceover. NN. --Eivindt@c 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It seems that the show itself might be notable, and I doubt anything else would compete for the name. Individual episodes and seasons, though, delete with prejudice. Consolidate it all, expand the article to tell us more. If that's all we can say about the show, and there's really nothing more to expand on, then delete or consolidate elsewhere still. Luna Santin 07:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant info to MuchMoreMusic. It's just a mash of music videos and old interviews - I don't think there's even a voiceover as Eivind suggested. It's existed under a variety of names since the channel launched, and I believe they re-edit them frequently to add new videos. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. A few here have claimed the show is notable, but have not suggested any specific reason for it. Did it establish a new technique (like the blippy pop-ups in VH1's Popup Video series), or win some awards, or influence the genre significantly, or take a different marketing approach, have notable hosts, or involve an interesting approach to its subjects? -- Mikeblas 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer / Comment - None of the above, IMHO. It does, however, air three times a day, making it one of their more popular (in terms of scheduling, not necessarily ratings) series. It doesn't even have hosts, or any personalities really - a lot of the time we'd see the artist answering a question, but not the question being asked. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMMProfile-April 2006[edit]

non-notable show. The article series would end up being just a list of the shows, nothing interesting to say about each episode. Mikeblas 04:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMMProfile-Black Eyed Peas[edit]

non-notable show. The article series would end up being just a list of the shows, nothing interesting to say about each episode. Mikeblas 04:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMMProfile-Gwen Stefani[edit]

non-notable show. The article series would end up being just a list of the shows, nothing interesting to say about each episode. Mikeblas 04:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMMProfile-Nirvana/Foo Fighters[edit]

non-notable show. The article series would end up being just a list of the shows, nothing interesting to say about each episode. Mikeblas 04:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, they just keep coming! --Superbeatles 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 09:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I put in more content casting these votes. Ste4k 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ste4k's vote was edited to "speedy keep" by 172.190.236.252 in this change. Isn't that an especially heinous form of vandalism? What should be done about it? -- Mikeblas 07:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Block user, stupid conduct like this should not be tolerated. SM247My Talk 10:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I am not an admin, so I can't perform the block. The user did the same thing to another vote. -- Mikeblas 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per all above. SM247My Talk 01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Move notable content back to the show's main article; I don't see enough content to warrant all these stubs. Luna Santin 07:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manner of the Kingdom[edit]

The subject of this article is the legal code promulgated on the occasion of King Saul's accession to the throne. There is no indication that this collection of laws is called "Manner of the Kingdom" (or indeed anything else) in biblical scholarship, so this ought to be deleted as original research. Dr Zak 04:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They constitute something of a walled garden, don't they? Dr Zak 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lost books of the Old Testament. This actually is not something just made up by a user. One of the early fathers of the Mormon church, James Edward Talmage, wrote a book called The Articles of the Faith. In that book, he listed works that are referenced in the Bible, but for which we actually have no extant copy. "Manner of the Kingdom", which he also called "Book of Statutes" (I guess the title is catchier) was among them. For more information, [12] and [13] are from a Christian article refuting Talmage's claims. At any rate, this is not just something made up on Wikipedia, however, that said, there could not possibly be enough information about this supposed lost book to make an article. Thus, redirecting it would seem to be reasonable. BigDT 22:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per BigDT. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other comment just as an "oh and by the way" - I looked up 1 Samuel 10:25 in a Bible commentary that I use in my own study and it says that (in the view of this commentator anyway) Samuel was likely talking about the first part of 1 Samuel itself, not about some other book out there. I mention this not as a statement of theological truth, but only in order to point out that it is not universally accepted (or even prominently accepted) that a book by this title ever even existed. BigDT 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Position The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, in the note for 1 Samuel 10:25 leaves it open that it could be a separate 'lost' book. The comment is, "The rights and duties of the kingship probably set out the responsibilities of king and people to each other. The expression here is nearly identical to 'the ways of the king' in 8.9,11, although they may not refer to the same document". And, the The Bible Knowledge Commentary edited by Walvoord and Zuck leaves it open stating on page 442, "All that Samuel could do was invest Saul with his authority and responsibility as outlined in a scroll prepared for this occasion of coronation (1 Sam 10:25). Undoubtedly the scroll included the Mosaic regulations for kingship found in Deuteronomy 17:14-17."--P Todd 02:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As with the rash of AfDs proposed by originator against other articles from this general topic, this is, at most, a stub. It's new, the author hasn't had time yet to finish working on it, and it is encyclopedic. Furthermore, "Mormon" commentary above is irrelevent. As noted in new source (of which there are many more to follow), this one by John Wesley, this specific topic has been discussed by religious scholars for centuries, long before there were any "Mormons". Since citations are being added, and the article is only a few days old, AfD nomination is outrageously premature. --The Editrix 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no redirect as original research. There is nothing in these sources provided to suggest there is a textual work called the "Manner of the Kingdom" that was at one time included in the Old Testament and later lost or removed. I actually don't even see anything in the sources that seriously suggests such a work ever existed at all. Wesley's statment appears to be an attempt to clarify and explain the meaning of the passage, not a statement that "Manner of the Kingdom" existed as an separate text worthy of biblical status. I don't agree with BigDT's redirect because Lost books of the Old Testament is itself suggested for merge to Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible and really is not in anyway a discussion of Talmage's claims.--Isotope23 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aflnews.com[edit]

Wikispam, WP:SPAM EazieCheeze 04:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSRDR[edit]

not notable artist that fails WP:MUSIC. WP:BIO and WP:VANITY, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs)

  • Strong delete, fails WP:MUSIC, also contains crystal-balling. Potential A7 candidate as there is no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but maybe one day he will be back. Tyrenius 06:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no resources Ste4k 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I usually have this kind of thing successfully deleted for A7. No notability assertion whatsoever. --NMChico24 22:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfunny Truth About Scientology[edit]

Non notable website.
Most of this article is a regurgitation of the contents of the website, along with other filler material on Scientology controversies. There is no assertion of the significance of the website what so ever. The only claim as to notability is that "it has been spread across the internet by users of many popular websites and search engines including Google.com, and Digg.com." Appearing on a search engine hardly makes a website notable.
Basically the article says: "Look, we've made a site about scientology. It appears on google. Scientologists have sued other sites, perhaps they'll sue ours". By that logic I could criticise scientology on my website and then be immediately entitled to write a wikipedia article about it. Delete

--IslaySolomon 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to YTMND. Danny Lilithborne 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not likely to be a search term, and the overwhelming majority of YTMND sites are not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like a fanboy article to me. Lurker 09:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website promo KleenupKrew 10:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above Feedyourfeet 11:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No redirect. YTMND cruft. -- GWO
  • Delete WP:SPAM Ste4k 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. I'll change my vote to "keep" when Tom Cruise jumps up and down on the couch again and sues them. --NMChico24 22:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. SM247My Talk 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if Cruise sues. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and unlikely to become notable, unless a legion of Scientologists crashes the site and the U.N. steps in (in other words, never.) Grandmasterka 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Delete I have closed this discussion early due to the clear outcome, the fact that the page is being used to harrass its subject, and a polite request from the subject to do so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Roberti[edit]

Non-notable artiste, gets only 117 unique Google hits. [14] I had been trying to find references to him, but apparently he is mentioned only for performing alongside others, and he seems never to be featured by himself in reputable media, hence failing WP:MUSIC. Delete. Kimchi.sg 04:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the alternate spelling of "Kelly Roberty" is also searched for, it's 181 unique Google hits. [15] Kimchi.sg 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.Note that an alternative spelling used by the musician is Kelly Roberty. I'm voting for delete - I did a Factiva search and while he does appear in some national press reviews of jazz, it seems to be always as part of a backing team (support musicians... I don't know what the technical term is) for a more famous musician. Height of fame appears to have been a 2000 NPR 8-min radio monologue about his struggle with gambling addiction which pushed him to the brink of suicide after he lost everything but then he managed to pull himself back to music. While a moving story, there's nothing in the story about him as an encyclopedically notable musician. Bwithh 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, moving story, but not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please delete immediately...thanks, Kelly Roberti

  • Kelly R please see your user talk page -> [[16]] --Mirjay 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Mirjay 14:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per user requesting their own page deleted. Looks to me like someone played a joke on Kelly, and Kelly has been treated like a vandal trying to remove it. Ste4k 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one playing a joke on Kelly Roberti . See history of -> Talk:Kelly_Roberti

Mirjay 21:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the above user Mirjay cease and desist the struggle. I don't want to engage this any further and would some kind spirit please go forth and delete the page. thanks Kelly R

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fsf productions[edit]

Prod removed. Fails Google search, only turn up their website and this article really. Also fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Vanity. Teke 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaryhmes[edit]

Hoax. No substantial Google hits and no AMG listing, even when "rhymes" is spelled correctly. It sure would be interesting to see Mustaine rap, though. Nufy8 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —Centrx→talk • 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UKA Press[edit]

Some sort of British authors' association of questionable notability. The original article was a blatant advertisement, so I tagged it for proposed deletion. The author removed the prod tag, rewriting the article as a substub instead of an advertisement. Because the author never explained the removal of the prod tag, and the article still doesn't assert notability, I'm bringing it to AfD. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Look, I'm really sorry, I'm not terribly well-up with the WIKI policy. I do see that the original article could be seen as an advert. Therefore I deleted it and replaced with the text you see, hoping it would be acceptable. Apparently it is not, so please feel free to delete as you see fit. I'm afraid I have no idea what a 'prodtag' or a 'substub' are.

I would like to point out, though, that UKA Press is a legitimate Small Press publisher, and not 'questionable' in the least. As for not being 'notable enough', you really should give the small guys a chance sometimes, y'know :-)

Huge apologies, however, for the confusion this has caused. As I said, please delete if you feel it necessary, or I can delete the entry myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaUKA (talk • contribs)

  • For clarity, "prod tag" is the indication that a page has been submitted for PROposed Deletion (prod), and "substub" is a really short article with really minimal content. If User:AndreaUKA wants to improve the article significantly, maybe it can be kept in Wikipedia, but unless that happens, delete for the reasons stated in the nomination. --Metropolitan90 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm changing my preference to neutral in recognition of the work that has already been done on the article. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Metropolitan90,for your help and explanation. I will endeavour to update my entry so that it meets with your (WIKI) satisfaction. Is there any deadline for this? I'm afraid I will not be able to do this until tomorrow at the earliest.

I am also unsure how to 'sign' my post, but will try to do so now. Thanks. --AndreaUKA

  • Comment To AndreaUKA. To sign your posts, add four tildes to them, thus: ~~~~. These discussions generally run for five days unless an obvious consensus is reached before then. Tevildo 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment, again, to AndreaUKA. If you decide that you _do_ want to delete the article, add {{db-author}} to the top of it, and it will be removed by an admin. Tevildo 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tevildo (hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this!). I'm afraid my (US) keyboard is set to UK, so I'm unable to use the tilde option, it seems. I will try to update my entry tomorrow. However, if I have no time to do so (and I *am* very busy), please feel free to delete, as I said. No hard feelings on my part - that's life, eh? Meanwhile, huge thanks to all for your help and guidance.

Hello again all. Well, I've managed to add some more to the article. I do hope it's now acceptable. If so, I will try to expand just as soon as I have some more time. I think the Small Presses link (list) is very useful to writers (although it wasn't me who put it there) and hope you agree. Thanks to all for your understanding.

In the absence of tildes on my keyboard, I will have to sign myself thus: AndreaUKA

  • Neutral for now. I think that links to the newspaper reviews mentioned in the article would be enough to establish notability - you're nearly there. Incidentally, you can copy and paste the tildes from my earlier comment (don't put in the <nowiki> tags, though), or use ALT-126, or just configure your keyboard correctly. :) Tevildo 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I can! Hadn't though of that - thanks Tevildo. Yes, the keyboard thing is a bit of a pain. If I have it set 'correctly', I can't use the £ sign, which is vital for my work. Between the devil and the deep blue... --AndreaUKAAndreaUKA 12:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, not sure if it's relevant or not, but I linked UKA Press through from your Kevin Brownlow page, as UKA Press have just re-issued his book How It Happened Here, which has been out of print for 35 years. --AndreaUKAAndreaUKA 13:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)AndreaUKA[reply]

  • Keep following recent expansion. Should now be comfortably within WP:CORP. The article still needs tidying up - WP:REF#Citation_styles would be a good start - but I personally think it's OK to stay now. However, please note that we still have to establish a consensus that it should be kept, and my opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. (BTW, _just_ use the tildes, no need to type your name in as well. :) ) Tevildo 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, Tevildo. I do agree it needs a good tidy-up - I'll study the pages you gave me and amend - thanks.

No, no, I understand perfectly (re the consensus) - I shall just keep tidying until you reach a decision. --AndreaUKA 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok to tag the UKA Press page for tidying-up help? I have to say I'm struggling a bit. Or should I wait until a decision has been reached? Thanks. --AndreaUKA 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I just wanted to say a HUGE 'thank you' to Tevildo for all his/her help in getting the UKA Press article up-to-scratch (hopefully). I've been editing, formatting, bulleting and doing all sorts of things I didn't know I could do and, I must say, I think it does look a lot better now. Hope you all agree :-) I will now desist (although it IS very addictive!) and await your decision. Many thanks to you all, whichever way it goes. --AndreaUKA 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All, I think it would be a pity to exclude the UKA Press entry from Wikipedia because it is very unusual in its priorities and in having some degree of voluntary funding, which allows it to take on worthwhile projects that might not be commercially attractive. It isn't driven by the profit motive. That means that it can publish, say, poetry collections or short story collections which bigger publishers wouldn't touch because they know that no matter how good they are they aren't going to make much money. UKA Press is one of the (very few) good guys in the publishing game who offer hope to writers in non-commercial/non flavour-of-the-month fields. --User:Sirat 09:45 GMT 27 June 2006

Good morning all! I saw that there was no entry for The Grumpy Old Bookman, although his litblog is mentioned several times on your pages, so I've added one. Hope this is okay - I'll try to add more to it later. And thank you very much for your kind words, Sirat. --AndreaUKA 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk • 05:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, article looks okay to me. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a bit ragged round the edges and could do with tidying to bring in line with usual article style, but there's enough there of notability (prizes, reviews, authors) to merit inclusion. However, please try to include links to 3rd party sites not just the UKA site for statements such as "Sheldon Goldfarb's "Remember, Remember" [13] has been nominated for the 2006 Arthur Ellis Award for Best Juvenile Mystery in Canada". References to newspapers should give date, article name and author. Tyrenius 06:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thanks for the advice, Tyrenius. I'll go off now and see what I can do re 3rd party links etc. --AndreaUKA 09:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello again, I've changeg quite a few of the UKA links now, to 3rd party links, and added a few more as well. I have left the UKA links in the 'Author' section, however, but can change those to 3rd party as well if you like. Perhaps linking through to their Amazon pages? Thanks for your help. --AndreaUKA 09:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup Dlyons493 Talk 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk. Could you please tell me how you would like me to cleanup? I've done everything asked thus far, and am a bit stumped as to what more I can do. Perhaps I could ask for editing help? --AndreaUKA 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small publishers can be notable, but they need to have published a good number of works for anyone to have heard of them. It's clear from this that they've not published many books. I don't feel notability is established in this case. --NMChico24 22:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think size is not, in itself, an indication of notability, when assessing authors, or books and publishers. Some famous authors have written only one book, and some publishers have one 'important' book. A publisher may stay small because it's nonprofit, another may be a specialist - though they can do well financially whether by chance, or by publishing work which is significantly noted to be brilliant, or memorable. As an example: "In January (2006) the English translation of Elias Khoury's 11th novel, Gate of the Sun, was released by the three-year-old, nonprofit Brooklyn (N.Y.)-based, Archipelago Books. The buzz started immediately and The New York Times and Publisher's Weekly bestowed rave reviews on the tale, a contemporary homage to the Middle-Eastern epic 1001 Nights, reset in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon." [17]. ASter 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The oft mentioned wikipedia notability criteria for companies and corporations is in this case... "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". This company satisfies the independent source (i.e. the authors own the moral rights to their works) and obviously there multiple works (the notability policy doesn't say how big multiple is so people who say e.g. 50 works is not enough, can't verify their statement). I guess the only issue is: are the works trivial ?. Do any of the newspaper reviews call the published works trivial ?. A quick read of a few reviews don't call these works trivial. Thus the article satisfies the Notability policy. Ttiotsw 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ttiotsw Saga City 12:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a solid, notable article at this time. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some good reports eg www.bluechrome.co.uk: The UKA Press is perhaps the most prolific new publisher in the UK today. Stephen B Streater 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semnat Studios[edit]

Not seeing noteability here. I'm not a gamer though. Google hits about 3 times. Brad101 05:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. AfD is not a vote; arguments for deletion outweigh the (quote, unquote) "arguments" for keeping. Proto///type 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Deletion review

