Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 9 July 11 >

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 nomination was speedy redirected to one red paperclip. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McDonald[edit]

I watched a news show that falsely reported the name spelling as not having the A in MacDonald. I created this article and found out that Wikipedia already had an article under a different spelling. FireSpike 20:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect to Kyle MacDonald, per nom, I think. Both articles are about the same person, and the "Mac" version is rather better. "Mac", "Mc", and "M'" are all legitimate spellings of the patrionmyic. Tevildo 21:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Kyle MacDonald, per nom. — Reinyday, 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kyle MacDonald which is a likely misspelling. (sp) RFerreira 00:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kyle MacDonald, per nom. Michael 01:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any nonrepetitive information and then Redirect to Kyle MacDonald per other voters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge and redirect per Hoopydink. No need for AfD here. Grandmasterka 05:21, 13 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 was speedy move to the project namespace. The page is an essay about what the naming conventions in Wikipedia should be. It is clearly either a project namespace page or a user namespace page and is now at Wikipedia:Alternative name. Please take discussion of it to Wikipedia talk:Alternative name. Uncle G 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative name[edit]

this is a POV fork from a Wiki proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) Carlossuarez46 19:23, 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 nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loituma Girl[edit]

Finishing abandoned nomination. No opinion for now. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This animation is how a lot of people learned about this song. The song is clearly art and this clip has lead to a discovery of art by many. To erase it would be irriesponcible.
  • Delete It is a 4 frame animation. Somehow I'm finding it hard to think of that as notable. Alphachimp talk 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Ievan Polkka. Four different articles on 26 seconds of flash animation seems a bit much. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ievan Polkka. A search for loituma girl in quotes returns 15,000 Google hits. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Che. — Reinyday, 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it was already split from the Ievan Polkka page because it was growing larger than the article on the song. This google search (searching for the name of the file as it is usually posted - loituma*.swf) gets 13000 results. Approximately 13000 instances of the files hosting. That indicates its a fairly big meme.ViridaeTalk 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment loituma__.swf has 46,400 google hits. This is the format I found it in, from a random part of the internet that spurred me to come here. --Kinst 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment that the filename it is usually posted with. I added the * thinking it would widen the search - obviously not. ViridaeTalk 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patently unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Viridae; A reasonably popular meme that I've heard of (and I'm not cool enough to hear of most of them). OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Ievan Polkka. This flash animation, by itself, is little more than an oddity; while many may speculate that it introduced the West to the Ievan Polkka, by itself it's little more that a partially nonverifiable article about a non-notable flash animation. Sethimothy 06:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Ievan Polkka, possibly trimming it a bit in latter case. Reasonably widespread and inspiring animation to keep in some form! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is a fact that it is a famous internet phenomenon by now, and therefore worth an entry. Also, there is absolutely no ground for using the number of frames in an animation as an indication of the value of it. Pwbogaart 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came looking for information on it, I found it, am now enlightened. If it's spread enough to get to my corner of the internet, I'd say it's worth noting. SirAPKered 10:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This flash animation has brought an otherwise obscure Finnish band into something resembling worldwide recognition, even if only among the followers of the meme. The article could use editing, but given the lack of information about the animation on its own page, this wikipedia article has undoutedly helped many people figure out exactly what the animation is. Overand 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Ievan Polkka; a flash animation is not encyclopedic and article fails to establish it as so, per WP:MEME hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:MEME isn't accepted policy. Internet pop culture is inherantly hard to verify by that doesn't reduce the notability. ViridaeTalk 19:58, 12 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronze Ring[edit]