Eon8[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Let's try this again. Will protect this page from noobs. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from new users/anons. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Keep. This website was a signifgant event of the internet. It was the first of its kind: a website that absolutely no one but the creator knew what it was. Also, the first time a website was created for thes sole purpose of watching what the internet masses would do when given no information.--Buttons 17:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep. There's no reason to delete it, why remove anything, if it's actually about something, and organized well? Nin10dude 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a very interesting experiment and it demonstrated how fast a new site can be publicised through rumours and viral posting on blogs, message boards etc. --NJ 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep. No Reason not to keep it! It's a vital part of information in the history of the internet, now that we all know what the truth is there isn't any need for vandalism! 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Insanity13 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 13:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it must be much more concise. --Zimbabweed 06:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be filed under the category of Internet Phenomenon, too. And the creator even said this was his own social experiment. That has to mean something. Fairy Incognito 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty cool experiment, article will make an interesting read. Ouuplas 06:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete still fails WP:WEB. Are there any reputable sources (not blogs or forums) where this website has been mentioned? Kimchi.sg 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WEB is neither guideline nor policy, and WP:RS ended up a guideline (not policy) precisely because of its wording toward online sources. Shem(talk) 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's a set of reasons that an editor, by citing it, is saying that they find it reasonable and agree with, and which demands a better response than being dismissed with empty wikilawyering.--Calton | Talk 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get in a wad, Calton, I just don't like people going saying an article "fails" a criteron that isn't policy. Shem(talk) 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't like people who whine, "But it's NOT a rule" instead, you know, actually attempt to rebut the reasoning. In other words, technicalities, not realities. --Calton | Talk 10:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need a re-read of WP:Civility, which is a policy. Save the rhetoric for somewhere else. Shem(talk) 16:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telling people not to "get in a wad" isn't exactly civil, either. It's impolite. Kimchi.sg 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fairy Incognito. SushiGeek 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep; it was significant enough for the Department of Homeland Security and CIA to take note of, apparently. Its notoriety developed in such a short period of time that it's difficult to say whether or not it'll become noteworthy enough to maintain. I err on the side of informing, for now, though. Shem(talk) 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the bit about the CIA and DHS mentioned in the article? Or for that matter, how'd you know? Kimchi.sg 06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The site's current high traffic load is, unfortunately, limiting contribution right now. 'Til I can see source code and take screenshots, sorry mate. Shem(talk) 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me the best reason to change my call to "strong delete". If the CIA and DHS were really keeping an eye on the site, would you depend exclusively on the site to tell you that? Kimchi.sg 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eon8 had a live feed of HTTP referers, so some one probably thought it'd be a great joke to spoof a visit from the CIA and the Pentagon which isn't hard at all considering there's even Firefox extensions that can do it for you [18] --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above, and until we can get good sources. Sykil 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very interesting internet phenomenon, deserves to be an article. Xioyux 06:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let 'em run their damned experiments unaided by free PR, --Calton | Talk 06:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy delete and protect from re-creation per CSD-A8, and block the IPs of the creators. This website is still not notable, and is not mentioned in any notable media. The article is nothing but speculation despite the fact that the countdown has already reached zero, and is unsourced. Based on search engine results, this wasn't much of a phenomenon, either - 289 unique Google hits, but most of those are either garbled text (unrelated to this website) or irrelevant. Per the website, it was a test to see how gullible people are, that's it. The creators of the article were attempting to use Wikipedia as part of their little test by creating the article, in direct violation of WP:POINT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Page is now slashdotted. Also, search engines don't index pages that quickly. Noob cannon lol 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slashdot is not some kind of gold standard of notability Bwithh 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since I'm mad it wasn't something more awesome. --Liface 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Coredesat. Em-jay-es 06:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself. As such, it is completely unverifiable according to the normal standards of reliable sources, and is also non-notable per the standard of being written about in multiple non-trivial publications. It hasn't even made much of a splash as an internet phenomenon, with only 150 hits on Technorati at this moment. I would not oppose recreation if it gets reported in multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources (Wired, CNN, etc) but I suspect this will vanish pretty quickly. Thatcher131 06:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It only "came out" two hours ago. Checking Google and Technorati for "I Love Bees" two hours after their first big spikes wouldn't have shown much, either. Shem(talk) 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, in the 6 months the site was up, it didn't generate a single Lexis/Nexis hit, that strongly suggests no one really cared (outside the ARG community maybe). If the technorati rating only spikes now, after the reveal, it shows there was not much interest during the last days of the countdown, either. (They got 38000 unique visitors in June, that's about 8 hours worth for instapundit or 2 hours of dailykos.) There is just no evidence this was a widespread phenomenon and no independent sources on which to base an article, other than the claims of the site itself and speculations on a few gamer forums. And what's with screenshots and source code? Not doing original research, I hope. Sorry. Thatcher131 07:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ask of me an opinion (on an VfD page) I can't provide due to being unable to view the site, I lose. I offer to withold my VfD comments until I can view the site again, I lose. There'll never be a shortage of snarky anklebiters on Wikipedia, anxiously waiting for a chance to misrepresent someone's words, it seems. Shem(talk) 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Delete it, nto notable. Guess what? July 1st is here. Its someone's test. Its not even a powerful web phenomena, as Thatcher131 points out. Buzz from some writers forums and some government paranoia people, which was the goal apparently from the get-go. Unlike something like "I Love Bess", which had an associated aftermath of a video game, this has none other than an "Oh look, we were fooled. Ok..." Kevin_b_er 06:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable, nothing worthy of real comment even. While it is somewhat funny that some people would go to vast lengths to create this site which doesn't appear to serve a real purpose, it's not content that befits Wikipedia. --Torinir 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the purpose was stated in the website. The creator was doing a "social experiment" to see how people would respond to a fishy website with no explanation. Obviously, he got some interesting results. Fairy Incognito 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a list of Internet phenomena where this might fit, merge immediately. --Merovingian {T C @} 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We can revisit this in a year if anything fails to come of it. Hackwrench 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough Johhny-turbo 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until we can see the reaction outside of a few Internet communities. See if the press takes up the story on any noteable level. Mauron 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs to contain less speculation and more fact; suggesting clean-up. Sethimothy 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs cleanup, but it was still a rather significant piece of internet history as far a political statement goes, and I see no reason it can't be on Wikipedia for that reason. Ninaanilina 07:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an event that caused a lot of people to sit up and take notice, and a social experiment that seems to have worked. --Sam 08:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - wikipedia is not the vehicle for someone's 15 minutes of fame. This website says nothing, has done nothing, is reported on by noone in a significant way.All up it's a non-notable internet experiment. There is nothing lost in deleting this and recreating in 3-6 months if anything comes of it. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with fairy, it should go down in the internet phenom category, and now that the thing is over, I don't think it justifies more then a stub, but it should ultimately still be around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNorman (talk • contribs)
  • Keep For a social experiment, I have to say this is pretty interesting. As stated before, this should fall under Internet Phenomenon because numerous communities were involved in decoding the mysterious website. Douglasr007 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this internet phenomenon might have been smaller compared to others in the past WP:MEMES says there is no consensus on what is a notable meme. But what is important is that Wikipedia has become a quick and easy source of information for niche internet phenomenon such as this. A lot of people who casually browse the internet and periodically visit websites like 2chan, ytmnd.com, and various forums will see evidence of eon8.com as a meme and one of the first things they might do is look it up on Wikipedia. I say wait a few weeks or even a few months to let this simmer and then reconsider deletion or merge with the internet phenomenon article as a small point. It's still a tough call but the internet phenomenon article contains some equally miniscule internet memes that a lot of people wouldn't be familiar with anyway (because they occured in different spheres of the internet). But I think deleting this article right now would completely go against a niche service Wikipedia provides with entries like this, --Draxle 09:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fairy Incognito - also, the reaction from other larges may be classed as media Computerjoe's talk 09:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per all the people who say that it should be classed as an internet meme, as it sparked a lot of theories and webpages (at least 4 YTMND's, and probably some from other websites) in its time.
  • Strong delete, there is absolutely nothing here to justify an article. No reliable sources and it's all rumour, conjecture and original research. It links to threads on slashdot/somethingawful etc that anyone with a web browser can start -- and most amusing, an IRC channel (thirty seconds work)! Ludicrous claims of notablity with nothing whatsoever to back them up. The keep votes above are completely empty of arguments beyond pure hand-waving. It's HOWTO make a bad joke of Wikipedia's pathetic deletion process with a few mates and some sock puppet accounts you created a while back. Oh, and throw in some confused Wikipedia editors too. - Motor (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Heed brother Motor's words!! Bwithh 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting idea might be for someone to make a separate Wiki for more niche internet phenomenon (like this) that uses its own research (and therefore its own level of credibility) and isn't directly associated with Wikipedia itself. --Draxle 09:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any specific reason?--Andeh 09:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability, only recieved one news hit via google[19]. The whole thing is unverifiable/uncyclopedic and appears to fail WP:WEB, per Kimchi.sg.--Andeh 09:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traffic Rank for eon8.com: 1,323,027 via Alexa.com, again fails notability.--Andeh 09:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Internet experiment which appears to fail WP:WEB. The article seems to be entirely original research. Plus, I rather agree with some of Motor's comments, particularly about how easy it is to subvert Wikipedia's deletion process. I am amazed how many users who have not made any edits for a while suddenly have the urge to contribute to the AfD discussions for this article by proposing Keep. Surely they can't all have woken up by coincidence. Jll 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This website wasn't up for long and yet somehow managed to launch a huge amount of paranoia. It definately deserves to be kept as a piece of internet history. I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. --Godlesswanderer 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, when did it "launch a huge amount of paranoia", where did it do this? These are basic facts necessary for an encylopedia article - linking to some threads on webforums and an IRC channel (grand total of 5 minutes work for anyone) don't count. Let's not forget its alexa traffic ranking: 1,323,027. If this AFD survives because a headcouting admin does the closing it's defintely worth a DRV. I haven't seen a single sensible argument for keep yet. - Motor (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The website, whilst not notable on its own, is worth an article due to the amount of speculation it caused. --Sanguinus 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a little piece of Internet history that caused a lot of fuss. You have to keep it.--Matt Pullen 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VER WP:NOR based on WP:RS which are zilch. I think it's sad that people would vote their feelings over policy. Ste4k 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major fad and a part of internet history. Lapinmies 11:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major fads last longer than 30 minutes.. especially internet phenomenon.--Andeh 11:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much as I enjoyed speculating about it, it isn't really notable or important enough and it didn't receive attention outside of webforums and YTMND. It was popular for all of one day, and ultimately, it was pretty pointless. --Burbster 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motorand Thatcher 131 because WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:NOR are policy while WP:MEME is not (and this wouldn't meet WP:MEME's "multiple non-trivial published works" requirement). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over three million page hits and 9GB of bandwidth down the drain in less than a month ought to qualify as being notable. --Guess Who 12:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete Star Wars Kid and then we'll talk. being mentioned repeatedly on YTMND does not justify deletion on its own. --G0zer 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this just happened. --G0zer 12:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surely that's the point. It's happened, it's over and done with, and nobody in the mainstream media noticed or cared. ~ Matticus78 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Matticus78.--Andeh 12:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Poor comparison. Star Wars Kid has been reported in the mainstream news media. Show me the article on CBS or BBC News about Eon8. ~ Matticus78 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my point is that a standard that calls Star Wars Kid notable merely because the phenomenon was mentioned repeatedly in the media is a deeply flawed standard. there is nothing more inherently notable about a video of someone dancing around with imitation movie props than there is about a website that pointed out something interesting about internet phenomena. in fact, the opposite is true, and if current guidelines say Star Wars Kid is an article with encyclopedic value and Eon8 is not, then that is a call to rewrite the guidelines. --G0zer 12:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I'm waiting to see if there'll be anything in next week's issue of New Scientist, they may report something about this in their Technology section or otherwise. --Film11 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unlikely, there's pretty much no media attention regarding the website.--Andeh 12:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Why would New Scientist or even Wired cover this? There is nothing special or original about the self-promoting techniques used. Internet viral marketing has been around for a long time. Bwithh 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it appears that most of the Keep votes have been made due to the users interest of the website, not how it conforms with the Wikipedia policies.--Andeh 12:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has come to be known as an Internet phenomenon, and is (was?) very high traffic, and extremely popular across the Internet.Will 13:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, on what are you basing this claim? - Motor (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Eon8 was a massive in-joke amongst some of the most vocal, yet "insular" forums on the Internet. It has not, and probably will never hit the mainstream press seeing as it hasn't captured the fascination of "popular culture". Fails WP:WEB. If people want to document this as a "social experiment", than this article far from documents any methodology, analysis or conclusion that form the fundamental basis of any experiment. At the moment, this article details nothing more than the conjecture and speculation that surrounded the peak of the fad's hype. Fails WP:NOR The bottom line is that this article serves nothing but to satisfy the vanity of those who got caught up in the atmosphere and hype of the craze. i.e. The "I was there!" mentality common in SomethingAwful and YTMND forums. --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  13:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting insight into human nature. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Netsnipe. Notability first, article second. No rumours don't count. Self-referential, unfunny joke masquerading as an experiment. Don't give them the oxygen of publicity -- GWO
  • Delete as failing WP:SPAM. Viral marketing is not notable. --DarkAudit 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, If viral marketing is not notable, then why do you have articles on The Lost Experience and Ilovebees? dposse 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, how is that statistics image hosted on theinvisman.com connected to the website? It could be for any site.--Andeh 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People will want to know what this is and will look it up in Wikipedia... it was certainly big enough. Mphudson 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You're forgetting that the only people who even know about the existence of Eon8 are exactly the same people who read the same forums and blogs feeding the hype. They don't need their fix from Wikipedia --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  15:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would want to look it up? It's not in the papers, TV or radio and basically non-existant on news websites.--Andeh 15:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search of Google news shows that only two news stories exist on this website. [20] --FrankCostanza 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which are not very notable news sites.--Andeh 15:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --FrankCostanza 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wasn't just a large in-joke, it was one of the more interesting things on the Internet, and shows exactly what happens when the Internet is confused, like the creator said, a successful social experiment. Userpie 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- They say it's a social experiment and though I'm the highly gullible type to respond to unknown countdowns. But this should be in with the rest of the internet nemes. SignalMan 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fairly notable in the internet community, as per the comments by Dposse, WillFirminger and others Darksun 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- fails WP:V Ashibaka tock 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How exactly does it do that? The website is right there. It's not like we are pulling this infomation out of thin air. dposse 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't be verified because there are no notable websites which have mentioned the website to very it actually happened.--Andeh 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's not a marketing thing, so people who voted "Delete" for that have lost their argument. TheDavesr 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Marketing includes self-promotion. And it turns out to be completely pointeless too. We've won our argument Bwithh 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's plenty of claims here that this is notable or interesting yet no one has provided any reliable sources for these claims other than what individual contributers think. This AFD has to be the perfect example of why wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy. Please someone give evidence as to how this meets WP:notability or more specifically WP:WEB. I notice this has been described as a piece of viral marketing. By definition this is not viral marketing as it is not marketing anything. Everything in wikipedia has to be verfiable by reliable sources yet the claims about this website and the effect it had are not. We do not give an article to every short lived fad that happens to be flavour of the month over at YTMND or something awful. Next week no one will even care about this thing. Ydam 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notably internet phenomenon. Surely any future "mysterious" sites will be considered in comparison to eon8. It has left a mark, even though its timer was not long enough to have it reach mainstream media. --Gemini6Ice 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep becoming something of a meme, good deal of google hits (13,000+), seems quite notable to me. Joeyramoney 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Results 221 - 227 after google has omitted some entries very similar to the 227 already displayed.--Andeh 16:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what google are you using? Joeyramoney 17:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the last page, note that google says About 13,000 hits.--Andeh 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a definately notable internet phenomena, on the level of things like the John Titor posts. --Krsont 16:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this isn't notable, how the hell is goatse notable!? this page has been on for like, six months, and I think it was on CNN. this page also got more than ten thousand page views when the final seconds arose. this is definatly notable. --TravisBatos 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • goatse is notable because it was widely used across the internet in many forms, and no this page wasn't on CNN. What makes you think the page got 10,000+ page views in the final seconds?--Andeh 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as my last vote. Zos 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment what i fail to understand about this whole thing is, why put up such a big fuss about something that's not hurting anyone? why does the inclusion of an internet phenomenon make wikipedia less useful? Joeyramoney 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you not read any criticism of Wikipedia? One thing that comes up time and time again is that people say Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously because it is full of articles on trivia, minor aspects of pop culture, and internet memes that everyone forgot about a week after the article was written. So every article like this that is kept is just one more weapon for people to use to discredit any hope Wikipedia has of being taken seriously as an information resource. Not hurting anybody? Sorry, I don't see it that way. It's hurting me, because I wanted Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip chatroom. — Haeleth Talk 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Did get around a bit. --InShaneee 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seeing as this AfD will probably get closed as no consensus, I'm not going to leave any rationale right now. I would say wait a month or so, and then see if anyone cares about this article. —Whomp [T] [C] 17:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. We can revisit in a month if necessary. --Randy Johnston (‽) 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's probably going to be more talked about over time. To delete it now would be acting too hastily. Cathie 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a notable social expermient that has spread to many forums. If other Internet phenomena such as the llama song, goatse, and The Demented Cartoon Movie can become Wikipedia articles, why can't this? It has 13,400 google hits and has made the news. --Jeames 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not a notable social experiment because there's nothing original and special in its techniques. Internet viral marketing has been around for a long time Bwithh 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert notability per WP:WEB! YTMND, 4Chan and the Something Awful forums do not equate to encyclopedic notability! KWH 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as eon8 is now slashdotted (which fulfills WP:WEB #3). Noob cannon lol 17:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: also, google news has now indexed a few stories about eon8.Noob cannon lol 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • no it doesn't WP:WEB #3 says content is distributed via a site the key word being distributed. The content is not being distributed via slashdot so this criteria does not apply Ydam 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What else can "distributed" mean except posted online? How else can a website "distribute" something? Send email to everyone in the world? Certainly now that it is on Slashdot is a sign that it may be become more important; bloggers may pick it up, look into it, and start talking about it some more, making it more notable. That's why I say we give it time. Enigma00 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you reade the footnote for that entry it gives a good example of what is and isint distributed content. Ydam 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It meets WP:WEB #1... Look at eon8 in Google News, there are articles on the website. --Jeames 17:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has four to be precise (as of writing) non of which come from reliable sources. Ydam 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting experiment, but does not meet WP:WEB or appear to be a notable internet phenomemon. --Samael775 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Internet phenomenon. I never heard of this web site until I saw it mentioned in the previous AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot archive, nor archive.org. More important, does not meet WP:V. If any notice has been taken by mainstream media meeting reliable source guidelines, nobody has yet provided references. Silly prank with a perfectly predictable reaction. If it ever does become notable the article can be re-created without prejudice then. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's too early to dismiss this, as there is still time for people to find out about it. Also, it was a very intruiging social experiment for the internet age, and is certainly worthy for that reason. I say give it some time. Enigma00 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivially fails WP:WEB. Only mention of any notability is Slashdot, and a Slashdot mention does not an article make. - Merzbow 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith especially, but also others. Inner Earth 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but it probably isn't notable. Even if it gets press coverage -- which it hasn't, yet -- it will be famous for 15 minutes at most, thereafter to be forgotten forever. Encyclopedias are places to go to find out about human knowledge, not places to go to catch up on the latest net gossip. — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Speedy Delete A7 and Ban the IPs of the article creators There is nothing new or special about what this website did. Internet and very marketing and publicity techniques of this kind have been around for a long time and are widely known - which is why so many people assumed that this was a marketing website. Not only did the website do nothing special in its promotion techniques, it admits that it has no other purpose than to get people excited over nothing. This deeply non-notable, unoriginal and uninspired waste of people's time and abuse of wikipedia during it, should be speedily deleted and the article creators punished for their relentless and obnoxious abuse of wikipedia and the afd process for their own selfish promotional purposes. - as I've said in the previous afd discussion about this (where did that go?) Bwithh 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • eon8 is a notable website because it did get people excited over nothing. It may have used the same techniques as a marketing website, but instead of attempting to get attention over an actual event, it instead left its true purpose up to the imaginations of the fans and viewers of the website. It was an experiment on how the public would react to such a "mysterious" website, and therefore had a purpose, and can be considered notable. Also, your statement about the article creators being obnoxious assumes bad faith. --Jeames 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit harsh, don't you think? dposse 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I thought I was being quite restrained compared to other thoughts Bwithh 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Okay, leaving commercial marketing aside, this kind of hoax website viral technique is also well-used by artists who are trying to provoke reactions from the public sometimes with surreal or apparently meaningless content. (some of these artists will, in time, become marketers of course). Still nothing new or special here. I'm not assuming bad faith about anything. The creators can be obnoxious without being conscious or deliberate about it. They're something like happy-go-lucky innocent-hearted telemarketers in that case then Bwithh 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't jump to conclusions about their motivations. That's still assumption of bad faith. It's possible that you are correct, but it's still possible that these are people attempting to assist Wikipedia, and not be, ahem, happy-go-lucky innocent-hearted telemarketers. Wikipedia already has a lot of articles on Internet websites that are non-original, for example, its amazing collection of Shock Sites. One shock site is no different from the next in its methods, yet Wikipedia has articles or descriptions on each and every one of them. --Jeames 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps if it doesn't deserve an article unto itself, some information about it can be merged into a pre-existed article about internet culture or something? Enigma00 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good thought, and also, I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions about this. We shouldn't get rid of this article blindly, assuming that the article creators were just pranksters, and eon8 does deserve some mention even if the article does end up being deleted. --Jeames 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Send in Strike Team first; come to conclusions later Bwithh 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It's not a marketing attempt, nor some pointless self-promotion. The site archieved enough coverage to make it noteworthy. If the website is not noteworthy enough to justify its own article, it should at the very least be merged into an article about the phenomenon it attempted to test. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query By the way, does anyone know why this afd was closed with the article deleted by an admin last night, but suddenly it was restored again today without deletion review or any comment about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8 Bwithh 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was because many felt that the afd was closed too early and the article deleted too soon. I could be wrong, but that's the impression that i got. dposse 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think we should keep this because it shows people the experiment of life. (notably, fear of the unknown)--Aidepikiw0000 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy, pillage and salt the earth of this accursed article for all above delete reasons and the perfectly valid reasons for deletion on the other AfD. And ban IP's per above. SM247My Talk 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The banning of IPs still assumes bad faith. There is no obvious evidence about the motivations of the article creators. --Jeames 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong strong strong KEEP I cant believe this is still being debated. It was a briliant social experiment. Look how everyone is reacting....TruthCrusader 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, the reactions on this discussion page show that the website did have an impact on different online communities, including this one. --Jeames 21:02,
      • Reponse The reaction on Wikipedia is about whether to delete the article or not. Just like Wikipedia does with afd articles every day. Wow, this "brilliant social experiment" is really teaching me new insights about wikipedia through its provocative controversy. By the way, I am being sarcastic Bwithh 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response response Yes, and I think that that was supposed to be a bit of a joke there, not something to take seriously. Geez --Jeames 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete nn, fails a plethora of wikipedia alphabet soup, and completely unencyclopedic.... who, except for a select few geeks, will ever care about this 30 years from now? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now apply that logic to many other articles that are not AfD. What do you get? Deletions. Noob cannon lol 01:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable social experiment that has gained a large amount of Internet fame. Online noteriety is no different from the real world sort. Xuanwu 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just heard of "eon8" somewhere and wondered what it was. So I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found out what it was. That's what encyclopedias are for. It would have been a shame if I had heard about it later and the article had been deleted forever. And it's not like it hurts to keep it. Sippan 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears the traffic rank for eon8.com has seen a spike. According to [21] its rank has jumped to 2,334 today. Either way just because hundreds of thousands of people are discovering it after the fact I still suggest a merge with internet phenomenon. --Draxle 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep' Wikipedia's purpose is to catalogue our history. Just because something was a Hoax, doesn't make it any less deserving of an article to document it. --TrekMaster 22:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep. It's also worth noting that this website was not a hoax; it never claimed to be anything, and it was nothing. Learn the definition of a hoax. This site did good in its job to find out just how the public reacted, and the news is still catching on. --Xkeeper 22:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Boring and uncreative, but seems to have obtained sufficient notability, including now Slashdot coverage [22].--Eloquence* 22:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article needs more sources. They have one news article I could see from a site anyone's ever heard of, and apparently slashdot is paying some attention to it. But that doesn't mean it's notable. A plethora of news articles, or web hits in the millions would make me reconsider. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia used by people worldwide. Articles should have appeal to a broad spectrum of readers, and not just a small subset, as this article appears to do. --NMChico24 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the stats note, it got three million page hits last month. Does that fufill your "web hits in the millions" statement? --Guess Who 22:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Slashdot (I think) counts as a reliable third party known for fact checking. At the very least it counts as a news source on par with many print newspapers. The fact it has covered the event therefore makes Eon8 notable, as it has satisfied WP:WEB. Also, the sheer number of notable websites that have discussed it (4chan, YTMND, pOnju, etc.) also makes it notable. Again, Internet fame is no different from real world fame. Xuanwu 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • /. isn't known for spellchecking, much less fact checking. Kotepho 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Real internet memes are things that arise naturally. This one was deliberately created and will be forgotten quickly. If it isn't, recreate the article when the dust has settled. (And no, slashdot isn't a reliable source for anything.) Fan1967 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Isn't it just as valid to keep the article and delete it after the dust has settled if it really DOES fade? Redwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know how you would define a meme "arising naturally" since for a meme to spread it requires people actively promoting it. On an unrelated note, I think the word "meme" sounds stupid. --Sysys 23:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Phenomenon is an alternate word you can use... --Jeames 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's a difference between people spreading it and deliberately creating it. This was nothing but some guy creating a website with a countdown. Fan1967 00:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment He didn't encourage it to a great extent-- he did bring it to some peoples' attention in online forums, but let the general public explore the site on their own. Therefore, it was allowed to "arise naturally." He wanted it to arise naturally anyway, that's why it was labeled an experiment. --Jeames 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As opposed to a website being accidentally created? Look, I know what you mean. There are plenty of purposely mysterious-looking websites. But this one, for whatever reason, got a lot of attention. There are lots of people (example: myself) who heard about it, didn't know what was going on, and turned to wikipedia to see if it had an explanation. I think this article should stay. --Sysys 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Push it to the limit! Actually, I think it's notable because it's become pretty well-known. Esteffect 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. People say this "was interesting" and "history". A pretty rainbow may be enjoyed by thousands, but it is transient - so was this. Merge any applicable info on social issues into Viral Marketing and/or Internet Memes and delete. Finally, and most importantly, how many above have said "But you have article XYZap, why not this?" Do you really want to use those as a wedge to justify this, when this will then be a wedge to introduce every following web performance? Shenme 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The references to other articles are to show that this article is just as notable as ones that already exist in Wikipedia. Since it has been agreed, or at least reached an agreement, that the other articles meet Wikipedia criteria, it should only stand to reason that this, being a similar article, also meets Wikipedia criteria. And yes, I agree that arguments stating that this was "very interesting" and a part of "history" are weak, but there are other, more valid arguments as well towards keeping the article. --Jeames 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyone who votes keep is a sockpuppnoobwhoretroll! Ban ban! The pretty rainbow didn't make it onto Slashdot, did it? Making this sort of notoriety in less than three days is notable, WP:WEB relies on a website being up for months or years - hence "wiki not a crystal ball". But the impact of this has been wide-spread and for the most part pretty astounding for what is arguably simply a map with a countdown. Tokakeke 01:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Part of me thinks the phenomenon makes it notable, but the other part of me has read WP:WEB Tromboneguy0186 01:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:WEB. ChadyWady|[1] 02:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of this discussion seems to involve WP:WEB. Right now it is uncertain if WP:WEB applies to memes, although it is certain that WP:MEME does. WP:MEME, however, is no more than a proposed guideline. Thus, neither WP:WEB nor WP:MEME can be used as arguments for or against the notability of an Internet meme, until the merge debate between WP:WEB and WP:MEME is resolved. Until then, neither guideline fits this situation. --Jeames 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this AfD doesn't appear like it's going to reach concensus, so maybe it should just be re-listed in months time when the user-activity has died down a bit.--Andeh 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. With no clear guidelines, opinion, or outcome, there's no point in continuing this much further. The best that can be done now is to wait and see whether or not eon8 becomes more or less notable. --Jeames 02:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more notable than many other items on List of Internet phenomena --TwoThumbsDown 02:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable when it was created; unremarkable now; forgotten in two weeks. Colin 02:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep' The fact that so many editors have participated in this deletion discussion suggests that the topic is clearly notable. I mean, there are tons of articles describing less notable things on wikipedia that seem fine to me. We should make this article an article though, not just like a random jumble of quotations and bits of info. --Waldroplab 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment overparticipation in an AfD is not a source of notability because anybody can edit it and we don't know precisely their motivation. Given the fact that most of the posts are subtle copies of text and reasoning this is doubly so. SM247My Talk 04:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some more things to talk about: could be possible copyright infringement. Bwithh says that possibly the strongest choice what he says is to speedy delete and ban the IPs of who created it. I agree with him. Currently, it's a suspicious website. The website says that the 8th eon could be "the end of the world", but it could be a hoax. Still, I want to have this article be strong, speedily deleted under A7 and ban the IPs of who created it. --Bigtop

(customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be also A8 speedy delete. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the article creators need to be banned from Wikipedia? It's still possible that these were just innocent Wikipedians trying to help Wikipedia, not harm it. It cannot be certain what the intentions of the original article creators were. --Jeames 09:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement? The material on eon8.com isn't even copyrighted. Noob cannon lol 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I came here originally to learn exactly what eon8 was, just because so many people have been talking about it. Just look how many votes there are right now. When I put the "Gwen Stefani discography" page up for deletion a while back, that only got about 8 votes, and that's an article related to a world-record-holding pop icon. If there wasn't any notability, there wouldn't be this many votes.--Josh 06:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The number of votes a particular article receives in an AFD debate is not an indicator of notability per any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;;
  • Comment But it does indicate that a lot of people have searched for this article and found that someone wants to delete the information. I don't understand why a topic that so many people want to read about is not notable enough. Common sense should prevail in this case. Lapinmies 07:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I only heard of this site yesterday from the AFD nom. If it's that huge, how come most people only heard of it yesterday. It will be forgotten in a week or so. Most of the keep votes are from people who regulate that site, or YTMND. It doesn't even fit WP:WEB. I have a suggestion to make- how about AfD can only be discussed by established editors to advoid these situations. andrew 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB does not apply to Internet memes (see my earlier comment). --Jeames 09:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Afd should be open to every Wikipedian. If every Wikipedian can edit, every Wikipedian should have a voice in what they editied, or what they believe should be in. --Jeames 10:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I think some people here are overguaging the notability of this website because they had personal experience with it. Obviously, a lot of people here interact with the Internet. I certainly spend my fair share of time online, although I had never heard of eon8 before its article got nominated for deletion, likely because I don't do online forums or games. And that is why I don't think this really even qualifies as much of an Internet meme. If a person who spends a lot of time online but doesn't go to specialized sites doesn't hear about it, it probably wasn't really that notable. Besides that, it fails WP:WEB, still. It's not likely to have much cultural impact, and the fact that it's speculative in nature whether it will or won't means that it doesn't merit an article now, as WP is not a crystal ball. It really has nothing going for it other than the fact that some Internet forumites wasted time speculating about it, and that's just not encyclopaedic stuff right there. GassyGuy 08:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failing WP:WEB does not make it a nonnotable meme (see my earlier comment). --Jeames 09:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, does it make a difference whether or not the Wikipedians in this discussion have been involved personally with eon8 or not? What they believe is an article is what they believe is an article. --Jeames 10:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wha? --Jeames 10:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Replying to every delete vote doesn't exactly make you look like a disinterested party, but on the assumption that you're really just trying but failing to understand what I've said: I made reference to WP:WEB because it's a sensible guideline (to me) and it is one with which people are familiar and to which I can link. I am of the mind that failing it is a reason for deletion, so I cited that as one of my reasons. You don't have to point out (repeatedly) that failing it isn't an automatic reason for deletion, or else we wouldn't be having this mess of a discussion, so, as you made your views regarding WP:WEB clear, I'm not sure why you've told almost every user who's cited it that they shouldn't. As to whether it makes a difference whether or not if users were involved: while I certainly think people who were involved deserve the ability to voice their opinions too, I also think it skews their point of view. For example, in my life, there are some specific local annual events that I've often attended and that have impacted me. If there were articles on them on WP (there aren't) that were nominated for deletion, it would be hard to me to realize that, while they hold personal significance, they really aren't, in the grand scheme of things, notable. As to Dpbsmith's comment, a paraphrase would be: "Believing doesn't make it so." I hope this has helped to clarify the commentary for you. GassyGuy 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Look at the traffic here; notable by all means. Heard about this on the radio today, and this apparently attracted federal investigation. Good enough for me? Gerk 10:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Because Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Things that news "happens to" often find their way here. Gerk 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no substantial evidence that this attracted any type of military attention, the referal links could've easily been faked to increase speculation/attention.--Andeh 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Touché. Strong Keep, nevertheless. I don't see what the big deal is as to opposition. Gerk 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes this Internet meme different from the rest of the memes on List of Internet phenomena? This one has been subjected to such a long discussion, yet many of the other phenomena are even less popular. --Jeames 10:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I see no valid reason to delete this article. It currently consists of a description of what the site is and was, not speculation. It's not our duty to determine what's relevant and what's not. Statistics provided by the site indicate that it received over 45k thousand visitors. That's more than the population of some settlements which I've seen on Wikipedia. Also, as far as I know, this is the first page of its type. It could evolve into a larger internet phenomenon, and could have unforeseen consequences. Since the information is valid, keep it. Velessar 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lack of mention in the popular media is not pertinent. They are primarily sources of profit and entertainment: if it's not going to sell, it's not being mentioned by them. We are not to be subjected by such restrictions. Velessar 12:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of mention is most pertinant. Wikipedia is about verifyability and reliable sources. Where are they for this site ? All we have is a site talking about itself and some people clicking a link. It is impossible to write about this website in an encyclopediac style as it has nothing of importance written about it to reference to. --Peripitus (Talk) 12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "Statistics provided by the site indicate that it received over 45k thousand visitors." -- let me introduce you to the concept of reliable sources. No-one making keep comments seems to acknowledge or even understand this idea... there is nothing to back up the wild claims people keep making. Every single keep vote made here misses the point, makes baseless claims, and seems to think that Wikipedia is a repository for cataloguing every transient web fad that a few foolish web forum inhabitants indulged in. - Motor (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baseless claims? Aren't the forums primary sources? --Jeames 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I took care to note that the statistics were provided by the site. So far, the only baseless claim I see here is that the site was "not notable". It obviously took place, it seemingly was noticed, and we have no way of determining how it might develop. Velessar 12:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I took care to note that the statistics were provided by the site. -- and I'm dating Jennifer Aniston, plus I also work for MI5 as a superspy... while taking time off from working on cutting edge physics. Can I have my own article please? - Motor (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you may or may not be making that up. As the website may or not be making stuff up about the number of hits it got. I personally believe that you're making stuff up as you have reason to do so, and they are not because they don't.Velessar 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They don't have a reason to make up about the hits they get? Really? Not even that if they get fifty hits, they're nobodies, but if they get fifty million hits, they're very popular? That's not a reason anymore, now? Because it's sure as hell been a pretty popular one for just that activity in the past. Is it the case this time around? I have no idea, but taking those numbers at face value isn't really the way to go. -- Captain Disdain 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you're more comfortable with other statistics, then how about the fact that today eon8.com moved up over 1,000 rank points to 1,246 on Alexa? [23] Also, you can see the graph there showing the number of page views. --Jeames 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Should be kept but tidied up. There are some news articles appearing now about it, just give it some time. I will add some references as and when they appear. Localzuk (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every meme is notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What, we're on a new AfD now? I can't keep up... But no, begone with it. July 1 came, July 1 went, nothing important happened. No new Bond movie, no terrorist attack, no nothing. Some guy experimenting; I think that's cool, but I don't think it's particularly noteworthy. I also think that arguments based on how much discussion we get about it here are straw men. Just because eon8's inclusion in Wikipedia is something many of us feel strongly about has no bearing on whether eon8 is suitable for inclusion or not. Notability is not really determined by how many people argue about it on the internet. I'm sure this can be written up under Internet phenomenon or something, but that's pretty much it. -- Captain Disdain 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If notability for memes isn't determined by the number of people on the Internet that take notice, how is it? I don't see any news sources or anything to that effect on most of the Internet meme articles. --Jeames 15:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that it's not determined by the number of people arguing about it on Wikipedia. It's not that hard to get us riled up. -- Captain Disdain 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I misunderstood your statement. And yes, I can tell. But it is determined by the number of people on the Internet that take notice, although it isn't by the number of people on the Internet arguing over its article. --Jeames 16:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also think that because of the very nature of the internet, websites that people talk about a lot for a couple of days aren't necessarily at all significant. The net tends to be pretty ephemeral. I'd say that something that people keep talking about two weeks -- or two months -- after the event (even if it is at a reduced intensity) is far more significant than something a lot of people blog about for a couple of days. Considering that eon8 never got much attention until its six-month countdown was almost at its very end, I think this has all the makings of a tempest in a teacup. Compared to Ilovebees, which really engaged people, had them running around solving riddles and receiving weird phone calls and whatnot, eon8 was essentially just a timer that only got real attention when it was almost at an end. Is this going to keep people engaged for months to come? It's possible. If it does, then I think it merits an article. Now it's just one internet thing among thousands and thousands other internet things... and not a significant one at that. YMMV. -- Captain Disdain 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the way, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but there are a few more people on the talk page that are also putting their two cents in on the debate. --Jeames 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Caused a lot of buzz on the Internet. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Seeing as this is prone to plenty of destructive edits, we need to keep a close watch on this article. A very close watch. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting though this website is, it is still very much non-notable. Unless it gets some mainstream media coverage, I say delete per Captain Disdain. MarvintheParanoidAndroid 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why does it require mainstream media coverage? Most of the other memes haven't had mainstream media coverage. --Jeames 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is Slashdot not a reliable source, when WP:RS itself cites it as a source? --Jeames 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The discussion on this page and others among the Internet Fora of the United States and Canada lead me to agree that this page is notable, just look at all the discussion its caused! I came here trying to find more information only to find that the article had been deleted and no history was available, causing further discussion. Even if this is turned into a redirect for a section on the page for Internet Hoax it should still lead somewhere to information about this thing. --Superbeatles 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is informative, what else does it need? --Falcorian (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are a lot more trivial events/things covered on Wikipedia than Eon8. Yeah, it was a lame website prank, but at the same time, it was a significant event in the history of the internet. If Leeroy Jenkins can make it on here, then so can Eon8. Danielkitchener1 01:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per TonyM and dposse.—thegreentrilby 02:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep I believe that this website has become an important social engineering experiment. I do believe though that it would be a good idea to rewrite the article, and add more background information. Adam Stevenson 02:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability and sources first wikipedia article second; sorry. /. is not a reliable source. Kotepho 05:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slashdot isn't just the only source. Actually, I don't even know if Slashdot is being used as a source. The guy who did eon8 is in fact helping Wikipedia get some info about the website. Douglasr007 06:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS#References --Jeames 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now because it appears notable and it seems reasonable to expect that more secondary sources will be available in the future. If there are no good secondary sources after about a month, delete as this will imply that it wasn't notable enough after all. --ais523 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As legitimate an internet fad as any other. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The intensity of the repeated debates on whether this should be deleted or not seem to indicate that there is some legitimate interest in the site. --Rikoshi 20:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block those who vote keep as sockpuppets - spam and teenage vanity cruft, nothing more. Is is just me or is everyone voting keep under the age of 12 and thus doesnt understand what "encyclopedic" means? -Ste|vertigo 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I voted keep, Steve. :-) --Eloquence* 23:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why do you insist to ban those who are voicing their opinion on an article's AFD? You also didn't need to call us all "under the age of 12." Merely because we think apart from you. Userpie 23:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Congrats, you broke WP:AGF. Categorizing a majority of voters as sockpuppets really does you no favor, considering you have no evidence to categorize them as such. Saying an internet phenomenon is "spam and teenage vanity cruft" and that anyone who disagrees is "under the age of 12" is blatant immaturity at its best. Tokakeke 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This says pretty much what I was just about to. --Rikoshi 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I voted keep, and am frankly insulted that I was called a sockpupet and under the age of 12 for simply voicing my opinion. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This page is semiprotected, which means anyone who edited it before your comment or for some time afterwards would have to have had a username from before the end of the countdown. --ais523 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this and salt the earth. A social experiment doesn't become a meme because YTMND got their hooks into it.  RasputinAXP  c 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I had actually given some thought to creating this article at one point and decided that the notability was in question and that if the topic was still of intrest in a year it woudl probbly be worth of an article. As it is I think it deserves a mention in the article Breaching experiment or some similar article. Dalf | Talk 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fred Bauder 23:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ➥the twelve-year-old Epopt who doesn't understand what "encyclopedic" means 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to Louis, one of the guys who runs the official Eon8 website, he was interviewed by Politiken. If true, that means Eon8 now satisfies WP:WEB and should be kept. I added a link to said interview in the article itself. Xuanwu 01:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try and find additional evidence of this or an official confirmation from the Politiken website as there's nothing stopping the website creator from making things up.--Andeh 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE WORLD'S STRONGEST KEEP EVER eon8 was the coolest thing ever, you have to admit it. I totally want to keep this article. I don't see why everyone is up in it's grill. Did I say that right? Grill.--Mark 08:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to his user page and this AfD.[reply]
  • Delete, not even remotely notable website. —Stormie 08:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable --Grouse 12:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of evidence of coverage in any mainstream media. Would support merge and redirect to list of internet memes. Just zis Guy you know? 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Internet phenomena. I heard about it from the first AfD; if it was notable, I'm sure I'd have caught something about it before that or at least heard about it from associates who browse the forums where it gained its "notoriety" - no dice on that. Let's move on. Tony Fox (speak) 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - It has been mentioned in mainstream media, the second-largest Danish newspaper Politiken had devoted the whole frontpage of the second section to talk about eon8, and there was also a small picture of the website on the frontpage of the newspaper. So that should mean that the page qualifies for WP:WEB...

    If you want evidence, I can scan the newspaper page for you Snailwalker | talk 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there an article about eon8 in the Danish Wikipedia? There doesn't seem to be one under the name eon8. If there is one, could you provide us with a link to it? If it's not big enough in the Danish mainstream press to warrant an article in the Danish Wikipedia, then its mention in the Danish mainstream press isn't enough to warrant an article in the English Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must say that it is a very bad argument to use. The Danish wikipedia contains as of now 44952 articles and many other important stories in the news never makes it to the Danish wikipedia. The fact is that is is not very updated. But I can just mention that the article in the Danish newspaper Politiken had a link to the English wikipedia-article, and therefore I think that it justifies the article. Snailwalker | talk 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to your user page, you speak Danish. You give eon8 a "very strong keep." You obviously think it is important. You say it has gotten exposure in mainstream Danish media. Why haven't you added a least a stub about this to the Danish Wikipedia? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe the admins there are corrupt? I didn't know that non-english wikipedians must contribute to non-english wikis. Lapinmies 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment about Politiken article I just ran a Factiva international newswire, newspaper and magazine database search covering 20+ languages and over 10,000 sources for "eon8" and "eon8.com". The Danish Politiken article was literally the one and only hit. Bwithh 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable. —tregoweth (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nonnotable, or at least Merge and redirect as per Tony Fox, who will remember this one month down the line? Just look at the alexa graph, this is the ultimate phenomena, intense interest one day, and no-one visits the next. Mallocks 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Dragonfiend 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An online search of a database available through my library which contains the full text of The New York Times from 2000 through July 4, 2006 on "eon8" gives the result "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." I can't imagine any other search term that should be used. There has now been time for the ripples from this event to reach the New York Times, and if it hasn't mentioned it in four days I doubt that it ever will. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An online search of Wired News via their Search facility yields There are no Search Results for "eon8" from Wired News. Similarly for a Google site search: "Your search - site:www.wired.com eon8 - did not match any documents. There has now been time for the ripples from this event to reach Wired; if Wired hasn't mentioned it in four days I doubt that it ever will. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Roger Wilco. Stanfordandson 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No user by the name of Roger Wilco has participated in this AfD.--Andeh 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at leaste Merge and Redirect, as per Tony Fox. -- danntm T | C 01:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, it was fun watching everyone shit bricks over this lovely little social experiment. I suspect the deletionists here are the ones that got egged in the face. ROFL!! E. Sn0 =31337= 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care about egg on our faces. We care about the all the pins being stabbed into Wikipedia's body Bwithh 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is my vote, but it's hard for me to put my explanation into words. --Wikipikarefulgenschu 06:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment about Media Coverage I just ran a Factiva international newswire, newspaper and magazine database search covering 20+ languages and over 10,000 sources for "eon8" and "eon8.com". There was literally one and only one hit - the Danish Politiken newspaper article. And btw as said above, the eon8 much-ado-about-nothing didnt even make Wired magazine[24]. There other users out there with Factiva or LexisNexis access which can confirm this most minimal level of media coverage. Bwithh 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily closed (keep); this belongs at RfD instead. DarthVader 08:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gods country[edit]

This rticle is purely opinion, redirect has history of being changed between two articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quolnok (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Close - Should be in WP:RfD rather than AfD. Tevildo 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple of the Lord's Grace[edit]

Made up religion. Please see WP:NFT. Deprodded. Weregerbil 07:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all religions were made up at one time. Please note stranger religions on Wikipedia, such as Inedia, church of Virus, or Elan Vital. These are rather odd, yet they are not up for deletion. The Elan Vital doesn't even have an article! Just because you do not believe it to be true, does not mean it is false. Religious persecution is wrong. --EmptyF 1 07:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A religion is not "made up," per se. It is a tradition employed by a large group of people for hundreds or thousands of years, and engrains itself into the culture of those people. This, on the other hand, is something some bored high school kids made up. Even if they devote their lives to it, it is at best a cult, and at worst a geeky club for people who have nothing better to do. --NMChico24 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also nominated Church of Virus for deletion. The other two examples you gave appear to warrant articles. --NMChico24 02:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A religion "is a tradition employed by a large group of people for hundreds or thousands of years"? So Wicca is not a religion? I think perhaps your definition of religion could use some re-evaluation. That said, this is Something Made Up In School One Day, not a religion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable--Drmaik 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as quite clearly a hoax or so insignificant as to have escaped all media attention -Peripitus (Talk) 08:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made-up, non-sensical pablum; Oh, and Elan Vital does have an article, stupid.Gnrlotto 08:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice! --NMChico24 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he is stupid. And doubly so for claiming this article doesn't exist. When a user's first goal on Wikipedia is to disrupt it, I say adios to the niceties and polish up my chompers for some good ol' biting! Gnrlotto
I was thinking about this, and if you go to the list of religions and click on the Elan Vital one, it goes to the disamiguation page, not the organization --Andlat 04:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Gnrlotto
Perhaps EmptyF1 was in a hurry/didn't look at the whole page, so he didn't notice the link. I think you are stupid for not giving it any thought! --Andlat 06:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link clearly says (organization). So your argument is that he may be too lackadaisical to know something that blatantly obvious, but that he should be given the benefit of the doubt on an article he made up and has absolutely no sources for. Genius level thinking at work. Gnrlotto
  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 08:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent sources for verification that such a religion has come to the public's attention. --Metropolitan90 18:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now my eyes hurt trying to decipher that page. Thanks a lot. --DarkAudit 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess! Every sentence says "this may be deleted"? Delete, hoax, nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as near-patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for the love of God --BigDT 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Thousands of years? Let's see your archeological and anthropological evidence. Otherwise, it's patent nonsense. I believe I had something speedied that is very similar to this a few weeks ago. --NMChico24 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for the next few thousands of years. SM247My Talk 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, believe that he is telling the truth. But, hey, delete it if you want. --Andlat 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT something made up one day. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move move to WP:BJODN it is funny.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, nn notable,fails google, doesn't help that it's only link is Tripod (which Firefox wouldn't even open for me).--John Lake 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Bad Fantasy[edit]

Non-notable book, only 52 google hits -- Koffieyahoo 08:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also appears to be promotional material, which is out of date, btw. TheRingess 08:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 08:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 09:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was going to delete until I looked at the google hits. Published by Scholastic, seems to have a barely acceptable level of notability. --Nydas 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not notable enough. Most of the initial ghits are Wikipedia mirrors. IMHO, barely acceptable notability would be if it were widely reviewed. It doesn't appear to be widely reviewed at all. Feel free to give some citations if I'm wrong, and perhaps I'll reconsider. --NMChico24 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bizolio[edit]

The term gives virtually no hits on Google [25], the article gives a wrong definition of a portfolio and the article supplies no sources whatsoever. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High King of Wales[edit]

There is no historical evidence for a High King of Wales. The page is an unholy mixture of mythical material from Geoffrey of Monmouth and historical material covered elsewhere. Rhion 08:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixdaysworks[edit]

non-notable company/advert Travelbird 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Keep rationales: 1. large size, major city - not a criterion of inclusion per se, 2. precedent - not valid, 3. important shopping centers - valid. Delete rationales: 1. WP:VER - irrelevant, 2. WP:CORP - valid, 3. Malls are a dime a dozen - valid. I find that the delete rationale 2 and 3 opinions have outweighed keep rationale 3 opinions.