While it has been recently noted to be wikified, this is nothing more then just a story, falling under either WP:V or WP:CV, there is no encyclopedic value. Gay Cdn 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wikisource. Delete Tyrenius is correct. It can be found on the Web by Googling for Traditions Populaires de l’Asie Mineure Dlyons493 Talk 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is the retelling of a story not a reprint of the original which is here. So it is verified, and it's not a copyvio, nor is it an encyclopedic article as it stands. Tyrenius 00:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the writer of the article - this article is a synopsis of the story "The Bronze Ring". Its encyclopedic value lies in the fact that Wikipedia has a page on Andrew Lang which lists all his color fairy books, including "The Blue Fairy Book". If the title is clicked, the table of contents are listed. Many of the stories have been summarized, but several have not. The Bronze Ring was one that was not summarized until I did so recently. It has no copyright violation. It was summarized from my personal first edition of the Blue Fairy Book by Andrew Lang. Can you advise me on improving it? I'll try to put in links that go back to the other Wikipedia articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssanes (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nssanes. Some cleanup work needed, but the rest of Lang's fairy-stories are notable, and I see no reason for this one to be any different. Tevildo 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nssanes. Good faith effort needing some work. Notable story. No copyvio.--Nick Y. 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nssanes. Legitimate effort appreciated -NickSentowski 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nssanes. — Reinyday, 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nssanes. Themindset 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Agne27 05:23, 15 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Entwistle[edit]

Appears to be NN vanity. Google for: Results 1 - 10 of about 384 for "Ron Entwistle" none of which seem to backup the assertions in the article, and Results 1 - 10 of about 27 for "Ron Entwistle" spider. most of which are wiki or wiki mirrors. Wikibofh(talk) 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's not vanity. The question now is notability and verifiability. And Google is actually worthless for such things. Ste4k 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, Google is worthless for notability? What an interesting opinion. Only edits by a single user, looks like vanity. Regardless, it appears to fail all 3. Wikibofh(talk) 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Google is worthless as an indicator of notability based on number of hits a person/subject generates on a search (at least in my opinion)... it's great for actually finding sources (or lack of sources as the case may be) though.--Isotope23 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the above comment, I am going to place a notability tag on this article. The information in it needs to be backed up. It says he has been involved with many bands but no names of these bands - they could have all been in his mates garage for example. I had a look on google too and didn't find much. If notabiity isn't established I say Delete. Lynnathon 13:36, 3 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:06, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin's[edit]

Non-notable restaurant. Denni ☯ 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is poorly written, but it appears the Joan Of Arcadia reference is legitimate, thus establishing it's notability. I'll doublecheck shortly. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Marvin's is in Greencastle, Indiana, but the Joan of Arcadia reference is to a Marvin's in "Arcadia, Maryland", which is not only fictional but in an entirely different state. So how can this be the same thing? --Calton | Talk 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's pretty clear that it's a reference to the restaurant in question - here's an article on the subject and the link. Not that the reference itself makes the article notable (as per Dgies). Kuru talk 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An offhand reference in a TV episode does not establish notability. At best this could make a trivia note for that TV episode. Dgies 01:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the show's writer had this Marvin's in mind, I fail to see how a passing reference in one line of dialogue in one episode of a TV show confers the least bit of notoriety or fame. Besides, Roadfood.com -- the Gold Standard for judging eateries-that-use-paper-napkins -- doesn't seem to have heard of them, so they can't be that well known. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete terribly written, and also per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, possibly sufficiently important. JYolkowski // talk 02:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN and also looks like an advertisment. Zos 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On Wikipedia, we don't need an article on every single restaurant in the world. It appears to have only one location, very unnotable. Green caterpillar 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can see some proper citations of these "national publications" (per WP:V). nn Ziggurat 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Joan of Arcadia reference does not establish notability and that is the only one it has. It's kind of scary that such importance would be placed upon a mention in a TV show. I know people are obsessed with TV, but damn. -- Kjkolb 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn restaurant, no WP:CORP Dlyons493 Talk
  • Delete. Assertions of notability ("famous" garlic cheeseburgers, brief reference in a television drama) are unconvincing. —Caesura(t) 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't tell if it's more a failure of WP:CORP or Spam. Alphachimp talk 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 23:54, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Marquise Ealy[edit]

Nonnotable actor; only screen credits are 3 bit parts (and the first two aren't even in IMDB); article creator removed prod tag w/o explanation NawlinWiki 00:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the "tough guy in car". M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. The fact that the article creator deleted the AfD notice doesn't help. Dgies 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- Alias Flood 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a google search, and there are only 67 hits. Green caterpillar 02:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hey guys! I'm the guy that created the article for Kristoffer Ealy. This is a skimmed version of an Article I did about him for my school paper. He actually does have a few more movies parts coming up and when I talked to Lauren Patrice Nadler she actually said the scenes that he is in steal the show and he begins filming anbother movie with her in September so I'm sorry that he is not "important" enough for imdb but he will be soon. Go ahead and delete the article and I will save it for when after both movies come out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyAttack (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. BJK 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO??? Fail. Alphachimp talk 19:40, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Diplomacy[edit]

The "popular" online game only gets 735 google hits [1]. It's not so popular I guess. -- Koffieyahoo 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why do people say "only so many google hits"? Deletion is a serious matter and you have done nothing to contest the game's notability, seeing that you have taken the time to list it AFD then surely you might also have the time to research its notability or otherwise. -- Librarianofages 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it's an online game that is claimed to be very popular you might expect a large number of google hits. -- Koffieyahoo 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThat is conjecture, prove that its not played by a lot of people. -- Librarianofages 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's not the way we work here. You need to prove that there is sufficient information available to verify everything said about the subject, and you need to prove that the game is important. The latter bit isn't actually policy but more a consensus the community has established, a consensus you can't hope to fight. Unless you can demonstrate mainstream media coverage of the game, it's pretty much right out. Captainktainer * Talk 02:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're turning the verifiability requirements up side down. But, the major way to prove online notability is to to show that the game, in this case, if referred to by many websites. And, at the moment, the major tool for this is google. -- Koffieyahoo 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Librarian, can you show me how you proved that A Tribute to Linkin Park was non notable? - Hahnchen 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't show you, but I can easily explain: I looked up each band on Google checked their notability against WP:MUSIC as if I was researching their notability and then once I had ascertained than none of the bands were notable in that sense of the word I voted. I didn't merely type in google "Medieval Diplomacy" and based upon that vote for deletion. I just believe that people should put more effort into establishing cases for deletion because it is a serious matter. -- Librarianofages 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions (in my opinion) should involve research, but not for nebulous 'notability'. Instead, we should be looking for sources, but the burden of evidence still lies with the keep votes, not with the delete ones, to provide them. Ziggurat 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure the nominator can't show you either. But if you had say used the same kind of reasoning as you did for the tribute album, going on Google and looking at WP:WEB and Wikipedia:Notability (software), then you'd have arrived at a different conclusion. Nominations may be poorly researched, but that doesn't mean your vote should be. - Hahnchen 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain: I punch in the term in google and I at least look at the first 30 or so hits. If those are irrelevant or from other non-notable websites, then I put the game up for deletion (after having prod-ed it first). But, I doubt if I should mention that all in my AfD. Then some problems with what you mention: (1) I don't see the current AfD would fall under WP:WEB (2) Wikipedia:Notability (software) is just proposed, hence I think you should sustain an AfD with it. -- Koffieyahoo 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Hahnchen 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable third party sources are added (I couldn't find any) per verifiability requirements. nn Ziggurat 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, also advertisement. No notability stated or implied, beyond the fact it exists. While I do not believe Google should be the final arbiter of notability, I also was unable to find any non-trivial articles by non-involved third parties. Tychocat 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an online game. It would need major mention on Google to be notable. Danny Lilithborne 02:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, google test used above actually overstates the case a bit. Only about 300 unique hits, and a large number of those have nothing to do with the game as 'medieval diplomacy' is used extensively when discussing, hmmm, medieval diplomacy. No other real indications that this is popular outside a small group of user that I could find - would be willing to reconsider if someone else could find better indicators. Kuru talk 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because of the nature of the game it would be difficult to ascertain that, that's why I think it would be better to act conservatively and keep this article, Remember Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia, we are not limited for space! -- Librarianofages 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I respectfully disagree. It's an online game, not a Russian board game from the 1930's. The nature of the game should lend itself to simple verification of the claims. This one does not seem to based on the examination of the search results and casual exploration of some of the hits; but I will be receptive to anything interesting you turn up. Kuru talk 03:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, no indication that this online game meets WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Notability (software). Lacking third-party coverage, article appears promotional, for which Wikipedia is not. Barno 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google news says zero hits - I don't like it one bit, eh? WilyD 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this site does not meet WP:WEB... Yes, I am aware it is not a website, but as an online game this is the closest guideline and I think it should be held to it. I will say though that the number of google hits it generates is completely meaningless to this discussion, in my opinion. What matters is that it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion of online material.--Isotope23 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no attempt to assert notability. Alphachimp talk 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 22:43, 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bern's Steak House[edit]