My sincere suggestion to those who may be upset by this closure is to research who the parent company operating the mall is - many of these turn out to be notable per WP:CORP, and I even recall at least one having an article here. This is information would be acceptable in condensed for in an article about the CORP-meeting parent, and I would be happy to make it available if/when requested. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Valley Mall[edit]

PROD tag removed without justification, so bringing here instead. This is a nonnotable mall whose article serves only as advertising. Delete. User:Angr 10:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:VER Ste4k 11:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huge mall ("1.6 million square foot") in a major city. Ramseystreet 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. At least 15 mall pages for the Pittsburgh area alone. --DarkAudit 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sixteen wrongs don't make a right. User:Angr 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    could not agree more. Precedent is valid in English common law. Wikipedia is not run by precedent. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Important shopping centres should be kept, this one seems to be. De-prodding should be questioned though. SM247My Talk 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this mall is notable - fails WP:CORP, the most relevent standard I can see. Inner Earth 09:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't Oxford Street, for crying out loud. It is a shopping mall which fails Corp and any other reasonable measure of notability. Cruft. Precendent is no argument; perhaps those malls should be Afd'd as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other malls are coming up for deletion, i've nominated a few in the past week. Where is the precendent ( I've had a look around but I can't see it) for keeping things that fail the closest guideline? Even less notable seem to be the closed malls that for some reason have even got their own project.... Inner Earth 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep local landmarks, including this mall. --SPUI (T - C) 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep. Given the list of available stores, this strikes me as a pretty large and regionally notable shopping center, and I like the idea of keeping those, personally. Perhaps consolidate this (and similar articles) into a parent. Luna Santin 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing notable about it, nothing setting it apart from a zillion other malls. Something being big and occupying a lot of land does not make it worth an article. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccan nerds[edit]

An attack on 'wiccan nerds', and unencylopedic. Editor has removed two db-attack tags. Mr Stephen 10:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nonsense/attack page.--Andeh 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Prince Charming. —Centrx→talk • 08:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince charming[edit]

fan page, should be speedied but I can't seem to find a category that fits. Travelbird 11:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melonism[edit]

fails WP:HOAX, WP:NEO Nearly Headless Nick 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yet another joke religion. Tevildo 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another unfunny Flying Spaghetti Monster wannabe. In other words, religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with hellfire all WP:NFT religions. SM247My Talk 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The logo being externally stored in a folder called "Skamsite" seems a bit of a giveaway. --DaveG12345 11:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - content and accuracy needs to be debated on the talk page of the article.--Eloquence* 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmanism[edit]

There is already an article for Hinduism. This article mostly consists of stuff in Hinduism article. Also it contains criticisms which have their own place in Criticism of Hinduism. Also there is an article for Brahmin. So this article is pointless and fit to be deleted as per WP:NPOV. Babub 11:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hinduism, as Brahmanism is the old term for the relgion in the West. It remains a plausible search term and such a redirect would politely remind the searcher of the current accepted name for the faith. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, unless someone turns it into an article on the history of the term itself. Any article beginning "X, popularly known as Y,..." self-admits that it should be a redirect to Y. The text appears to be essentially a copy-paste of the 1911 Britannica (including OCR errors), which figures, since Brahmanism would have been the current term in 1911. No merging necessary. dab (ᛏ) 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hinduism. --Alex S 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per above. SM247My Talk 01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - Britannica has a distinct article [26] on the subject. As a concept "Brahminism" exists as evidenced by a simple Google search. Britannica seems to classify Brahmanism as proto-Hinduism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we have Vedic religion if you want "proto-Hinduism". As far as the present situation is concerned, all scholars agree that Brahmanism=Hinduism.--Babub 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Vedic religion and Brahmanism have separate articles in Britannica. Vedic religion refers to the religion of IA people who moved into India around 1500 BC. Brahmanism refers to the religion of ancient India that evolved out of Vedism. Specifically, "Brahmanism is distinguished from the classical Hinduism that succeeded it by the enhanced significance given in classical Hinduism to individual deities, such as Śiva and Vishnu, and to devotional worship (bhakti)." Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, this is not Britannica. The content here needs to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. I don't think there are any books written by the modern authors of today (other than the 1911 Britannica) that refer to Brahmanism at all. Anyway, the article itself says that Brahmanism is also known as Hinduism. BTW, the "IA" theory is seriously questioned by today's academics.--Babub 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed IA theory may well be questioned, but that doesn't negate the need for an article about it. WP:Verifiability says: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." I consider Encyclopedia Britannica a reputable piece of published work and hence an entry for Brahmanism automatically means that it is worthy of a place here. I'm not saying the content of the current article is perfect, but there still needs to be a separate article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Brahmanism has an article in the current editions of Brittanica and Hutchinson. Nuttah68 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article about IA theory already. Britannica itself specifies that the name "Brahmanism" indicates both Brahmins for which we already have an article and Brahman. On the whole, Brahmanism being applied to "proto" Hinduism is POV as per today's scholarly views. However, to give it a historical view as given by British missionary scholars, this is a good link from The History of the Devil, which as the title suggests, is a biased piece of writing.--Babub | Talk 11:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a subject *can* come under the umbrella of an exsisting subject does not mean it should. Existing articles can mention the subject and link to this article for further explanation. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when x=y, there is no need to refer to y seperately from x. I didn't say it can come under the umbrella of any article. The present article itself mentions "Brahmanism, popularly known as Hinduism..." --Babub | Talk 12:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that respected encyclopedias, that are much more space limited than Wikipedia, feel a distinct aricle is needed convinces me that there is sufficient difference and we are not talking x=y. My opinion stands that the article needs sorting out but belongs in. Nuttah68 13:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Brahminism is the term for certain real and distinct religious practices. To put it in somewhat simplistic terms, Brahminism is Hinduism as practised by Brahmins. It draws heavily from vedic and puranic traditions. On the other hand Hinduism is the collective term for all religious currents prevalent in the collective Hindu populace. To give just one example, while the worship of Sai Baba - a Muslim holy man of early 20th centuary - can certainly be called Hinduism, it will be too far fetched to describe it as Brahminism. Sisodia 04:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "distinct" religion as practised by Brahmins comes under "Brahmin"; and, really, is Sai Baba even an argument for Brahmanism? We already have Hinduism.--Babub 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Hinduism is an overarching term, like Christianity. Brahminism is one aspect of this religion, like Roman Catholicism. Nuttah68 07:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have pointed out repeatedly, we already have Brahmin which covers the aspect supposed to be covered by Brahmanism.--Babub 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brahmin should discuss merely the caste and its status. Hornplease
Which pretty much covers everything present in Brahmanism :). OTOH, if you're looking for the philosophy called "Brahmanic philosophy" by some authors, its already there at Hindu philosophy. We could mention this at the latter article.--Babub | Talk 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I meant that there are some people who categorise the revival of Hinduism under, say, the Guptas, as that of a particular strand of thought that did not include several modern strands that are, for example, more inspired by the Bhakti Movement of the 11th c. So the point is that Hinduism as we know it is an agglomeration of not only forms of philosophy, but of practices and the consequent social structures; and there is place in WP for articles that examine all those various components. Hornplease 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I partially agree with your statements. I am getting the feeling we are merely confused over a few different words that describe the same thing. But how could the Gupta Empire (240-550 CE) have been influenced by the Bhakti movement (11th c)? You should refer to History of Hinduism. --Babub | Talk 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would be interesting if we have sufficient information about the term itself, like how it originated, how it went into disuse, etc. That would make a good article, as dab suggested. An article on Brahmanism as a term is worth keeping, but on Brahmanism as a religion/sect is not, simply because there's no such religion/sect separate from mainstream Hinduism. For instance, religious followers are determined by self-description, and no one describes(/ever described) oneself as a Brahmanist. Also, there are hints of the authority of Brahmins being questioned even in the Rigveda (see article), and in any case, such authority has only slowly (first increased and then) decreased over centuries, so it would be hard to distinguish religious beliefs over centuries based on that parameter. deeptrivia (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect, but don't delete. utcursch | talk 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect--D-Boy 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nuttah. In addition, in response to deeptrivia, the fact that people self-identify themselves as Hindus does not mean that their beliefs cannot be systematised in some other way. Arya Samaj hinduism is distinct in many ways from other forms of Hinduism. Similarly, pure brahmanical Hinduism might be distinct in certain ways. A separate article on that would be of use. Hornplease 05:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This contradicts your reply to my statement above. Hornplease 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The twelveth Zurmang Gharwang[edit]

non-notable group, no Google hits Travelbird 11:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. -- Mikeblas 13:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are actually 19 ghits, but that's hardly notable. --NMChico24 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Editor in question edits only to spam info about this stuff. Also probably a copyvio.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Restaurant[edit]

non-notable restaurant Travelbird 11:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't think too hard about any Chinese restaurant which was originally a pet shop Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am fairly new here, but my reading of the history on this article is it was created July 1 at 7:24 and submitted a minute later at 7:25. Seems very quick. Comment on my talk page if that is a more approriate place. At the same time, delete if article not improved and notability shown in next 5 days.--Gay Cdn 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a take-out Chinese place. Doesn't take more than a minute to identify as a non-noteable business massively failing the WP:CORP policy. Fan1967 15:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definately not notable --Samael775 17:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. --DarkAudit 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not speedyable as A7. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How so? Nothing in the article claims even a hint of notability. --DarkAudit 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has the Prime Minister dined there? Have they been reviewed in numerous notable restaurant and travel publications? Were they founded by a nationally or world-renowned chef? If so, please cite. If not, then trash. --NMChico24 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. SM247My Talk 01:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are quite a few restaurants known as the Paragon Restaurant. Nothing in this article indicates why this restaurant isof note outside its local area. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Babbitt[edit]

Failed congressional candidate from 2004, not running again, no longer rates an article. Delete KleenupKrew 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a major party nominee for the US House of Reps and mayor of a moderately important US city. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Youngamerican; I can understand deleting truly minor candidates, but as a fairly experienced politician, this one doesn't fall below reasonable criteria for political-related deletions. Captainktainer * Talk 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just being a candidate does not make one notable. A House candidate may even suffer notability issues outside his home district within the state. --DarkAudit 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to point out, the claim isn't that he's "just" a candidate. He's also been Mayor of a decently important city, held local office before then, was the focus of a high profile campaign, and is the brother of a very high-profile government figure.Captainktainer * Talk 20:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Two brothers of Richard Nixon have articles in AfD, so relation != notability. Merely holding local office in a county commision is not notable in itself. Mayor of Flagstaff is not as notable as mayor of say, Phoenix. And even there, I'd say that wouldn't be all that notable on it's own, either. --DarkAudit 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. On their own, I'd say you'd be right. Each individual datum falls under the notability threshold. However, it's the combination that makes the man in this case. Kind of like putting together a house- each individual brick isn't important unless they've got special writing or are assembled by nanotech or something. It's what the bricks build, and in this case we have a candidate involved in a highly contentious campaign against a high-profile member of the Republican party, a candidate who had the full backing of his party and whose loss is sometimes attributed to his brother's name.Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability questions I would ask: What legislation has he contributed to? What projects or public works have been proposed, started or completed during his tenure? What real progress has he made as mayor of Flagstaff? If the article is expanded to answer these and other similar questions, then perhaps it should stay. But being in Arizona myself, I doubt they will be. While it is possible for people to be famous solely for their affiliation with truly notable people (i.e. Zsa Zsa Gabor, Paris Hilton, etc), I would still argue that the average Wikipedian has neither heard of nor cares about this individual. --NMChico24 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, candidates are not notable by dint of running for office alone. Famous relatives do not confer notability. SM247My Talk 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think anyone even knew who he was during the election he was in. Flagstaff is not a big enough city for a former mayor to have an article, sorry. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, overwhelmingly. —Centrx→talk • 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Hart[edit]

Failed congressional candidate from 2004, no longer rates an article. He did not make it onto the ballot this year. Delete KleenupKrew 11:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person, though a failed politician, is broady notable for his widely-reported opinions. His success in achieving the party nomination was national news. Hart is chiefly significant as a rare modern, and unabashed, proponent of the otherwise discredited practice of eugenics, [27]. That important connection raises his notability beyond most failed candidates. The details of his campaigns are broadly verifiable and notable. -Will Beback 11:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, is Hart even notable as a eugenics proponent? From all appearances he is just a lone crank who ran for Congress in 2004 and lost. Does he have articles on eugenics published somewhere other than his campaign website, or does he get quoted in eugenicist literature, for example? I don't see that he's notable in any way, not even among eugenics proponents, and we have a lot of current AFDs on other failed congressional candidates who are far more notable (as local civic leaders and so on) that look like they are getting an overwhelming consensus to delete. In general I don't agree with the philosophy that "X gets an article because he has really fringy views" while "Y doesn't rate an article because he's just a mainstream civic leader" philosophy. It should be the other way around. KleenupKrew 12:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major party nominee (whether the GOP liked it or not) for the US House of Reps (a national legislature) and having gained national exposure for his, um, "unique" views. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historically relevant to anyone researching the race he was running in, or researching the candidate who won the race. -- Mikeblas 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if expanded. More notable than many of the other candidates who have pages in AfD. --DarkAudit 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy got some serious press and serves as a useful exemplar of the current state of thought on eugenics in this country. Definitely deserves a place in Wikipedia, as it adheres to WP:V and WP:BIO. Captainktainer * Talk 21:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I tend to feel that failed candidates should not be in the encyclopedia, unless their campaign was of particular interest (i.e. marred with scandal, causing true division in the constituency, frequently nationally-covered, etc). In this case, with his very public "my race is better than your race" beliefs, I think he has caused a certain amount of eyebrow raising among many people. So, he deserves at least a footnote. --NMChico24 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, candidates are not notable by dint of running for office alone, but this guy is a little more notable for his public profession of his beliefs. SM247My Talk 01:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per NMChico24. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Jaranda as {{copyvio}} — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Evolved[edit]

Author persistantly removeing speedy delete tag, so I'm listing this here : Article is blatant copy of http://www.discogs.com/label/Underground+Evolved Travelbird 11:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment then put a copyvio tag on it rather than AfD Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried that several times, but it got removed every time. Travelbird 12:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom and marked again as copyvio.--blue520 13:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Miller[edit]

Failed U.S. Senate candidate, lost the primary so is no longer notable enough for an article. Delete. KleenupKrew 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but condense down to two paragraphs and minimal references. Mr. Miller was a Senate primary candidate who lost a close contest that got some national attention, like Hardball on MSNBC where he and Mr. Webb debated. He is a past president of ITAA. IMO this bio is sufficient for a Wikipedia entry. DanielM 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word (bookstore)[edit]

Is a chain of 16 minority-interest bookstores notable enough for Wikipedia? Lurker 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/expand. More than half of Australia's population is Christian, so it's not minority-interest. Along with Koorong, they are the largest chains of retailers of Christian-oriented material in Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 12:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess that Christians that shop in Christian book stores are a minority though... - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that people who shop in any book stores are probably a minority, too! --Jacknstock 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did discover that bookshops sell books! ABS Book retailers report says that 78% of the income from sale of new books ($1,406.5m) went to book shops ($1,103.3m). That's a total of about $70/person/year spent on books. It doesn't name brands or genres though. --Scott Davis Talk 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite a reliable source for your assertion "the largest chains of retailers of Christian-oriented material in Australia"?--A Y Arktos\talk 05:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The closest I can get is The Word Group Australia is Australia's leading Christian communications company, serving the church, colleges, and individuals with the best in Christian resources. from the bottom of their own info. Can you cite a reliable source that A&R is bigger (as a retailer)? It would help to settle this if we could find such. --Scott Davis Talk 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angus and Robertson has 170 stores[28] - I suspect 16:170 indicates A&R is substantially bigger--A Y Arktos\talk 11:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all those stores, (they claim twice the number f their nearest competitor who I assume is dymocks), thier market share is claimed to be 18%[29]--A Y Arktos\talk 00:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still think it doesn't come close to satisfying WP:CORP. Being the largest in a sector made up of small companies doesn't mean notable Lurker 13:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are notability and size put together to mean each other. It is a well known Australian book store chain. Maybe the CORP guideline wasn't made up to cope with this type of situation. Ansell 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Word and Koorong dominate their market in Australia, to the extent that other chains and stores have been forced to close or (in the case of at least one formerly independent chain) effectively become agents of Koorong or Word. In fact, because Koorong and Word get very significant discounts by buying in large quantities, smaller retailers can purchase stock more cheaply through retail at Koorong or Word than wholesale. Koorong and Word are much more than "the largest in a sector made up of small companies" - they dominate the sector. --Jacknstock 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ScottDavis and since when has wikipedia discriminated against "minority interest". It is not like it is a small chain within its field. In Australian terms it is notable. Since the nomination only referenced the size of the store without referencing the overall market niche and they expect notability to be correlated with the total in numerical terms they seem to have missed what notability is about. Ansell 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the second nomination on this page that is disrepectful to Australia. The Americans even treat their allies bad and then they wonder why the whole world despises them! Ramseystreet 21:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not well-known enough--A Y Arktos\talk 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How well known would be enough in a niche market such as Christian books. It has extensive notability in Christian circles without regard to denomination, that should be notable enough for the article to exist. Ansell 02:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Response - Scott Davis was making the assertion that Christian was not minority interest in Australia. I think notability in this case needs to stand on its own merits. The article does not justify notability and I haven't heard of them - the latter point doesn't mean necessarily a lot, it does mean though that I support a delete vote without any evidence to the contrary other than assertions from other voters it is not notable.--A Y Arktos\talk 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument is much like questioning the existence of Africa because you haven't been there! Hmmmm.... maybe the moon really is made of cheese... --Jacknstock 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word Bookstores (retail), Word Australia (wholesaler) and the new entity (according to reports) Word Bookstores Pty Ltd (holding company) are quite verifiable - especially considering they include 16 good-sized retail outlets (i.e., places not as big as Africa but much more accessible to anyone living in Australia). The article definitely needs improvement, including citing of references. I certainly don't want to see Wikipedia used as an advertising site by the Koorong/Word duopoly, which I find distasteful. However, none of this means that it would be helpful to delete the current stub. --Jacknstock 06:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the useful ref that tells me it is a Pty Ltd company - ie not listed. Under WP:Corp one of the criteria to apply is whether the business has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. I don't see that applies. I can see no other criterion this stub meets - other criteria for inclusion of articles on businesses refer to stock market listings. A family owned business that has been in existence for 60 years and is not mentioned in non-trivial published works, other than "new store opening" - just does not seem to warrant an encyclopaedia article. This stub has been around for a couple of months and a previous AfD debate prompted no augmentation. Is there anything to be said more about this business, is there anything that justifies not deleting this? The business exists ,but not only is Wikipedia not a medium for advertising, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information --A Y Arktos\talk 06:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other clue to its lack of notability is that the only other article to link to this one is the other Christian bookstore chain that was previously considered for deletion.--A Y Arktos\talk 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have made a very good case for deletion. Of course, it has been a non-profit until yesterday (and still reports itself as a non-profit on its web site), therefore could not be listed regardless of size or significance. Nonetheless, there's very little of interest to say about this company, so little value in developing an encyclopedia article. Touché! --Jacknstock 07:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. SM247My Talk 01:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have been unable to find verifiable references from reliable sources about this bookstore. As such, I don't think it meets WP:CORP. I would change my vote if verifiable sources could be found and placed in the article. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep+expand Joeyramoney 03:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Word is notable as an Australian book retailer and publisher. --Jacknstock 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an Australia wide chain of bookstores, if this in not notable then most of Category:Bookstores of Australia should also be deleted. Paul foord 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree only Angus and Robertson and Dymocks meet the notability criteria.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You agree? He was not stating what you said. What harm is there in having the top sellers of specialist books even if they do not compare to the general booksellers. Ansell 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The harm is that this retailer does not fit WP:Corp - any moment now and someone will be advocating inclusion of all sorts of specialist businesses, eg the only maker of candles in Hahndorf [31] - there are criteria for inclusion - address those or seek to have them changed - AfD is not a good place for getting such guidelines changed.
I addressed User:Paul foord's suggestion that the contents of Category:Bookstores of Australia should also be deleted - I agree with him bar two notable retailers, they should be kept both for their size and their longevity, pus A&R is a notable publisher. Not also What links here for A&R plus what links here for Dymocks compared with What links here for the Word retailer and similarly what links here for Koorong--A Y Arktos\talk 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Abstain. I abstain. --Jewbo Wales, LOL 07:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have expanded the article with some history and current locations based on references raised here. This article is currently the largest in Category:Bookstores of Australia. I would love to be able to provide a reference that Word is a significant retailer. I note that since both Angus & Robertson and Dymocks are both franchises, it's possible that Word and Koorong are the biggest book retailers in Australia, but I cannot find any statistics about book sellers. --Scott Davis Talk 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be quite frankly classified as a small business. In 2004 according to the ABS site (very cursory search) there were 1,660,000 operators of the 1,269,000 non-agricultural small businesses in Australia. Of these admittedly 72.6% were small businesses with only one operator. There are though an awful lot of business with less than 100 employees (which this is likely to be, or at any rate not much bigger) - that is the market for Howard's workplace reforms. I really do not see that these businesses are going be notable. Of course they occupy a niche - that is what businesses do. If you want to include such businesses, address the policy at WP:Corp. The recent additions do not make this business notable. Turnover by the way is probably commercial in confidence - I doubt if it is published for non-public companies.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone added useful statistics about book retailing in Australia, comparing Word with other book retailers in Australia, or some interesting controversy (e.g., how a fairly large retailer managed to remain a tax-free "non-profit" despite ruthlessly driving competitors out of business), this article could be worth keeping. --Jacknstock 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. 16 bookstores + publishing covers a very large area —Pengo 06:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per Scott Davis & Pengo. There's no reason to delete this - Word Bookstore is definitely notable among the Christian community (as is Koorong) which should qualify. A cleanup would be nice though. (JROBBO 06:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books similar to Harry Potter[edit]