No evidence of notability. Denni ☯ 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: About 21,900 Ghits for "Bern's Steak House". I vote neither "delete" nor "keep" for now.--Jusjih 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: IF the claim about it having the largest wine-cellar of any restaurant on earth can be reasonably verified, then I'd suppose it to be worth a mention somewhere. Zelse81 01:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears important. More references would be good though. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zelse81 -- Librarianofages 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established. Zos 02:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have plenty of non-local press. It's entirely possible the cellar claim is true; that's simply huge (for a restaurant) - no idea how you would verify the ranking, though. They even have a book, go figure. Seems notable enough; if not keep then transwiki to WikiTravel. Kuru talk 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there are sources out there, although not many of them (most notably the one Kuru mentions above), and the article as it stands is sorely in want of them. Tag for referencing. nn Ziggurat 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. RFerreira 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if notability can be verified with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some more information with sources to the article. --Metropolitan90 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that the Wine Spectator link works intermittently; I can get to the page through Google but the link from the article goes to a subscription-required page. --Metropolitan90 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. Dionyseus 09:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a famous restaurant with notable people eating there all the time. It has one of the best wine cellars in the world. It is internationally known but keeps a very low profile. It does not seek publicity. It's hard to find it even during the day. It's family owned and has been in business for probably half a century. KarenAnn 13:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone say steak?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School choice[edit]

Delete as POV fork of education policy education voucher and alternative education, this article is 100% advocacy with nary one criticism cited of the very controversial school choice concept. Homey 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valuable article, I see no reason for deletion -- Librarianofages 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary POV fork. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, much older than education policy. Based on a reasonably thorough look at the article's history, nominator has made no attempt to contribute to the article, and sole contribution to discussion was to state his opinion of the article immediately prior to nominating for deletion. Article needs cleanup and POV examination, not deletion. Captainktainer * Talk 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is completely one-sided and pure advocacy. Can you find one criticism of the school choice concept in the article?Homey 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is well written and the discussion on it is civil and looks like it's for the betterment of the article. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary POV fork. I agree it's civil, and old. It's still an unneeded POV fork. Tychocat 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork of mostly education voucher and partly alternative education. It's like calling the abortion debate article the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement and presenting only one side. Despite its age, it does not even have an "oppose" section to go along with the "support" section. Finally, its references are filled with think tanks, which, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative, only excel in producing garbage posing as reseach and analysis. They make industry trade associations look like reliable, impartial sources by comparison. -- Kjkolb 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia should not be used to advocate one position. Horribly NPOV article. Resolute 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but some one has to go through the edits made from April onwards. There was a criticism section, but that has blatantly been deleted. Please look at the edit history of a page before you put it up for AfD. -- Koffieyahoo 06:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV forking is when someone copy-pastes an article at a different title and starts editing it to make it present a different point of view. Such articles are usually extremely similar to the original and very newly created. I am absolutely not convinced that this article is a POV fork. First, this article was created on 13 September 2001, making it one of Wikipedia's oldest. If it does duplicate other articles, I think it is the other articles which are at fault, not this one. Second, there are sections here which I cannot find in either of the articles cited as being duplicates, for instance the section on magnet schools. Finally, neither education voucher or alternative education will cover that there are some school districts, such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools which have school choice even though the parents can choose to send their child to another "normal" school and not alternative education schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Fork. -- GWO
  • Keep. When was "article is currently POV" a reason for deletion? Edit it to add criticisms, don't delete it. Batmanand | Talk 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork and merge worthwhile content. TomTheHand 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If I'm being blunt, the article is a complete disaster of POV pushing, poor writing, laughable attempts at forming arguments and pretty much reads like it was written by someone (or several people) who declined the choice to go to school. All of those problems though can be solved through Merciless editing. As Sjakkalle has stated above, this is a veryold article in Wikipedia terms and is not technically a POV fork. The best bet here is to go through the article and edit out or rewrite all the junk. This absolutely is a valid topic that can support a good article; it's just waiting for someone to come along and write one.--Isotope23 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle, it should be possible to present this in a balanced way. Yamaguchi先生 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs editing, but that is not a reason to delete. Sandy 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first version of Education voucher had as its entire content "The topic of education vouchers is a quite distinct one from school choice, q.v." - on this evidence, the two are different topics, but if one is a fork, it isn't this one that is a year older than education voucher. Education voucher is also a daughter article of school choice. The first non-redirect version of Alternative education to contain anything more than a stub template (from January 2006) was "Alternate education is an umbrella term referring to a number of approahces to the education of children other than standard classrooms, such as Alternative schools and homeschooling." Again we see that that article is both newer and a different topic. Article is clearly not a fork. It is incomplete, it ignores forms of school choice such as that in the Boston, Massachusetts public schools where parents get to prioritize among existing public schools (as part of the desegregation effort), independently of the existence of charter and other private schools. If it is currently POV, that is not reason for deletion - it needs to be hopelessly and inevitably POV. This is clearly a topic about which a NPOV article could be written - so go write it. And as to the claim that it is entirely favorable, the "Criticism" section contains arguments against - it is the successor to the "Arguments Against" section that was created in March 2004. In my conclusion the only true portion of the nomination is "very controversial school choice concept" - it is neither a fork nor 100% advocacy. GRBerry 02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as School voucher and merge any extra content from education voucher into it. "School voucher" is the neutral term; "school choice," like "death tax" and "right-to-work law," is a propaganda term. -- Mwalcoff 04:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content but needs to be combined somehow with the myriad other articles about the same subject. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand people having a problem with the Support and Criticism section, but I spent a good amount of time creating the data and definitions part. AFAIK, no other entry in Wikipedia provides a definition of the different kinds of School Choice out there. One specific example would be of Tuition Tax Credits, which are different from Vouchers. Also, this article tries to provide pertinent examples of each kind of School Choice. By contrast, the Education Voucher doesnt even have a reference to the Milwaukee School Voucher program which is the largest such program in the USA. I am sorry if I am a litle defensive, but I think that the info (if not the Pro/Con sections) is valuable and unique. Ian Lewis 16:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-POV can be clean up and it has useful information that would be a loss to delete.Agne27 05:30, 15 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of thinking-related topics[edit]