Trivial content, highly POV for inclusion, listcruft. Skinnyweed 12:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Tevildo 12:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's probably a good article to be had about Harry Potter parodies and references (although we likely have such an article already). This list is fairly random ("A character in a Monty Python sketch is called Harold Potter") and unclear (claims James and the Giant Peach is similar to Harry Potter but doesn't say how... because the protagonists are orphan boys, I guess?). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split decision: Keep the top two sections and move to List of books parodying Harry Potter. Delete the rest. Literary parodies and pastiches, as well as derivative works, are encyclopaedic. David | Talk 15:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avada Kedavra!! This belongs on a fan website, not in an encyclopedia. It reads like a summer reading list, and inclusion in this list seems dubiously subjective. Also, given how many Harry Potter fans there are out there writing various short stories and even full-length novels, this list could grow very long in a hurry. A better idea would be to allow the stories themselves to become widely distributed and notable, and then list individual articles for them. It is unlikely most will ever be widely-read, though. --NMChico24 23:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, especialy the offhand reference to Harold Potter in the Science Fiction Sktech. SM247My Talk 01:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV and unencylopedic information. --Musicpvm 08:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Musicpvm, rather too fancrufty in its revisionist view of literary and popular cultural history. Potter books might make it into a List of books similar to Tolkien though. --DaveG12345 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, I fail to see how any sort of standards or criteria could possibly be implemented and failing that, it is inherently OR. Listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as plausible typo vector, incorrect venue — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey College Durham[edit]

Rather useless redirect to Grey College, Durham. However, nothing now links to this page (Grey College Durham), so it may as well be deleted as redundant. Uncantabrigian 12:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close. Should be in RfD rather than AfD. Tevildo 12:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Tevildo. This would be a useful redirect anyway. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Tevildo. If I were you, I wouldn't bother relisting on RfD either. Your nomination would almost certainly be rejected. —Caesura(t) 17:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tuesday[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable holiday that falls under WP:NFT. Google hits are inconclusive because a lot of the results seem to be bloggers saying "hey everyone and happy Tuesday!" which they would have changed if it was Thursday or Friday, etc. It's not like they're celebrating the holiday, just wishing everyone a good day and Tuesday happened to be the day on which they were wishing it. Delete as WP:NFT. Metros232 12:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unsourced + unknown to Google + WP:NFT. Weregerbil 13:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and, also has problems with WP:V and should be deleted unless verification or a citation form a reliable source can be provided.--blue520 14:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be nice if the author provided some articles from notable publications covering such celebrations, or even some historical references from its origins at its home university. I doubt such information exists, though. --NMChico24 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable non notable university ritual. SM247My Talk 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Happy Friday is far more notable on the basis that Friday is the last day of the work week (for some), yet there is no Happy Friday article. --Jacknstock 02:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Ladybirdintheuk 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect. Jaranda wat's sup 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silkroute[edit]

Delete as un-encyclopaedic. Originally created as an advert for a non-notable company, now just a place holder for a link to a (commercial?) web site that has no content. blue520 12:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as what appears to be a walled garden. Yanksox 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about redirect to Silk Road? --Ioannes Pragensis 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Silk Road Ramseystreet 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. SM247My Talk 01:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • External link removed (there used to be a website there). Silkroute 11:48, 3 July 2006 (GMT)
  • First page was created from an email recieved from one of the companies named SilkRoute. Will start up a different research if all this is an issue for everyone. My first wikipedia experience :( Silkroute 11:59, 3 July 2006 (GMT)
  • Redirect per above. --Ezeu 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Damn Tech Show, Period.[edit]

Non-notable podcast. Quote: "It's infotechment for the Geek in Everyone." Fails WP:WEB, and is an advert for an extremely minor podcast. Alexa traffic rank of: 3,202,491. The creator of the article is User:Drdrew, one of the presenters of the podcast is "Drew Olanoff". Delete. - Motor (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yet another vanity podcast article Ydam 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who has ever heard of these people? Also, if myspace comes up in an extremely brief list of external links, it raises a red notability flag. Give me some major publications in which this podcast is reviewed. --NMChico24 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. SM247My Talk 01:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 15:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John courage[edit]

Non notable political candidate. --DarkAudit 13:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete he needs to win first unless there is another reason why this individual is notable. Ydam 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No further objections Adoto
    • Can we speedy this per WP:CSD G7 then? Ydam 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, an admin has already vetoed that. This will head off to the garbage heap soon enough on its own. --NMChico24 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that was under WP:CSD A7. the article creater and contestor of the original speedy has stated he has no further objection to this deletion directly above Ydam 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could try it. I would probably place a message about it on the admin's talk page. Might get them to go ahead and close this out instead. --NMChico24 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless this race is nationally covered, or something else comes up to truly bring him into the public eye, then an encyclopedia entry is not warranted. If we had an article for everyone who ran for major public office, we'd have to include every single one of the 135 people who ran for Governor of California in the recall election of 2003. --NMChico24 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, candidates are not notable by dint of running for office alone. SM247My Talk 01:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Hampton[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 of the debate was merge to Sid Eudy. Kimchi.sg 16:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Leg Break[edit]

As per KickBoxer Snaps Leg afd, not notable or encyclopedic. Delete. -- The Anome 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You need a reason to delete, I don't understand your reason per policy. Ste4k 15:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sid Eudy ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 16:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge indeed Fram 18:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as well. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, likely not a meme properly so-called and not notable enough in its own right. SM247My Talk 01:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agree - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Anetode - the incident was externally linked in the Sid Eudy article (revision as of 10:32, 21 June 2006) before being superfluously split off. --DaveG12345 10:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This stands alone as an Internet Meme it needs to be seperate. Just because its popular culture doesn't mean it should be deleted.--Esemono 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, discounting both keep comments - first one unexplained, second one refuted adequately. This term seems to be an insignificant minority view of the conflict's history, and Wikipedia is not obliged to have every insignificant minority view. Kimchi.sg 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Somali Civil War[edit]

I searched google for "Second Somali Civil War", and I got one hit - someone's blog. Our Somali Civil War article makes it seem as though the first civil war is not considered to have ended yet. I asked on Talk:Second Somali Civil War a couple of weeks ago for someone to cite a source to support the validity of this article, but the only reply in support of the article was a blank assertion of validity with no supporting argument or sources. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete --Kennet.mattfolk 14:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a stub. Ste4k 15:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any verifiable sources for the article? Is anyone else besides the blog using this term? Any reliable sources that attribute the start of a civil war to the cited event? If verifiable reliable sources can't be found it is original research. Weregerbil 16:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know. You might want to check the history and ask. I do know, though, that the stubs are basically the outer reaches of intellect where the encyclopedia is hoping somebody would like to do the research on a new article. I'll change my vote if it's not a regular stub. Ste4k 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that what makes the difference between this and a regular stub is that not only is there a lack of evidence to establish its verifiability, but there's an abundance of evidence to refute it. Everyone seems to agree that the first war hasn't ended, and google turns up no results for the phrase. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment all the info in this article can be found in Somali Civil War. is there any valid source that says there is a seperate second war? if not, redirect to Somali Civil War. --Samael775 17:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still part of the Somali Civil War, I was not aware there had been any break in instability or conflict. SM247My Talk 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like someone has arbitrarily decided that the "First Somali Civil War" abruptly ended and that the "Secondly Somali Civil War" abrubtly commenced in the same instant! I'm confident that history will assert otherwise. --Jacknstock 02:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Kimchi.sg 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara County Routes[edit]

This is a list of non-notable roads, with all but two redlinked. The two which are completed are very brief statements which states where it starts, ends and what cities it travels through. The list was created May 11 and it has not been acted upon since. Nominating also the two completed entries, Route 2 and Route 3. Gay Cdn 14:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as per the above reasons:
Niagara County Route 2
Niagara County Route 3

--Gay Cdn 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 No content whatsoever. Ste4k 15:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the Department of Records for unnamed rural thoroughfares. --NMChico24 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ste4k. SM247My Talk 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as CSD A7-group. Xoloz 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Monoux College Student Council[edit]

Even assuming it were cleaned up, wikified and made NPOV, this is still a minor subset of what may or may not be a notable school. School societies and other internal bodies should be in main articles where the school itself is sufficiently notable to have a main article Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Metros232 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR Ste4k 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete High school (sixth form college, actually) student council looks good on the university application, but not otherwise notable. Fan1967 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations which exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about Sir George Monoux College. --Metropolitan90 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What information exists about the school is at the article for its founder, George Monoux. Fan1967 18:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. If the verifiability issues aren't cleared up such that all the maintenance tags ({{OR}} et al) aren't removed by consensus in a reasonable period of time, this article should be relisted without prejudice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Buell Anderson[edit]

Also for deletion Endeavor Academy

I took a bit of time researching this, and although he looks like a swell guy, he simply doesn't meet WP:BIO- 432 Google. The school he started doesn't meet WP:ORG nor WP:CORP and after reading the links on both of the pages, they are mainly self-published resources. The Talk pages on the man have instructions on top and it looks like the area is being used by his fans which are old students (and some of which aren't exactly happy). I am nominating these articles to be deleted on the grounds that they haven't any reliable secondary sources, and are both completely original research. This article also uses sources written by the authors of the article, as well as one of the authors of this article being autobiographically close to the subject matter. Basically this article is was an attack page in disguise. Please see the cite listings again, the actual authors of the web sites are listed. The clear relationship of self-published resources should now be apparent. Please note the first diffthe intitial page, and a later diff. Make note of the editors names.

Ste4k 14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --NMChico24 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge bio (with much trimming) to the school article, Keep the school and tag for cleanup and sourcing. School is notable, especially given its triple standing as a school, a religious movement, and a planned community. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (or merge to Endeavor Academy -20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) The article is thoroughly-sourced and relatively NPOV. A Course in Miracles and related topics are a notable field of esoteric religion. Anderson is called the "Master Teacher" by an apparently large number of adherents. I disagree that the only sources are slef-published. On the contrary, the many reliable sources about him are proof of his notability. This page alone:[32] has links to two dozen newspaper articles about him. -Will Beback 08:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I checked that link and only found material written from a single source about alleged articles rather than links to two dozen various sources of actual newpaper articles. The owner of the web site you mentioned is Ross, Rick, living at [address removed], and does not appear to meet the criteria as a reputible secondary source. Ste4k 09:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The links in the articles are to reprints of articles from newspapers. Have you looked at them? Newspapers are reliable sources. I don't see why the webmaster's address is relevent. -Will Beback 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I have, please see my analysis of those on the accompanying Disscussion page. Thanks. Ste4k 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the lead, I found one credible resource for the entire article now. Please see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/06/48hours/main73248.shtml It should be noted here, however, that using this one source for the article would require such a rewrite to avoid WP:NOR that the content in both of these articles would basically all be deleted, since we can only reprint the facts from the sources that we have cited. Correct? Ste4k 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh I just noticed, that the words in the two versions of that article are different; i.e. the actual article from the CBS archives differs from the article printed on the web site. Does this answer your question a little more about published sources and especially in regards to WP:RS in section 6 where it mentions "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources"? Ste4k 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CBS News did a whole "48 Hours" segment on this group and you say they aren't notable? I think you've disproved your own case. -Will Beback 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you read the article that 48 hours wrote, it hasn't anything to do with the content in this article. That makes the content in this article original research. The article that 48 hours wrote, was apparently about a person who left the academy. If you feel that person should have an article of their own, then please feel free to write one. Thanks. Ste4k 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The piece is titled "Leaving Endeavor Academy". That makes its subject fairly clear. An article doesn't have to be 100% about a subject for it to be a useful source. As it happens the piece discusses Endeavor Academy and quotes Anderson. -Will Beback 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • But since there is nothing from the CBS article content that's included in the Wikipedia article content, the CBS article is basically just moot material. And for the same reasons, basically none of these sources are useful for anything. This pseudo-biography hasn't a leg to stand on. It's completely bogus, original research, and an attack page in disguise. We shouldn't be including things in this biography that aren't already published somewhere else. That's WP:OR in a nutshell. This has nothing to do with notability at all. If this person were notable in the least bit, then we would be able to find reliable sources that give biographical data on him. But there aren't any of those available, especially not in the list that is cited. Also, because we now know that this article was created as an attack page, it falls under WP:CSD#A6 criterion for speedy delete. Ste4k 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<-- "[W]e now know that this article was created as an attack page". How do we know this? -Will Beback 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The clear relationship of self-published resources should now be apparent. Please note the first diffthe initial page, and a later diff. Please note in the cited sources that the first three sources are web sites owned by the original author. Also notice the seventh cited source is a pointer to a web site owned by the other author whom claims to have been previously closely related with the subject-person of the bio. The content on those sites, and well as the content on the talk Discussion pages of the main article, should provide you with enough information to determine this for yourself. Ste4k 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, those are two links to the same diff. I'm not sure what the second diff is, but if it's anything like the first, it simply isn't proving what you say it's proving: "this article has inappropriate external links" has little or no connection with "this article was created as an attack page", much less proving it to be the case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please accept my apologies for the manual error. But also be aware that there are several topics being discussed here and these diffs are referring to the original authors of this biography. Here is the initial page. Make note of the editors names. Ste4k 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Strong Merge to Endeavor Academy. The original nomination reads as if it might have been made in good faith. His argument that sources do not exist if the only place they are readily available online are "personal websites" is a specious argument that has been tried before in other cases, and has been quite rightly rejected -- but it still might have been the argument of someone just very confused about whether Wikipedia values the letter of the rules or the spirit. But after that, Ste4k's behavior shows clear bad faith. Anyone can check it and see. Ste4k: "Oh I just noticed, that the words in the two versions of that article are different; i.e. the actual article from the CBS archives differs from the article printed on the web site." (emphasis in original) Reality: the only differences are paragraph breaks and a typo ("talkd") in the CBS version that does not appear in the version on the Ross site. Ste4k: "If you read the article that 48 hours wrote, it hasn't anything to do with the content in this article. That makes the content in this article original research. The article that 48 hours wrote, was apparently about a person who left the academy. If you feel that person should have an article of their own, then please feel free to write one." Reality: In the two segments that 48 Hours did on Chuck Anderson, individual couples (yes, couples, as opposed to "a person") are used as examples of what people say about Chuck Anderson, but Anderson is clearly the focus. In short: This is a very dishonest AfD; not only should the article be kept, but Ste4k should be chastised for acting so dishonestly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Update: Specifying my vote to be: Merge Charles Buell Anderson to Endeavor Academy, Strong Keep Endeavor Academy. The pretexts that have been offered for deletion are embarrassingly hollow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't anything in the current article that even remotely resembles the content of the CBS article as previously stated. Also, please keep good faith. Hadn't the admin been asking me the questions to investigate further, I wouldn't have ever found those articles on CBS. In a nutshell, those two CBS articles should have been used to create an article about people who have complaints about this person rather than siting a source that sourced a third party in a list of 22 different reprints, many of which aren't related. After reading your note, I went back to re-read again sentence per sentence the one article entitled "Leaving...". It appears that your analysis is correct at this time. Earlier this morning the quotation from Rick Ross, was changed to his own words. There isn't anything "wrong" with that, of course, since they were his own words and it is his own web site. However, clearly none of the information from his web site could reaonably be used in an unbiased fashion to create a biography for this other man. Therefore, we still have a biography which is bogus, and cited sources that are useless for anything related to such a biography. Ste4k 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't anything in the current article that even remotely resembles the content of the CBS article as previously stated. Whether that's true or false, that's irrelevant, because you started out this AfD arguing that a) he wasn't notable enough to meet WP:BIO and b) there were no reliable secondary sources. I think it's quite clear that both of those have been proven false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The burden of proof is on the author. Where is the proof that he meets WP:BIO? Where is the proof that there are reliable secondary sources for this article? Ste4k 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is also a burden of civility upon each editor to not perpetrate inanities such as "48 Hours is not a reliable secondary source." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And who said this? If you read my comments carefully you will note that I suggest using 48 hours directly. You will also note that the articles provided by 48 hours are superfluous since they are only speaking about other peoples' opinions. Yes, they say it is a fact that other people have complaints and negative opinions about Anderson. So what? You have a complaint about my nomination as well, should we call 48 Hours and see if we can get our names in this article since your complaint is about Anderson? I consider your implication rude, unfounded, and twisting facts rather than discussing criteria is detrimental rather than helpful. Ste4k 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wow. That last comment is completely devoid of any logic or reason. If a major news source prints an article which contains people talking about the subject of this Wikipedia article, then it certainly counts as a secondary source and deserves mention. "[S]hould we call 48 Hours and see if we can get our names in this article." This is playground level discourse. And ending it by accusing the editor of being rude, unfounded and twisting the facts is priceless. --Nscheffey(T/C) 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do you think so? What exact information should be added to Anderson's biography now in that regards? I noticed that you added the link to the page as a reference but failed to include any material on the page from the article you cited. Do you intend to add some original research saying something like, "two couples made complaints about Anderson"? Is there anything neutral at all about adding this link to the page? Can you explain simply what relationship it has to a person whom we haven't even a resource to know his age? Again, so what? There are millions of people that don't like other people for one reason or another. Do you believe that adding one more factual instance will somehow give Anderson more notability? How exactly can you justify such a link and still remain within the guidlines which state that articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind? How many thousands if not hundreds of thousands, of people have made public complaints in the regular media about President Bush? How many have made comments about him on more than one occassion? How come none of the literally hundreds of experts on small web-sites aren't adequately represented nor mentioned on our article about him? According to you: "If a major news source prints an article which contains people talking about the subject of this Wikipedia article, then it certainly counts as a secondary source and deserves mention." So why did you add the link and have nothing within it to mention? I also noticed that you reverted the article and added a link which was incorrectly supplied. Did you have any justification for your original research in that regard? Or did you just make an assumption that it was correct to begin with? Ste4k 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ste4k, please stop using the term "original research", since you evidently have no idea what it means. "Do you intend to add some original research saying something like, "two couples made complaints about Anderson"?" That is not original research, that is source-based research. If you are truly incapable of grasping the distinction then perhaps you should excuse yourself from editing on Wikipedia since you are apparently incapable of doing so non-disruptively. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the link recently, since policies do change, this is probably the issue. Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is original research. Please note the intent of the article in the first paragraph which plainly shows the intent of the original authors: "Anderson has a policy of seldom granting personal interviews. One of the results of this interview policy being that some facts and dates regarding his earlier life are less readily available. Still, many facts about his early life can be assembled from a few published documents." And this includes adding bits pieces of fifteen year old testamony from unreliable sources together to prove a point rather than simply report the facts. Beyond that, though, your misinterpretation of the laws involved regarding "A Course In Miracles" show only that you haven't bothered to read much about this man, or his involvement in this case. The District Court of New York has already established that the version of "The Course" which is associated with Charles Buell Anderson is not the same version of the course that you just linked again into his biography, and which is known at large by the trademark "ACIM". I appreciate that you at least brought the matter to discussion, but ADDING material which is patently false to an article carries with it the burden of proof of the author. Since this is your addition, now, I suggest that you remove it unless you can prove the opinon of the New York District Court incorrect. I removed it because I have read the court's opinion on the matter and per policy and per Jimbo Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Ste4k 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Let me cut through the rambling nonsense. The 48 Hours article is about criticism of Anderson. People looking for info on Anderson would probably want to see this. It belongs in external links. Ste4k what in the name of God are you talking about? Try to answer in one or two clear concise sentences. --Nscheffey(T/C) 09:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Let me give you a direct answer. If the only sources are external, and the rest article hasn't any sources, then what sort of content do you intend to have on the page to provide any context for those links? Let me provide a quick example. The very first clause of the thesis is "Charles Buell Anderson, born ca. 1926". We don't even have a source reference for that. Should it be deleted? Or just marked up like it is? According to the guidelines it should be deleted. Do you have a source that we can use to verify that very first clause? Ste4k 10:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references do not amount to much. The media sources are mainly local papers and radio. In my town we have a street beggar called Billy The Quid - he's appeared many times in the local media, but that doesn't make him suitable for entry in an international encyclopedia. That people are interested and have filled the Talk pages with comments suggests some interest, though almost all content has been written by one person for over a year. That the article is slanted with subtle but obvious comments against Charles Buell Anderson, with allegations of sexual and physical abuse, gives serious cause for concern. This is a living person in which the article makes serious allegations of sexual abuse based on internet forum gossip. I have removed those allegations. I am having a hard time seeing how the article can remain in its current form. And, as the man seems to be known mainly by his ex-students, his notabiliy even in a balanced article is questionable. SilkTork 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the references are discussed in detail on the Discussion page of the article in conversation between myself and editor/admin Will Beback -- Ste4k 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither of the 2 websources for this article ar WP:RS - they are primary source material from agenda-pushing groups. would change vote if neutral print secondary source could be found, as otherwise material is entirely unverifiable. Zzzzz 12:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Citations are not sufficient, and he's non-notable anyway. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into another ACIM article more upstream. This is just part of the ACIM Walled garden. --Pjacobi
  • Keep This person has been found to be notable by a number of newspapers TV shows, and radio shows. This satisfies the criteria for Wikipedia notability. The reports of charges of sexual abuse there are legally and publicly documented. The reports of harboring sexual offenders there are legally documented. I am not certain why certain Wiki editors hold that press notability is no longer a suitable criteria for inclusion in Wiki. -Scott P. 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were you under the impression that he was notable last year when you created a talk page to try and find out any information about him? Have you been able to establish any more notability since that time? Ste4k 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge with Endeavor Academy. Anderson and the Endeavor Academy are examined, and Anderson is quoted, in a two part 48 hours special. Not sure why people think there arent any sources for this guy or that he and his organization are non-notable. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well for one, the 48 hours article is only talking about one guy's opinion. And for two, there isn't even any mention of anyone named Anderson in the court case. The court case does however go into pretty much detail about all the actual people involved, including things like where they worked, how much money they made, etc. etc. Like I said before, if you think that a couple shows about some guy complaining about some other guy regarding something that happened nearly ten years ago is worth an article, then maybe you should write one because there isn't any information from that CBS article that's in either of these two articles nominated for deletion. So what's merging a bunch of unsourced information going to do? Ste4k 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article written in 1999: "Ross believes that Anderson's sway over those in the Academy could end tragically. Using the example of Marshall Applewhite, who led all 38 members of the Heaven's Gate cult to mass suicide two years ago, Ross says Anderson's leadership role could be a prescription for tragedy." Okay, so, it's been like seven years now. (*yawn*) Looks like Ross was wrong. So who cares? Don't you think the encyclopedia should sort of wait for something to occur before reporting it? No wonder none of this source was ever put into the article! Ste4k 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, non-notable figure, and citations are not reliable sources. Find some and I may change my mind. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For Christ's sake! CBA spearheaded and overthrew the copyright to one of the best-selling spiritual books of the 20th century. Endeavor Academy is listed on many cult lists, and was featured on a major newsprogram.... something similar to 60 minutes. Sethie 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must have read something to that effect, do you have a source? According to the U.S. District Court, this man the organization that students associate with this man (his name isn't even mentioned in the lawsuit) was sued by Penguin Books and was the defendant in that trial. The "major newsprogram", 48hours has already been discussed. It was an interview with a witch hunter who made quite a few claims seven years ago that never came true. Do you think we should be reporting failed prophecy? The segment was actually more about the witch hunters than the subjects they hunted. The most we could say would be "one witch hunter thought that this person would commit mass murder" and even that statement would be original research since it was also not published anywhere. Ste4k 11:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep: Obscure content isn't harmful, so these articles should not be judged according to notability. The articles should be kept given that:
  1. in principle verifiable matters of fact (where Endeavor Academy is located, when it was founded, etc.) are either tagged (if they are sourceless), or given sources. Sources for this information need not be strictly reliable secondary sources, but should be qualified as such if they don't meet this criteria.
  2. all synthetic, normative claims, espectially those relating to the character or credibility of Endeavor Academy, Charles Anderson, or any other individual, institution, or text related to ACIM, is removed, unless they are statements from strictly reliable secondary sources. It should be explicit that claims of character or credibility are made according to the source in the article body.
—Antireconciler 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I've already mentioned that if all of the synthesized information were removed, there really wouldn't be anything left in this article for it to meet WP:BIO. Whatever this man is supposed to have done in the past, didn't happen, is old news, and one interview about some equally un-notable person complaining about him seven years ago looks more like the complaintant was cheated out of his share of a con-game if you ask me. In that article from 48 hours he even says that he used to be Anderson's right hand man. If Anderson is some kind of con-man, that doesn't give this other guy much credibility. The whole article reeks of disgruntled people that knew this man personally. In itself that doesn't make the subject notable, on the contrary, it's a pretty good reason to toss the article into the bit-bucket, since all of these sources are then primary sources which we aren't allowed to be using per WP:VER Ste4k 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since new reliable information about Charles Anderson is unlikely, and the page is very short, I've merged his biographical information with Endeavor Academy. I've also removed non-neutral, unverified information from Endeavor Academy. I revote:
—Antireconciler 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of diabetics[edit]

Delete. Currently there are no sources to back up any of names on the list, even after User:Stifle added an unreferenced tag back in April. And if we did have a complete list sources you'd end up a humungous list of references as long as the list of names. This would be handled much better as a cat, which we already have Category:Diabetics, where you would hope each article with the cat would include sources to back up the claim that the person in diabetic. AlistairMcMillan 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unreferenced and probably likely to stay that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere. Ste4k 15:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone wants to add citations to each entry. --NMChico24 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ste4k. SM247My Talk 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and sow with salt. Inherently unmaintainable listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete List of autistic people while your at it. It is valuable information. Falconleaf 2:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That is a verified and fully sourced list and about a condition which is generally more easy to verify by way of behavioural mannerisms and the like. SM247My Talk 06:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toys timeline[edit]

A list that could go on forever and has little encyclopedic value. There's no criteria for inclusion in this and why certain things are on here makes me scratch my head. And where the heck is the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls of the 80s? Metros232 15:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' recommended actions[edit]

  • Delete per nomination. By the way, if anyone is wondering why "Editors' recommended actions" appears here and for a few entries below on the daily AfD log, the header was added to the template briefly per discussion on Template talk:Afd2, but was removed shortly afterwards because it didn't work well in practice. --Metropolitan90 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely daft, presumably would include anything and everything children play with, (possibly even includes adult toys...for adults, obviously...), over thousands of years. SM247My Talk 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Seth Finkelstein. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was no consensus. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 18:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actress Hands[edit]

Fails notability. Ideogram 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angst Productions[edit]

Fails notability. Ideogram 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete and merge to Dntel. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antihouse[edit]

Fails notability. Ideogram 15:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dntel notable according to WP:MUSIC? Ideogram 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artmajeur[edit]

Fails notability. Appears to be a marketing blurb. Ideogram 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AutoPacific[edit]

Fails notability. Appears to be a marketing blurb. Ideogram 16:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-beast[edit]

Incomprehensible. Ideogram 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 16:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useful only for a subset of people familiar with the subject matter. Very little activity on this article since its creation, which indicates no one really reads it. --NMChico24 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. SM247My Talk 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Hilton Head Island Resort[edit]

Not notable. Appears to be an advertisement. Ideogram 16:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veotag[edit]

Closer's notes
In determining the final consensus, the comments of unregistered users were disregarded. The comments of Glen63d, whose only contributions to this date have been to this debate, were also disregarded.

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Some Google hits [33], but only a small fraction of those are unique, and none that meet WP:WEB's criteria of the site being "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." This article is also the next logical step in a spamming campaign by My Three Sons (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and his IP 69.142.234.133 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log), during which he has been spamming links to veotag and a site that is affiliated with veotag and now wikilinks to this article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Zos 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: This is an incredibly useful tool for online video content, and it would be a loss to the online community were information about veotag not accessible on Wikipedia. I understand that the service is new, thus explaining why it does not have many Google hits and the like. The burden of evidence lies with those wishing to delete this article; that veotag is free to individuals alone ought be convincing enough that this factual article is not part of a "spamming campaign." In any event, I see no harm in allowing this article to continue to exist on Wikipedia, exposing users to a tool meant to help disseminate information, much as Wikipedia is meant to do. --Glen63D 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's useful, doesn't mean it's notable. --NMChico24 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On notability, from Wikipedia's entry: "Many editors also believe that it is fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." A Google search for "veotag" results in 30,000 hits; obviously not all of these hits are useful or reliable sources, but the 126 that Google considers unique each explain, separately, what the service is from what can only be considered a netural point of view. Considering that notability in and of itself is not a formal Wikipedia policy, and that veotag seems to meet the most succinct "test" available to meet said criterion even though it is not a formal policy, veotag ought not be deleted. --Glen63D 11:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Veotag appears to be a promising technology addressing an important Video Usalibity problem on Internet. I see no reason why it should not be covered on Wikipedia. The technology may not have had widespread commercial success yet but it works and the result for end-users is very appealing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.94.25 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete: Veotag is a tremendous resource that I would not have used had I not found it on Wikipedia. It seems that there is a lot of discussion about the policies of your website, but have any of you actually used veotag's service? It is definitely worth trying before you make a decision about deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.99.52.136 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The veotag offering does meet the criteria to be included in Wikipedia because it addresses the the fastest growth area of the internet ( online streaming video, long format in particular ) with a set end user tools that are destined to be prolific. While it might not have widespread public relations machine of a YouTube or Google Video, it does have significant adoption of online education thought leaders like Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York , The New York Better Business Bureau, the Catholic Church, and a consortium of Nine Universities in Scotland. The offering is notable as it is an enabling technology that makes long format videos easier to view, easier to understand, and by submitting the annotations and comments to search engines, easier to find. By deleting the page prior to viewing veotagged videos by Jazz at Lincoln Center (Jazz at Lincoln Center Distance Education ) or the videos from Princeton or Stanford Universities ( Princeton & Stanford Lecture Series Videos) would be a deriliction of duty for the wikipedia editors and a disservice to the wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete currently not notable. Maybe this will merit an article in the future, but it does not appear to now. --Pboyd04 23:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Perhaps the forum entry is being misunderstood as advertising. There are 2 reasons why veotag should stay in the wikipedia:

First, veotag does something new and unusual. It participates in the web in a new way by automatically exporting the tags created in a video to all the major search engines. Thus the use of the product adds to overall semantic information in the WWW. This feature allows people to open any video like a book for reference changing it from a long pipe to something that can be accessed randomly.

At last count, there were more than 29000 entries on Google for veotag - many of them differ in a way which is non-trivial. Quite a few blogs are using the product as a way of telling their story more effectively.

It would seem appropriate to add this to the list of entries be-- 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)cause it is not something for the dictionary but is of public interest -

Veotag is a method and way of indexing video. It happens to be a company. Google, Is also a company on Wikipedia. What do both the Veotag entry and Google have in common? They define to the public what they are and there basic technology method. What happens when someone tells me to veotag my video. "What is veotagging?" I say. I go to Wikipedia and find out.--Jkarol 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.76.11 (talk • contribs) The above comment was copied here from the "discussion" section on "veotag" article proper. It made sense as a clear argument for "Do not Delete". Other such comments can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Veotag --216.216.76.11 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition reimbursement[edit]

Non-encyclopedic style. Appears to have been copied from a pamphlet. Ideogram 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. Zos 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it serves no encyclopedic purpose, been taged for clean up 7 months ago with no real work done on it.--Gay Cdn 18:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Copyvio [34]. I tagged it as such. --NMChico24 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. SM247My Talk 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Überculture[edit]

NPOV. Appears to be a marketing blurb. Ideogram 16:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails a number of things. Zos 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ironically, it has (proportionately) more buzzwords than your average corporate press release --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a press release. Makes no claims of notability. --DarkAudit 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. SM247My Talk 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramai Pandit[edit]

It is unencyclopaedic to write a bio with a birth range of 500 years. Non-notable. Delete BlueValour 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; Google also returns few hits on "Ramai Pandit" and none on "Ramai the Wise". Kalani [talk] 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. Zos 17:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the Shunya Purana is the most ancient scripture on the Dharma cult and is ascribed to Ramai Pandit. Not a lot is known about him - hence the [12th-16th century] date range. Google returns far more hits that would be expected for a Bengali of that era. See e.g. [35], [36], [37], [38] Dlyons493 Talk 19:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dlyons. The 500 year span is irrelevant to notablilty in this case. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (changed to Speedy keep): I think the original author of the page had small typos, but that's not the ground for the AfD. I'll add references to it, but for now, please refer to Banglapedia here and here. Ramai Pandit is one of the mediaeval Bengali language poets. Thanks. --Ragib 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by now, I've added 5 references, 2 from Banglapedia (a print encyclopedia), 1 from a European conference on south asian studies, 1 from a book by Edward Washburn Hopkins, and 1 from an article from Orissa Review. I guess we can close this AfD as Speedy Keep now. --Ragib 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established, beware of cultural imperialism. SM247My Talk 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "It is unencyclopaedic to write a bio with a birth range of 500 years." - don't agree. When people talk about Non-notability, they betray a lack of knowledge of the history of Buddhism in South Asia--ppm 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - somewhat patronising I think. The dramatic narrowing of the dates makes my point that the original entry was unencyclopaedic. However, in view of the changes this has now become a useful addition to WP so I am happy to say ...
  • Admin - Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn. An improved article is always a good result to an AfD. BlueValour 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ragib, who is improving the article vastly. ImpuMozhi 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I applaud BlueValour for withdrawing the AfD nomination. Deleting this article would be a shameful example of ethnocentrism. --Jacknstock 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable, ad (created by owner of forum). Forum has less than <1000 messages and almost no recent activity.--Eloquence* 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamingdump.com[edit]

Looks like just one more gaming forum. Seems to fail WP:WEB by a wide margin (Alexa rank around 2 million). Fan1967 16:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Zos 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the forum itself doesn't exactly alay the nom's claims Ydam 17:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable gaming forum. --FlyingPenguins 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Electric Duck Experience, Ltd.[edit]

Appears to be better-written than the average band vanity, but not a very notable group [39]. — Jul. 1, '06 [17:05] <freak|talk>

  • Delete. Almost being on a game soundtrack isn't quite enough, and nothing else in the article meets WP:MUSIC --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, something like 20 units Ghits, painfully non-notable. SM247My Talk 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --bainer (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11_+_The_Neo-Con_Agenda_Symposium[edit]

non-notable conference largely ignored by most media Tom Harrison Talk 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for every conference held...completely non notable. There are hundreds of conferences and conventions held everyday around the world that are no more or less interesting than this one is, and we don't report them. Wikipedia is not an info board.--MONGO 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think the involvement of both Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen provide a level of notability. Plus coverage by Al-Jazeera, a notable new source, gives it credibility - the lack of Western media coverage is understandable given the nature of the topic spoken about.--Gay Cdn 17:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this seems notable enough for our standards. --Guinnog 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep 1200 people saying "USA did it" + Al jazeera coverage = nn?! Why i am not surprised? For God's sake, just look at the participants list... --Striver 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 1,200 people doesn't seem to be worthy of encyclopedia coverage, no matter what they're saying. Al Jazeera is a major news channel with certain political biases, and like any major news channel with certain political biases (as well as most other kinds of major news media - which are all biased in some way of course), they will cover events which would be judged trivial by encyclopedia standards (or is wikipedia going to start articles for every single event with 1,000+ people with a few celebrities in the history of the world now?). Many stories covered by major news channels are not encyclopedic. Celebrities go to a lot of unencyclopedic events. Nothing notable by wikipedia standards here Bwithh 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"1,200 people doesn't seem to be worthy of encyclopedia coverage"? Please see: EMD SW900, The Headington Shark and Goatse.cx. --Striver 00:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... you seem to be directing me to totally random Wikipedia articles? I don't see your point at all. A train, an art sculpture and a shock website? Bwithh 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you seem to put the notability bar way to high compared to where the bar is for other wikipedia articles.--Striver 03:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see at all how those article examples fall under my notability bar. They have a degree of uniqueness and encyclopedic interest above any old gathering with 1,000+ people with a political point and some minor news coverage Bwithh 19:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, there are citations to other wikipedia articles and other web sites which shouldnt be used. Zos 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that wikipedia article should no interwikilink? That was a new one...--Striver 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate keep, the media mentions rank this a bit higher than normal conspiracy crank nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established. SM247My Talk 00:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but please cleanup. It's mostly a link farm, presumably in anticipation of claims that it's non-notable or a hoax. It looks real and notable, but it currently reads like drivel. LotLE×talk 05:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's notable enough. --Musicpvm 08:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that ever made the local news. Kook-konference-kruft. -- GWO
  • Delete per MONGO, GWO. This is a recent topic, and may have been newsworthy, but falls below encyclopedia-worthy. And Charlie Sheen having been there does not help it out, it makes it fancruft (the argument, not the article.) KillerChihuahua?!? 10:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you argue this is not a "fancruft"? Please read WP:CRUFT and tell me why its ok to have a millon articles on this random thing, but anything with regards to 9/11 truth is deleted? --Striver 13:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, you could propose for deletion some of these examples you are always citing. If I know about them, I will probably support you. Tom Harrison Talk 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And get accused of WP:POINT? No thank you. --Striver 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison is right. I think you should go ahead and AFD nominate Cosmic Era Mobile Units and other crufty articles which upset you. People do it all the time (but not enough) and it's the right thing to do. I'll support you too. Go on, take the first step!! Tom and I will help you fend off the enraged fanboys Bwithh 19:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, don't go and nominate a dozen articles, or all the articles about anime; that would be disrupting to make a point. Just nominate one or two that meet the criteria and see how it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure, since you two wish it. --Striver 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{afd}} did'nt work!? --Striver 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, please provide a arguement. --Striver 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why dont you try to quote the parts that does assert notability? Here:
The event was covered by Reuters[2], Al-Jazeera[3], The Washington Post [4], the Turkish Zaman [5] and Metro Stockholm[6], quoting from Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå[6].
All those people did not report on empty empty chairs, you know.--Striver 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though this article, like various others, will be used as a stage to promote a certain POV that is not reason enough to delete it. I believe notability has already been established by reliable sources. One participant in particular, Ray McGovern for instance, has been interviewed in prominent sources such as The Newshour with Jim Lehrer [40], NPR's All Things Considered [41], etc...--Jersey Devil 00:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow! that was really unexpected. Peace. --Striver 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire name only gives 1 (one) hit: [42]. But try this: [43]. And who cares for google when you have all the mainstream references? The odd name makes it hard to google, people dont bother to type the entire name. --Striver 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Nodd[edit]

This article is about a webcomic that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. It's only been online a few days and has less than 30 strips. It's premature for a Wikipedia article, though I have copied it over to Comixpedia at Land of Nodd –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - I have to agree with the nominator about not meeting WP:WEB, it was added to Onlinecomics.net June 28th and has only had 38 hits. While I have added it to my own favourates, it does not belong here... yet!--Gay Cdn 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources means no encyclopedia article. -- Dragonfiend
  • Delete per above, only a week old. SM247My Talk 00:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETED. Vanity/OR.--Eloquence* 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full metal wrestling[edit]

Something made up in school one day. Ghits: [44] --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete small backyard promotion and the brainchild of teenage friends Sam Moffatt and Jarvis. says it all really Ydam 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AbsolutDan. PRODed on 29 June and seconded. --DarkAudit 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Danny Lilithborne 21:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GSL Chamomile[edit]

"GSL Chamomile" has no hits in Google other than its use in Wikipedia. The name apparently refers to a new subspecies being worked on. This does not appear to be encyclopedic at this time. Brian Kendig 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nom vote. - Brian Kendig 13:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like a WP:SPAM Ydam 17:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the above, and the author's name is the same as the brainchild in the article, Gymshorts; likely a vanity page.--Gay Cdn 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. "World Herb Fair"? [45] --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-authored spam. SM247My Talk 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNH Cheer[edit]

Non-notable - while the school this originated in may be notable, this cheer is not. Few Google hits on the subject and parts of the lyrics. Kalani [talk|esp] 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Schoolsongcruft Computerjoe's talk 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schoolcruft. No reason given as to why this might be notable. Ydam 17:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at first thought it could be merged into the UofNH athletics section, but a notation about the cheer is already there, just not the cheer itself.--Gay Cdn 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete practically no room to expand and devoid of real content or notability. SM247My Talk 00:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Updated article to include lyrics, as well as background on the original piece. Will solicit additional information for this article from the Pep Band. --Rob McDougall 06:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Lai[edit]

Non notable software/web developer Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfy. --bainer (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Determinism and Randomness[edit]

  • Article presents many POV issues. Grendel 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No references, so at this point it looks like WP:OR --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and an essay. SM247My Talk 00:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOR & NPOV fail. Also redundant, since Determinism and Randomness already exist. Original title of this was Determinism and Randomness for a lay man, which is now a redirect. Suggest both be deleted.--DaveG12345 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as artificial conflation of two topics in order to contrast and present original research. Wikipeida is not a debate hosting grounds; this is akin to a POV fork - an artificially created article in order to present a bias. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but a good starting point for an interesting debate (on some other site). 66.243.196.131 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can This article be merged with the main Determinism article? This article was created primarily because main article has serious issues .It simultaneously deals with philosophical and scientific views of determinism, going into too much depth into either aspects,failing to provide a concise and understandable explanation of the theory,atleast to the average wikipedian .As you can see this article only deals with the scientific aspect of determinism (not just at the quantum level but the broader aspect of it). I am sorry for not adding any external links or references; that will be done shortly.Kindly choose which is more appropriate:
  1. Let the article remain in wikipedia after the addition of external links and references.
  2. Merge the article with the main determinism article in some way or editing the main article atleast to make it more understandable,etc.
  3. Delete the article altogether.
Raghavb 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The primary problem with the article (in my opinion) is that it's written like an essay. I'm not sure the topic could realistically be written otherwise, but I could certainly be wrong. However with this AfD expiring so soon, I suggest copying it all to a subpage of your userpage ("userfying" it) and working on it there. If you want to do this you can indicate it here and I can help you out, or the closing admin can userfy it for you (I think).
If/when you can improve it to meet WP guidelines for an article, perhaps you could mention it on the talk page of the original article or some other place where experts on the topic can discuss it. If it's then deemed to be appropriate for the main namespace, it can always easily be moved (or a deletion review could be requested).
The point is, even if this article is deleted, it doesn't have to be the "end of the line" for the topic, if it can truly be turned into a good article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Raghavb: The article still poses no relevancy to begin with. Wikipedia's Determinism article is very detailed, and covers pretty much all aspects of this sphere of philosophy. Your article, at best, is an opinioned and highly dumbed down version for laymen. It reads like a poor essay lacking any sense of neutrality, though tries desperately to present itself as irrefragably factual -- more so with your recent edits, which contain phrases such as "many philosophers accept so and so to be true," although such statements lack any citation. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for POV-pushing. The article needs to be removed. Also, Causal Determinism is likely nothing more than an attempt to resurrect this article, and should be deleted just as well. If you have anything important to contribute regarding Determinism, then please do so in the main article.
We can't have entries about an individual's opinions and beliefs being littered about Wikipedia. It's simply a waste of bandwidth. Grendel 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I also move that this be deleted. As pointed out above, if you have anything to contribute to Determinism, (that is, provided that it is actually relevant and does not lack citation) then do so within the main article. Grendel 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i created the article and i want it deleted.POV and NOR issues hav been dealt with.
    the entire contents of this article are being moved to Causal Determinism as they are more appropriate
    under that heading .The article on Causal Determinism is presently a stub.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Geelong[edit]

Listcruft, pure and simple. Kookykman|(t)e 18:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this list is majority redlinks even the links that are valid are not directed at the correct person, ie James Austin was a famous Toronto, Ontario, Canada businessman - if it is kept for some reason, the title needs to be updated to include state and country information. Weak Keep if it is going to be useful and worked on.--Gay Cdn 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (update --Gay Cdn 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment Why, how many other Geelongs are there? SM247My Talk 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good question. It would be excessively bureaucratic to move the article to something like "List of mayors of Geelong, Victoria, Australia" as if there are other Geelongs with which this one might be confused. --Jacknstock 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, its a sarcastic rhetorical question. There's no need to disambiguate it because there's only one. SM247My Talk 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Geelong is the second biggest city in Victoria and one of the 10 biggest cities in Australia. Australia should not be disrespected like this in my opinion. Ramseystreet 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we have similar lists of mayors of other cities. Article should be reorganized by year though. BoojiBoy 22:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it should be moved to 'Geelong, Victoria, Australia' (or such like) and reoganised into date order with dates added. The links should be corrected where necessary. Peterkingiron 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - assume work in progress, at least as worthy for inclusion as many other topics. Links should be corrected; query if many of these people will get their own articles other than a mention here. I would prefer to see the list organised chronologically.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as A Y Arktos and Ramseystreet --Bduke 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have a lot of activity as a working list for building information. Assigned to a project and clearly defined. Kuru talk 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Kuru Grey Shadow 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep part of WikiProject Geelong, will presumably be fitted out properly soon. SM247My Talk 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and reprimand nominator. Rebecca 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup links as per above. Personally, I think that the article could do with explanation of the position of mayor of Geelong. Some of these mayors may not be notable but the article could outline them chronologically. These are matters for the talk page rather than a reason for deletion. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful list. Also, mayors of Geelong are notable so it will aid in further developing Australian content. --Jacknstock 03:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a work in progress. - Longhair 02:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kuru. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-arrange chronologically, as per Capitalistroadster. QazPlm 00:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Geelong or City of Greater Geelong. List is too short to warrant own page at present. —Pengo 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you looked at it when we were in middle of sorting the alphabetical list into the shiny new chronological version. --Jacknstock 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with City of Greater Geelong. At the moment there is not really any extra info about how the mayoralty system works, etc, so best to merge I feel.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator[edit]

  • When in doubt, consider using the {{notability}} tag. Ticking off these 'Cats is probably a bad idea... Folajimi 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: The Movie[edit]

For starters, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And gosh, this isn't even on IMDB. —Whomp [T] [C] 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Sufficiently notable.--Eloquence* 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kaye[edit]

Failed candidate for a minor political party as a Delete:

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same criteria applies:

BlueValour 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Are the Greens a major party in Australia? I'm leaning delete here, but need some more info. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nope; the composition of their House of Representatives is here which has Labour, Liberal, Country Liberal, Independent and Nationals but no Greens.
  • Comment Please disregard the above, the Australian Greens are obviously a notable party. Look at the Australian Senate for a start, where they presently have 4 of 76 senators and are vital to the opposition vote, despite the fact that the government has control. SM247My Talk 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are in to interesting semantics here :-) Notable in that they some influence perhaps but not a major party - major parties have seats in the lower house of any parliament. BlueValour 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but you appear to have no idea how the Australian political or electoral systems work, particularly with respect to the power balance and interplay between parties and preferences in the Senate. Note also that they polled around 7% of the primary vote in both houses, despite that they didn't pick up a seat in the lower house. As one who lives and votes here, please take my word for it, the Greens are notable. Any Australian will tell you likewise. This question is academic, as this person would not be notable even if he were an ALP or Liberal nominee. SM247My Talk 00:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but you appear to have not to have read my comment. I accept that they are notable but, in my view, not a major party - 7% is not what a major party polls in my view - notable, influential, I'm happy to take your word for. To provide an example, in the UK the 'United Kingdom Independence Party' is both notable and influential but no-one would describe them as a major party. BlueValour 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did read your comment. The point is, why are you even raising the issue? My argument is that he would not be notable even if he was a major party candidate as he is not yet elected. SM247My Talk 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I raised the issue because Youngamerican asked the question. This came up when we were debating deletes of USA and UK candidates. YA considers candidates from major parties worth an article; I take your view and say it depends on the candidate. Anyway, its been an interesting discussion and as a result I now know a bit more about Aussie politics! BlueValour 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are a notable party, but Senate candidates in Australia generally are not just by dint of running for office, becuase of the way the proportional voting system works. This guy isn't notable. Only recreate if elected to the NSW Legislative Council at next election (not until next year). SM247My Talk 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Kaye. He gets 77 results in a search of an Australia New Zealand media database and there is enough verifiable info about him to write an article. Keep David Risstrom. There are 134 returns in an Australian New Zealand database so there is enough verifiable material available to allow a reasonable article to be written. Jenny Leong is more of a borderline case with 14 articles returned mainly on the topic of gay marriage. The John Kaye article is well written too and not the usual dump of his campaign brochure which is a bonus. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kaye, delete Leong no opinion on Risstrom. My reasoning is purely practical: Kaye is second on the Greens' announced ticket [46] for the next NSW Legislative Council election, which is just around the corner. Seems a waste of time to delete only to have to recreate next year. Leong won't be on that ballot, which means she's not likely to win any seat anytime soon. Nick 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all 3; agree Leong is more marginal but she pooled significant percentage of the primary vote and may appear elsewhere - thus adequately notable and definitely verifiable. Other two as per comemnts by Nick and Capitalistroadster--A Y Arktos\talk 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Greens candidates who head the Senate ticket in a State. The way the Senate vote goes there is always a strong possibility that they will be elected. The Greens are now the strongest party outside the Coalition parties in government and the Labor Party, as the Democrats vote has crashed. --Bduke 09:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Kaye and Risstrom were very narrowly defeated in 2004 and in circumstances which were fairly controversial involving other parties preference deals. This should ensure their continuing relevance if not the fact that Kaye (at least) is a current candidate likely to win a state seat in 2007. --Chris Maltby 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Kaye. The 2007 campaign is very much under way already and the election is less that a year away. Kaye is a prominent candidate with good prospects of entering the parliament. --Wm 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kaye and Risstrom. I think the lead candidate on a Greens senate ticket is notable, even if others are questionable, as they have a significant chance of winning a seat. Nick's reasoning is also a good reason to keep Kaye. Not sure one Leong, but 21% of the vote in Sydney in 2004, seems reasonably notable. JPD (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Risstrom in particular is highly notable - his campaign was a high-profile one, and he only missed out on a Senate seat by a freak consequence of the preferential voting system. I'd also argue that Kaye is notable, and I see no reason to delete Leong. Rebecca 05:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable yet, and besides, many of us wanted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Yusuf and he got a higher proportion than these candidates.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that Irfan Yusuf's page survived this process. As for the vote count, Yusuf got 14,364 votes in an electorate where he had no chance of winning whereas Kaye received 291,845 and missed out on election by 0.5% of the total vote in circumstances which remain significant. Yusuf has vanished without trace from the political process, whereas Kaye is now contesting a winnable seat. Whatever the deletion rules are they should be applied without bias. --Chris Maltby 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. —Pengo 06:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable political candidate.--Peta 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up for NPOV. I wanted to know more about him, after reading something in the newspaper, and (of course) Wikipedia was my first stop. Sam Wilson 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Sorensen[edit]

reads like a copy and paste job of her resume. She lost sometime in mid-May in the primary [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637528/posts]. Metros232 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good find. Speedy delete if possible, as it's obviously a wonton pasting of non-free text from an external source (though it exceeds the silly 48-hour thing). — Jul. 1, '06 [19:26] <freak|talk>
    • Yeah, I can't find a source of where it's taken from, I assume her campaign site which has been taken down it appears. Metros232 19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete speedy may not be available, but this is blatant Vanispamcruftisement and soapboxing; it is not an article at all. SM247My Talk 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completly unencyclopedic.--Gay Cdn 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. --Brad101 05:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete; created by mistake. DS 02:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (1912)[edit]

The article is an exact duplicate of Black Friday (1910), and the event covered happened in 1910. - Tamino 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements (rolling papers)[edit]

Looks like spam, the product (a brand of thin rice cigarette papers) is probably not very notable. Prod contested. Ioannes Pragensis 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Mostly unsourced POV. BlueValour 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author must be an afficionado, this isn't the only brand he created an article for. See Pay-Pay also. Fan1967 21:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE! I am the author and yes I am a true aficionado. I write for two tobacco industry publications and I use RYO as a hobby and lifestyle. I have touched up the page and will replace the images to try and make it more suitable (if you feel it needs that). I tried to just create a simple page to get a discussion going, but it seems you guys want me to spend more time writing instead of just starting it. OK< I am writing away. --Mrtobacco 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Un-verified or -sourced POV and reads practically like adspam. SM247My Talk 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable product. --Musicpvm 08:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE! Again I spent a lot of time writing that, if you feel it is not a notable product please first confirm that you are an enthusiast of Cigarette Papers. I am trying to get other enthusiasts / collectors to post more info and such, but if someone who doesn't even smoke is allowed to delete an article written by someone who does (and is an authority on such), that wouldn't seem quite fair. I don't think I wrote it as promotional text but please feel free to modify it to make it less promotional and more informative. The text I have added and others have added to the Zig Zag & JOB pages is quite similar so I don't understand the difference really? Article has been redone, anything that seemed promotional is gone and thus hopefully it now passes muster. Please post your opinion below, new opinions should be placed towards the top since the changes of JULY 3, 2006;--Mrtobacco 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Dear Mrtobacco, it is not a good idea to remove the first deletion reason in the heading of the article (or any other texts here unless they are clear vandalisms). Moreover all Wikipedians are allowed to speak here, both smokers and non-smokers.
    • Regarding your claims: Please, give us some reasons why to believe that the brand is notable and that the article is not pure advertising. For example: It is a very old brand (say 30+ years in existence)? Is there a book or film where it is prominently featured? Is it the market leader? - I think that most of us would like to keep the article in Wikipedia, but it should contain strong and sourced reasons why the brand is notable. Please read WP:V and WP:IMP. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am sorry but I don't know enough about the brand to respond to your questions. For me it is very notable because it's the only gummed rice paper that is still produced. I like the marketing of it (the Elements girls and the holographic packages) and I really like the way it burns. It's my favorite white paper, and based on my collection of more then 1,000 packs, for me to say that it really does mean a lot. I don't know the sales data nor the full history (or if it's been in movies etc..) although I have emailed the manufacturer to ask.
  • delete as per SM247 Pete.Hurd 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Pete- see above that Sm247 was before article was updated--216.65.228.166 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion still stands in respect of the current version, it has not improved sufficiently. SM247My Talk 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you mind re-writing it in a way that you feel is better then? Or perhaps showing me some product articles that you think are better? Also please just be really sure that you are not an anti-tobacco person :( They always hate me :( --Mrtobacco 11:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am unashamedly anti-tobacco, but don't take it personally. :) I just don't think this product is notable enough for Wikipedia. It is important we have articles about smoking and tobacco paraphernalia, but not to the point of a page for each brand and product. It's not really a question of rewriting. SM247My Talk 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you, Mrtobacco, perhaps include the information from this article into an article with broader scope, e.g. Rolling papers?--Ioannes Pragensis 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ug, you're one of those people that hate me eh :( OK sure I certainly do not have the Wiki experience that you do, and I will therefore bow-out and do my best to add that text to a different page. I'm reluctant to add it to the Rolling Papers page because any talk of brands there leads a user named "Lostsociety" to put in blurbage about his company's products (Bambu). Ie if I talk about JOB Rolling papers being the top seller in Chicago, he will delete that and replace it with Bambu related text every time. Maybe you would consider locking the Rolling papers and Bambu articles to stop this barrage of gunfire from him (he uses other aliases as well)? When I get back from Virginia (running around in the tobacco fields....), I will try to dig deeper and maybe write an article about Rolling Paper Brands alltogether. Thanks for all your advice and such :) I guess you won't be helping me with the rewrite of the GITANES article (they were John Lennon's favorite cigarette, folklore has it that he smoked them to make his voice deeper and this is missing from the article) --Mrtobacco 06:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods which are universally loved in fiction[edit]

This really has no chance to become a worthwhile article. KingTT 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was {{db-owner}} — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SynergeticMaggot/Woodman[edit]

This is my own sandbox page, it was created after I mistakenly had made a copyvio, and now its fixed and has its own article Zos 19:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I did just that. Zos 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete as nn-club. Notability first, article second. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Ambassadors[edit]

Not trying to cause trouble here, but I feel that the previous AFD was cut short. This is probably PSU's most noteworthy club, but of course finding a source that says as much is difficult. I've rewritten the article without the fluff and would like input on whether or not this should still be deleted. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as {{db-club}} & thus tagged. Dionyseus 12:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we at least get a little bit of discussion about this first? The PSU wikiproject needs guidelines on which articles to create, and speedy deleting isn't helpful. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of information are you looking for, beyond the guidelines that exist in WP:ORG? It seems a little odd to have a general discussion on issues of organizational notability on a deletion nomination for an article that doesn't even meet the marginal criteria necessary to avoid being speedily deleted. —Caesura(t) 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bancy Movie[edit]

No googles except the Wikipedia entry, IMDB has no listing for it, fails WP:FILM, the MGM and Universal are corporate trademarks owned and for sole use by those respective companys and probably should not even be linked with this article. The link given doesn't even mention this movie, possible hoax, vanity and the authors name happens to be Bancy. John Lake 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temperamento[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No releases. Can't find anything on the web under "Temperamento" or the other names he's used. AllMusic lists a jazz band with a couple records under this name. Mikeblas 20:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poor article about non-notable musician, vain. SM247My Talk 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per SM247. Pete.Hurd 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaismit[edit]

wrong wiki? Vanity, maybe? Not really sure. Just sure it doesn't belong where it is Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --bainer (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture[edit]

Closer's notes
This debate was evenly divided between people in favour of deleting the list, those in favour of keeping the list, and those in favour of merging and redirecting the list somewhere else. The main argument in favour of keeping the list was that the centralised list was useful. The main argument both for deleting and for merging was that the list largely duplicated content found elsewhere.

While this discussion reached no consensus, it was trending away from keeping the article in its present form. The option now most compatible with this debate would be to discuss a strategy for merging this article. Consideration should be given to the significant minority who find a centralised list useful.

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Content forking by User:TheEditrix. This replicates the older Books of the Bible. Dr Zak 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. there is already Books of the Bible, and this article's layout is confusing. --Philo 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, consider Merge This is far more complex than a content fork. Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture is a far larger article than Books of the Bible in terms of the headings and the books. We have to keep religion out of the discussion though the topic is to do with religion, and view the article on its merits as an article. I see substantial merit in this article with information that is simply not present in the older one. I would like to see more description in addition to the table, however. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge non-overlapping content into Books of the Bible then Delete. As it stands it is OR and unsourced. BlueValour 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously - this is a very useful list for writing about Christian and pseudo-Christian documents. I would, however, suggest renaming it to "List of ..." and removing the Mormon books. This isn't for theological reasons - it's just that if we put a column for every new Christian and pseudo-Christian religion and their holy books, it would really be gigantic. BigDT 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between Books of the Bible and Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture is that the latter includes apocryphal writings. We already have an article on Apocrypha, and sub-articles on all stripes of apocryphal writings, such as Jewish apocrypha, Biblical apocrypha and New Testament apocrypha. I'm not convinced of the need of an extra list duplicating articles that already exist. Dr Zak 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ... I have re-examined the list and I accept your reasoning. The only difference between this table and the one in Books of the Bible is the inclusion of the Mormon books and the inclusion of the apocrypha. Both of those efforts are duplicated elsewhere. As it is, this list is extremely large, apparantly for POV purposes, and the functionality is covered elsewhere. Thus, delete.BigDT 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although this might have some use the stuff is already tabulated and listed elsewhere under morespecific categories, per the above. SM247My Talk 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The distinction Dr. Zak makes is inaccurate. Not only does the table include apocryphal books; it also includes pseudpigrapha, lost books, oral Torah, and Restorationist books. Books of the Bible covers only a fragment of what this article covers. This much more comprehensive page is the obvious keep. As to removing "Mormon" books (??), use of the term "pseudo-Christian" demonstrates bigotry, not theology. --The Editrix 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are reading into what I said that Mormons fall into the "pseudo-Christian" category rather than the "Christian" category, then you're reading something I never said. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, Way International, Swedenborgianism, and plenty of other modern Christian or pseudo-Christian groups have their own scriptures. Listing every single one of them on a table of what different denominations believe would get very big very fast. The list is already big. It's a useful list as I said above, but if the only purpose in having it is so that you can equate modern scriptures with ancient ones, there's a problem somewhere. This isn't a question of theology - it's a question of usefulness. Among ancient scriptures, Mormons use the same books Protestants do as far as I know, so the only possible use in having a separate column would be for POV issues. BigDT 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note talk page spamming [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Dr Zak 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I try always to assume good faith, I find myself asking why this deletion nomination has now assumed such large proportions that you have looked for this? Is there something that we do not know about here that should be brought to our attention in order that we may be better informed about the page you feel should be deleted? I unerstand completely the wikipedia distaste for internal spamming. Equally I have the strong opinion that it is the article that will survive AfD or will fail to survive, and that great tranches of "delete" vs "keep" tend to alert the closing admin to the fact that there is an underlying issue far wider than an article itself. Fiddle Faddle 07:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepnot a great article, but still worthy of being kept. I believe that this needs sources, but to delete it is not fair. False Prophet 03:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I now believe that while there is no reason this deserves to be its own article, there needs to be a decision on what needs to be kept and merged into an approprite article. False Prophet 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is not exactly aesthetically pleasing, but I think with some revision it could be made more easily read and valuable. shijeru 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be useful. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. I fail to see why this should be kept. The article repeats information, and where it diverges, fails both WP:POV and WP:NOR. It is unfortunate that some have taken this as a personal assault. Em-jay-es 07:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant compilation of other articles. I personally do not find the tabular format very useful when most of the table is empty. --DaveG12345 11:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Books of the Bible. Books of the Bible has a better layout. Redirecting allowing the information to remain in the history which can be retrieved for a merge to take place if anyone cares to. Jon513 14:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and restructure The key difference between this table and Books of the Bible is that it includes various extant and/or alleged apophygraphia, pseudographia, "lost" books, hopothesized books, etc. Do not duplicate content. Either merge everything into Books of the Bible, or include only the difference, content that is scripture-related but not scriptural, in an appropriately renamed separate article. --Shirahadasha 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree to this rationale - for one thing, it would ensure the current article does not constitute a mere POV fork. But, aside from that small concern, and assuming good faith, the tabular form of this article is simply a mess - the section heading "Apocrypha recognized, but not canonized" appears in the middle of the Restorationist column for absolutely no logical reason, also the table appears to show books demarcated as they are used by various churches in its first five columns but, due to the flawed layout, makes no such indication for the contents of the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha column. They are simply "there". If the reason for this is "it would be too difficult to squeeze in all the details", then this merely reinforces the need for a separate table for Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, ideally as part of the Books of the Bible article. The new table could then follow the same "as used by..." columnar format as the Books of the Bible main table, and IMO might then become actually useful. Trying to "do it all" in one table obviously isn't working. --DaveG12345 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful resource. --Guinnog 13:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see a compelling reason why this article needs to exist above and beyond Books of the Bible. Any apophygraphia & pseudographia could be broken out and moved to a seperate article on non-cannonical writings... and the referenced articles cleaned of their POV and misinformation in the process.--Isotope23 19:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just-so story[edit]

This article claims that this term is used in anthropology, psychology, biology. Except it really isn't, and wouldn't be used in serious peer-reviewed work, as is implied. If a argument can be made against a hypothesis on theoretical grounds, fair enough, that is acceptable, but an assertion that something is "just a story", so is basically a form of the argument from incredulity. This is thus original research, and has been the target of some creationist POV pushing by DLH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Dunc|☺ 20:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I remembered this term from Intro to Psychology, and was kind of surprised that the nominator claimed that it wouldn't be used in those fields. If I may point out some examples of serious use in these fields: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Given the nominator's activity in Wikproject: Evolutionary Biology, I'm surprised he's unfamiliar with this term. Captainktainer * Talk 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the article as it stands may need a better sourcing of some of the statements.. I don't know about usages in anthropology and related fields, but it is a term used in children's literature, as a sort of genericized form of Roald Dahl's Rudyard Kipling's book of the same title. Joyous! | Talk 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand pretty common term in critiques of evolutionary hypotheses, and I don't mean creationists either. Dawkins, Pinker, and Gould have all used it or responded to it in their popular science work. Opabinia regalis 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar lists:

286 for "Just-so story" Gould; 542 for "Just-so stories" Gould; 247 for "Just-so story" Dawkins; 367 for "Just-so story" Dawkins; 215 for "Just-so story" Pinker; 280 for "Just-so stories" Pinker; DLH 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Er, that's Rudyard Kipling who wrote the book, not Roald Dahl -- and that articles includes "Scientific critiques often label as a Just-so story fanciful descriptions of evolutionary origin naratives in evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology which fit the current facts but have not mechanistic basis or evidence." Oh, and keep. BuckRose 00:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. SM247My Talk 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while it's a term you hear in common speech, in discussions or in a class, is it any more encyclopaedic than "arm waving"/"arm-waving"? What's a reliable source for this article? If it purports to be a scientific term, where is it used in the literature? Its use by popularisers doesn't make it encyclopaedic - it's just a phrase in English. Guettarda 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you talking about handwaving? That's a veritable WP article on a scientific colloquialism. ~ trialsanderrors 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Information The phrase is not "also" used to refer to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories, as the article says. Rather, there is a significant amount of evidence that the phrase in this scientific discourse usage is taken straight from Kipling's phrase. See: this Google Scholar search. Also 1090 hits on Google Scholar in general] which isn't bad Bwithh 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, the term in evolutionary biology was directly inspired by Kipling's stories but has evolved its own meaning - a plausible-sounding evolutionary hypothesis with no direct evidence supporting it. No objections to redirecting to Just So Stories and including a mention of the term's meaning there. Note that it's used mainly in works of popular science, not in peer-reviewed work. Opabinia regalis 02:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but "fair tale" + biology get 2090 hits, but we don't have a separate article about that usage. It's an English phrase. We shouldn't have encyclopaedia articles about random phrases used in various contexts. Guettarda 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge with Just So Stories. Redirect the Just-so story article to there. The phrase does not seem to have derived independently from Kipling's stories. Bwithh 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guettarda or barring, that merge and redirect per Bwith. This term isn't used in science really. JoshuaZ 03:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Bwithh, Google Scholar provides enough examples of its use, e.g. The very ease with which such " just-so stories" can be told suggests that we should be skeptical about them from Journal of Economic Perspectives. Besides, the currect two-liner in Just So Stories needs to be replaced. ~ trialsanderrors 06:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guettarda or failing that, merge with redirect per Bwith. Phrase may be barely notable enough for a brief mention in Just So Stories, but there isn't enough extender to make an article out of this, any more than out of Guettarda's example of arm waving. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A JSTOR search for ...story restricted to articles gives 111 hits, for ...stories 201. Although there might be some overlap. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are examples on the net of the use of the phrase just-so story, and of the related "pourquois stories". There are a number of different editors working on this. It may not be much now, but it could be if allowed to grow. SilkTork 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep subject to clean-up, just-so story has a clear & specific meaning in criticisms of adaptationism as per Steven J. Gould which deserves coverage in WP. Pete.Hurd 02:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above. - CNichols 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I just heard a lecture on the nature of human languange. The speaker used phrase "Just-so Stories" several times. I did not understand the meaning or the derivation in this context. It *may* be a good idea to merge this page with the "Just So Stories" page. (tshilson at gmail dot com)[The Story of Human Language bhy Professor John McWhorter, Manhattan Institure published by The Teaching Company.

  • Keep The term has significant use in scholarly work. e.g., Google Scholar lists:

706 for "Just-so story" evolution 810 for "Just-so story evolutionary 1260 for "Just-so stories" evolution 1330 for "Just-so stories" evolutionary 557 for "Just so story" biology 612 for "Just so story" psychology

See added External Links under the Just so story page, for Evolution, Evolutionary, Darwin, Darwinian, Anthropology, Biology, Psychology, Sociology.DLH 03:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Separate or merge? Some set up this as a separate page and others asked for the use in scholarly work to be moved here. Propose Separate pages with Summaries and links used to refer each to the other, and add a disambiguation page. --DLH 02:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Deleted the current Keep/Delete I had added per trialsanderrors educationDLH 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Missing Pal[edit]

WP:SPAM,WP:VER,WP:NOR Blatant Advertisment Ste4k 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It needs rewriting not deleting. Given time to grow this could become a big article. Let it grow. If in a few months it hasn't attracted the attention of editors, that might be the time to consider deleting it. SilkTork 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the whole page is a copyvio from the Lions Gate Films site anyway. Blanking the page and adding copyvio tag. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.--Eloquence* 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Scaggs[edit]

Unverifiable, unotable, original research. Ste4k 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom, save on notability grounds, which I don't feel need be considered given the other two good reasons for deletion.Captainktainer * Talk 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SM247My Talk 00:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even the article admits he hasn't done much! SilkTork 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Encyclopedic notability not established.--Eloquence* 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas "Brother Jim" Spencer[edit]

Notability in question --NMChico24 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete on grounds of lack of independent verifiability (I don't trust an obit) and questionable relevance to other articles in Wikipedia. Also, please sign your postsCaptainktainer * Talk 21:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per no sources beyond an obit and, most importantly, nothing to indicate a need for inclusion. There have lots of good men of God from all faiths that did alot for thier communities, but that does not make them inherently notable. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. SM247My Talk 00:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just another local man of God. The place for this is the local newspaper, not an international encyclopedia. SilkTork 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many lawyers, professors, and teachers who have biographies on Wikipedia, but very few ministers. There are only about 15 Southern Baptist ministers with bios. Pastor Spencer was a substantial minister in the central Louisiana area for three decades. I will try to get more information this week. Here's hoping you won't delete him just yet. I looked over the list for deletion, and I must say that nearly everything there on first appearance looked as if it did not belong. -- Billy Hathorn 14:02, 4 July 2006
    • What you have to remember is that, to be included, verifiable notability must be established. I am certain that some of the lawyers, professors, and teachers you mention do not belong in Wikipedia. Likewise, I am sure there are ministers who do belong, but have yet to be added. The key to adding a successful article to this encyclopedia is the notability of the individual to a broad population. If the person is only notable to a specific, limited number of people, then the person's article is likely to come up for this kind of review. --NMChico24 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Here is a link under "Teachers" that I pulled from random:
    Paul Geisert was a biology teacher in Chicago in the 1960s, a professor in the 1970s, an entrepreneur and writer in the 1980s, and the co-developer of learning materials and a web sites for teaching religion in the public schools in the 1990s. He also attended the Godless March which subsequently led to his coining of the noun bright and co-directorship of The Brights Net.

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Geisert"

    How is this person more worthy of inclusion that a pastor known throughout central Louisiana? -- Billy Hathorn
    • Comment: Here is another person under "American academics" who would seem to have notability only within his academic area. In fact, he is an ADJUNCT professor at Rice. Pastor Spencer was in the field for some four decades. It seems to me that we are setting a higher bar for ministers than for other professions.

      Jack Dongarra
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      Jack Dongarra is a University Distinguished Professor of Computer Science in the Computer Science Department [1] at the University of Tennessee. He holds the position of a Distinguished Research Staff member in the Computer Science and Mathematics Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory , and is an Adjunct Professor in the Computer Science Department at Rice University. He is the founding director of Innovative Computing Laboratory.[2]

      Jack Dongarra received a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Chicago State University in 1972 and a Master of Science in Computer Science from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1973. He received his Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics from the University of New Mexico in 1980 under the supervision of Cleve Moler. He worked at the Argonne National Laboratory until 1989, becoming a senior scientist.

      He specializes in numerical algorithms in linear algebra, parallel computing, the use of advanced-computer architectures, programming methodology, and tools for parallel computers. His research includes the development, testing and documentation of high quality mathematical software. He has contributed to the design and implementation of the following open source software packages and systems: EISPACK, LINPACK, the BLAS, LAPACK, ScaLAPACK[3], Netlib, PVM, MPI, NetSolve[4], Top500, ATLAS, and PAPI[5]. He has published approximately 200 articles, papers, reports and technical memoranda and he is coauthor of several books. He is a Fellow of the AAAS, ACM, and the IEEE and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dongarra" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs)
    • Here's another entry under "Christian pastors" that in my view is not stronger than the one for Pastor Spencer here:

      Apostle Arturo Skinner, known as the "Father of Deliverance" in black Pentecostal circles, founded the Deliverance Evangelistic Center of Brooklyn, New York, in the 1950s and founded other churches, or centers, in cities such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Newark, New Jersey; and other large and small cities up and down the East Coast. Skinner's ministry, which Pentecostal in nature, focused on salvation and divine healing. There was also a strong element of the prophetic in Skinner's ministry and in the ministries of the evangelists and other clergy who received ecclesiastical training at his centers.

      Hundreds of pastors credit Skinner, also known as "Apostle Skinner," as their spiritual guide as well as for being the man under whom their ministries started. Skinner is believed to be the first Pentecostal to employ the title apostle as an indicator of the spiritual gifts at work in his churches. This use has been emulated by many of his spiritual sons and daughters as well as by people unaffiliated with his movement, and even by some who are unfamiliar with his name and history altogether.

      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Skinner"````Billy Hathorn````
  • Comment I think you may have uncovered more candidates for deletion. Doesn't change anything about this article though. SM247My Talk 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kedarnath Agarwal[edit]

This was tough. He may just be what the page says, but there isn't any verifiable way to check that. The external site isn't a secondary and his Google hits are nearly nil. Ste4k 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Difficult one. Very limited google result. Nothing on google books or google scholar. Only one very brief article about him on Factiva. Here it is (all of it):
Hindi poet dead. 24 June 2000
Press Trust of India (c) 2000 Asia Pulse Pte Limited
Banda, Jun 24 (PTI) Renowned Hindi poet and writer, Babu Kedarnath Agarwal, died here Thursday
at the age of 90 following protracted illness. Agarwal was honoured with prestigious Soviet
Land Nehru and Dr Mathili Saran Gupta awards. He is survived by a son and two daughters. Chief
Minister of northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh Ram Prakash Gupta said Agarwal's death had
caused a great loss to Hindi literature."
Difficult one but the Soviet Nehru award (which other notable and more verified Indian cultural types in wikipedia seemed to have) pushed me over the edge. I mean over to the keep side. Weak keep as if he's such an important poet, why so little coverage in India's substantial English language media and publishing sector? Bwithh 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable, judging from this. I have expanded and copyedited the page, please take a look before voting. ImpuMozhi 01:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's the one comprehensive webpage on the poet out there. The problem with that site or its owners "DOT COM SYSTEMS" is that it does not much apparent authority. So there's no "definitely" here. Bwithh 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you suspect that that website is a sham / hoax? To what benefit? Why do you think so? I do get 756 hits for "Kedarnath Agarwal" and this is sizable, considering that he was a Nonagenarian, Uncontroversial, Non-English writer Based in Bucolic Banda. (me, I'm no mean poet myself!) ImpuMozhi 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the website is a hoax! I'm saying its not authoritative in itself to really justify a "definitely notable" conclusion, particularly given the lack of other sources out there. (And by the way, of course there's a benefit to being suspicious of hoaxes - these happen all the time on wikipedia and are a serious threat to its ability to function!). (Funny how I'm having to justify my thoughts in this way even when I voting for keep!). And the google and factiva news and magazine result (which includes Indian newspapers and magazines such as The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, The Times of India and India Today - none of which have any mention of this poet) is not that impressive given,as I've said before, India's substantial English language news media sector. . Incidentally many of those 756 google hits are wikipedia ripoff sites or are talking about a movie producer, not a poet.(UTC)Bwithh 02:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:ImpuMozhi, WP:V and WP:RS are very clear in saying that truth isn't a sufficient criterion for inclusion. You don't have to doubt the veracity of an article to vote delete. It's only necessary to come to the conclusion that the available material is not enough to write an encyclopedic article about the subject. The best remedy against such an argument is to search for and provide more outside sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Bwithh. Call for others to provide more resources, as I got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the problems with Indian names is that they can be transliterated in different ways and thus, a straight google search is never helpful. Another unfortunate and unavoidable problem is that several famous people share the same name (esp. in North India) making Google test very difficult to validate. Coming to this nom, Kedarnath Agarwal has won the Sahitya Akademi award which is the most notable award (next only to Jnanpith Award). This info. is available on the Sahitya Akademi website itself [65] and other websites [66] as well - his name being spelt "Aggarwal." "Kedarnath Agrawal", another spelling gives some 125 google hits, almost all about this man and with mention in reputed newspapers and magazines such as The Hindu and Outlook. Hence, Strong Keep. --Gurubrahma 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Gurubrahma You need to look at the google hits carefully. There is more than one person with that name. The Hindu article you mention is about a Kedarnarth Agrawal organizing a yoga camp 6 years after the poet died. The Outlook mention is about the correct Kedarnarth but it is a web forum post by a reader not an article!. There also at least one businessman and one movie producer with a similar name. Noone is saying this poet doesn't exist, we're just wondering how strong his notability is. I'm not changing my vote from weak keep, as I still think this guy is notable for his awards but still concerned about his lack of press coverage. I tried a Factiva search for your alternative spelling and got 0 relevant hits. He does seem to be occasionally mentioned in the news media as in Frontline article where he gets a very quick mention in a long list of poets in an article about a more famous poet, but not very much at all. Anyway, my vote is still weak keep. Bwithh 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you feel that Government of India funded websites are unreliable. Aren't you being over the top when you say that you have no way of verifying any information? That he has won Sahitya Akademi award is verifiable. I'm definite that if someone is diligent enough to go through the 1000-odd Google hits for various spellings of his name, they'll find more info. I have shown that atleast some of the info is verifiable and that it is notable. If you feel that some info is not verifiable, either excise it from the article or better still, slap such info with {{fact}}. AFD is not and would not be the solution. --Gurubrahma 07:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you mean by "over the top". I have just reviewed the page again, and suggest if there are government agencies that provide funding that these agencies be referenced on the page. Any published mention of the awards should also be placed in the references. The problem here may be one of language as you suggest, but dilligence is the burden of the author rather than the reader. Thanks. Ste4k 11:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I point out, Ste4k, that on Wikipedia we are all simultaneously authors and readers. A quick look around the net about what the Sahitya Akademi is and who wins its awards might have been called for rather than an AfD. Then you, yourself, could have referenced the article. In future, why dont you try that? Also, when reading articles written about a cultural or political milieu with with you are unfamiliar, and where WP:BIAS might come into play, be very very careful about random prod-ing and AfDing. It just wastes everyone's time, otherwise. Hornplease 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bwithh's Factiva results and Sahitya Akademi (the definitive source on who won its awards). Given the difficulties of Googling, the consilience of such evidence as I can find leads to suppose that the subject is notable. Reducing the content to a bald statement of dates, the mention of the Sahitya Akademi award and a bibliography would address all WP:V issues (which are separate from the keep/delete argument in this case). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per --Gurubrahma .A winner of prestigeous award .The low google hits is due to different spellings . Shyamsunder 11:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GuruBrahma =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough valid information to show that this guy has significance to more than just a handful of people. SilkTork 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sahitya Akademi is a very prestigious award -- Lost 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, winner of the Sahity Akademi award. Hornplease 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Deleted. While the article describes a notable conspiracy theory, its narrative was that of the conspiracy theorists, and no reliable sources were cited. If an article on this topic is to be written, it needs to be based on reliable sources, such as books or papers by notable historians, and rewritten from scratch. To anyone who wants to work on an encyclopedic narrative about this topic, I'd be happy to provide a copy of the most recent revision; it might also be a good idea to do this in a consolidated article about Nazi conspiracy theories (or a similar title). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenseitsflugmaschine.

Should an article again be created under this title without the use of reliable sources, I would advise admins to speedy-delete it as a recreation. Topics like this need to be dealt with care and diligence, in a serious scholarly manner.--Eloquence* 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haunebu[edit]

Very strange fringe theory about Nazi free energy machines propelling anti-gravity UFOs armed with death rays. The propopents of this theory were forever spamming Vril and Nazi mysticism, but that there's an entire article for this, escaped my attention by now.

If we consider the few proponents of this theory significant, a totally other article is needed.

This way, or the other, the current page should be deleted.

Pjacobi 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenseitsflugmaschine --Pjacobi 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepComment Doesn't seem to be any worse than Vril, term generates 74,000 Ghits even if it is fictitious or a fringe theory. SM247My Talk 00:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete per WP:V and WP:RS: We don't have reliable sources, that the Nazis inventend antigravity and deathrays. We have the reliable sources that some people believe this and some book authors make money feeding this belief, but that is a totally different topic. Esoteric Hitlerism perhaps. Arrgg! WTF redirects this to Nazi mysticism? That are two different topics. --Pjacobi 10:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Haunebu is not the only advertising page for Robert Arndt's pseudoscientific literature. Just search his name or the Ice Reich Publishing thing in Wikipedia and you will find many more candidates for deletion. --84.167.217.141 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this Google query? I've additionally put Pirna Disc on AfD, seems to be one of the most clear cases. --Pjacobi 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Electrical air turbine" certainly belongs to the same topic. The "List of military aircraft of Germany by manafacturer" is severely vandalized by R.Arndt, same could be said about any other page he added his book as a source to.--84.167.240.131 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put Electrical air turbine on AfD. --Pjacobi 07:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and per WP:BALLS. If there was a WP:UTTER BULLSHIT I'd cite it too. RGTraynor 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: It's always a little too "convenient" that the Nazis end up destroying all the primary sources surrounding the design of these aircraft and all the evidence mysteriously disappears. Even if true, it would mean everyone writing about it since has been regurgitating hearsay. For that it fails WP:VERIFY and this article should never be allowed to be recreated. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quite aside from that we did capture a bunch of cutting edge tech from the Nazis ... and there's a crucial logic check that always fails: if the Nazis were (successfully) working on antigravity, why were they bothering with mere jets and rockets, or in the alternative why didn't they have jet fighter regiments? RGTraynor 21:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! With the necessary note indicating that some circumspection is in order, it makes a good read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.64.81.22 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 July 2006.
  • Truth? The deletion policy do not require articles to be the truth. It requires a reliable source of the information, even if it is not the truth. A reliable source is a way to confirm that the information is not original, but exist in the public domain. I do not see this page complying with the requirements of the Wiki deletion policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.254 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 July 2006.

 Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:35 UTC, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This vote is either signature forgery or forgetting to log in: [67]. --Pjacobi 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a forgery. The IP isn't even Australian! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge with Nazi mysticism or new article Nazi Flying Saucers or whatnot, this is a relevant topic and has been discussed heavily by conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts alike. I agree that some vandalism or altercations have probably made the article more silly in its tone than it was set out to be, but this can be fixed. Piecraft 00:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I found it and edited it by doing a search for Haunebu on Google. An article on this subject is necessary for the few others who may be searching for it. It needs to be substantially rewritten to reflect that it revolves around theory and legend, rather than proven facts. Just put a "factuality in question" warning at the top.--Mylitta 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Idea, what if the articles for Jenseitsflugmaschine (JFM) and Haunebu were tied into one concsie article realting to Nazi/WW2 conspiracies or Experimental Nazi Aircraft etc...? Piecraft 11:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as it was originally marked. I mistook the style of the entry for an actual dicdef. theProject 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decomplexify[edit]

Bushism? Amusing, but seems like a nonsense page to me. Neologism at best. (One of the most notable examples of non-standard grammatical construction is called a "Bushism") --NMChico24 21:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On Dancin'[edit]

"Keep on dancin'" surrey gets several hundred GHits, but can't find anything actually relevant. Almost certainly fails WP:NOT, likely unverifiable and OR, article created by user with history of nothing but vandalism (mostly to a school article). Suspect strong case for speedy, but couldn't quite fit it in with defined CSD points so throwing it open to debate. ~ Matticus78 21:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ciuna[edit]

The Battle is probably a hoax or at least a misnomer. No such place is mentioned in the sources. No archeological reference is known.

  • Comment Still checking but just wanted to point out that if this is hoax, then vandals have also infected Battle_of_Lautulae and List of Roman battles and Template:Campaignbox_Samnite_Wars with Ciuna mentions. Bwithh 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followup Note that this battle is supposed to have taken place in 315BC, one year after the battle of Lautulae in 316BC (According to the Lautulae article before I corrected it). But the battle of Lautulae took place in 315 BC according to these sources: [68] [69] Bwithh 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The battle of Laetula is real enough (Livius, aUc IX-25), but references probably got in by avid wikipedians, taking all articles in the wiki for granted. Incorrectly, but in good faith. The same happened on the dutch wiki and even our italian friends admit they got suckered in. Never attribute to a vandal what can be explained by mere oversight. Kleuske 23:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax as per eagle-eyed nom. Cannot find any trace of this supposed battle in books.google.com Bwithh 22:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All honours go to Horatius on it.wiki and MM on the italian wiki, they are the eagle-eyed ones. I just passed on the message. Kleuske 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education[edit]

Summary of original, non-notable work. Possible copyvio as well. BoojiBoy 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nonnotable POV summary. --Samael775 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Hraefen Talk 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete willing to listen if the creator mounts a defense, but this is pretty much just copied out of the referene article, isn't it? Opabinia regalis 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an self-help manual. SM247My Talk 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyright violation. The whole article is preambled by, "The following is quoted from the work of..."--Gay Cdn 02:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as author. I made a mistake by posting this article. It does seem like it is a copyright violation. While I think that the article does have merit (the work is used in educational circles, it was published in a book and has been cited in over 600 academic papers - many in prominent peer reviewed journals), it would need to be rewritten. I don't have time to do that right now. (Teryx 16:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich Bin Gut (band)[edit]

Contested speedy per db-band. Per the article, a myspace/freewebs band that some consider a hoax. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. - Fan1967 22:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the band, it's quite famous for spamming up the internet and that is what the article is about— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefgango (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Not notable for that, either. There are thousands of freewebs and myspace bands, and to be frank, nobody cares about most of them. Fan1967 22:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy A7, gone Jaranda wat's sup 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic MP3 Tagger[edit]

Delete. Advert for non-notable software. AlistairMcMillan 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to vote Keep? AlistairMcMillan 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. Emkey08 19:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of pieces of software are listed at sites like dmoz.org or download.com. Please explain what makes this piece of software notable? AlistairMcMillan 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may quote the official Wikipedia guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE? For publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed. Which are the ones mentioned above, plus id3.org, netzwelt.de, softpedia.com and others Emkey08 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Software directories like download.com, softpedia.com etc are not publications. By publications we mean magazines, newspapers, books etc. AlistairMcMillan 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then, if it makes you happy, delete this site. But don't forget to keep an neutral point of view when removing software that competes with Musicmatch. Emkey08 19:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if it's shareware, this is an advertisement for a profit-making product. - Richardcavell 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall medo[edit]

Obvious vanity article filled with hoax details. User:Marshallmedo and his apparent anon alter-ego User:62.135.93.17, whose sole contributions have been to this article and its image, have been busy, also creating a Wikiquote article also under VfD. I give him credit for his enthusiasm, at least. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Murg[edit]

Non-notable freelance journalist and editor. Google hits return Wikipedia as number one source, and 237 unique hits are mostly from mirrors, other opensource projects, or websites with free contributions. His Amazon page is his own reviews of other people's books. Vizjim 22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect - merge what? --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boys' Brigade 23rd Singapore Company[edit]

the page should be deleted as per notability Chris 23:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. Individual units of this type are generally not kept, but the information is usually shortened and merged into an article covering a broader area. In this case the information should be merged into The Boys' Brigade in Singapore and this article should be a redirect. --Bduke 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be redundant as search term, individual units are not inherently notable. SM247My Talk 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree with Merge and redirect as per Bduke - there is nothing notable to this particular company.--Gay Cdn 01:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Bduke. Agent 86 19:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Firefly universe[edit]

Was originally copied and pasted from a section of the Serenity companion book. Unneeded, given that the main Firefly and Serenity articles, as well as several others, give good descriptions of the notable information that can be obtained. This article would simply be a restatement of that, combined with fancrufty, unecessary infomation. Delete. The Wookieepedian 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above plange 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though should be allowed to be recreated as a split-off should someone provide a more detailed article (if through articles, commentaries, and other materials enough referenced material can be found). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Pboyd04 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply, at this time, not enough information to warrant a seperate article. Barnas 17:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete will be a fancruft magnet. Sophia 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article is vulnerable to fancruft and subject matter currently is covered by articles. As per Staxringold, if it can be better and more thoroguhly cited and written at some point down the road, then certainly it should be recreated. Signature Formatting. danntm T | C 23:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Imaizumi[edit]

Seems to be noted only for speaking about Wikipedia to media and at events. So have, for example, Kurt Jansson and Arne Klempert for the German Wikipedia and Wikimedia e.V. (both have appeared in national newspapers, magazines, and on national television), neither of whom has (or should have) an article. Wikipedia is such a media phenomenon that being interviewed about it alone does not make one notable. Might reconsider if he receives an official position with a Japanese chapter.

To the closing admin: Please don't forget to delete the pictures.--Eloquence* 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Maybe if he receives a very senior official position Bwithh 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace for biographies of users with bureaucrat status? Fg2 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. You know, the permission level was called "bureaucrat" exactly because we didn't want people to consider it a status symbol, but a purely functional role for some higher level administrative tasks (assigning sysop, bot status). We could probably have called it "silly wikiaddict" and people would still want to proudly proclaim it in their biographies. ;-) --Eloquence* 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless something outside of Wikipedia evangelism can be found. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn. - Longhair 00:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ User_Talk:_ChadyWady|Talk
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1&oldid=1081095623"