Listcruft, bound to be very incomplete and massively huge. -- Koffieyahoo 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't a useful list, scope of articles such as this need to be much more defined. -- Librarianofages 02:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Green caterpillar 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto. -- Gogo Dodo 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally useless and potentially infinite. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Deleuze 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Dionyseus 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 13:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The list seems to be almost completely duplicated in the bottom section at Portal:Thinking. That list should possibly be discussed too (made by same authors). (Actually, the whole portal should be discussed, somewhere, as it doesnt seem to have gone through the Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals process at all...) -Quiddity 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dupe per Quiddity Alphachimp talk 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would be better as a cat, though I don't think we need one of those either. -- Steel 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list has been copied to the author's userspace, and this copy can be safely deleted. -Quiddity 00:42, 12 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 delete. Sango123 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alone-ishness[edit]

I hadn't taken a look at Wikipedia's list of webcomics for quite some time, and holy crap is it full of non notable subtrivia. Today's selection of AFDs consists of 4 webcomics beginning with the letter A. There are a lot more there which should be deleted, even a few more from the A section. Let's begin. Alone-ishness, seen here is a blogger blog, which happens to host a webcomic (and thus makes it inherently notable), this however is false as it is entirely unnotable. Google comes up with a remarkable 30 links and Alexa has never heard of it. - Hahnchen 01:47, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Chosen[edit]

Our second entry into the webcomic world today involves the comic found here. Like the nomination above, Alexa has never heard of it and the thing fares even worse on Google. Searching for the whole title, "Among the Chosen: The Dualist" gets me an incredible 2 hits, being nicer and searching for "Among the Chosen" Dualist gets me 16 hits of which approximately 2 is relevent and not Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A wikipedia contributor notices three years of work, makes an entry (which I made a few corrections to), and it's going to get dumped because I'd prefer to finish the thing before promoting it and getting the project name all over the place? As the author of the comic in question, I strongly object to the "notability" argument. That aside, thanks to Adashiel for pointing out the comixpedia link - I'd never have known about it otherwise. I vote the wikipedia entry gets kept - it's a notable (to me, anyway) source of traffic to the site. --Solios 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - How many hits do you get from Wikipedia? - Hahnchen 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer As of 20060714, for July, 25 from the ATC entry and 16 from the List Of Webcomics entry. Referred traffic is low enough that this is notable. --Solios 19:02, 14 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 discussion was Speedy Delete, user requested. Jaranda wat's sup 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiseptic Poetry[edit]

This webcomic can be seen here and their ghost town forums here. Although a search for "antiseptic poetry" gets 180 unique links (which is pretty poor anyway), you'll see that the majority refer to a song by the entirely notable non webcomic Bis (band). Altering the search string to better find relevent hits, I used the string "antiseptic poetry" -bis - lyrics, this search generated less than 70 hits. It fairs slightly better than the above 2 with Alexa, with a rank of 1 million, but nothing I can find tells me that this 4 month old webcomic is any more notable than a myspace page. - Hahnchen 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete why does every webcomic think it needs a wikipedia article of all things? Opabinia regalis 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable webcomic. Maybe post something about it on Comixpedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Homestarmy 04:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment It does have an article on Comixpedia: Antiseptic Poetry. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Stop using alexa in your arguments. You've been told that is not to be considered. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and per nom Aeon 06:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I'm the author of the comic in question and I don't care if you delete its entry. I didn't even add it in the first place (I did add an example comic though). However, if you're going to delete it, delete it. I'm not about to play the "not notable and lets not list why other than Alexa which is just spyware anyway" bullshit game. Hahnchen, if you think my comic is gonna be another notch on your deletion belt you're sadly mistaken. I'll delete the page myself (and I did) before I let you use it for your own obnoxious purposes. Also, let me submit that what is and isn't notable is subjective. I'm not saying my comic is. Its four months old, thats barely enough time to have gotten a solid footing reader wise let alone gain notability. However, using stuff like Alexa and going "I dun rede it" and acting like having a page on the Wiki is some sort of holy goal for webcomics to achieve is just plain idiotic. What ego! We're not important enough to decide what should go on the Wiki but YOU are. If you're serious about Webcomics on Wikipedia then get some real standards and stop playing childish "I'm king of the hill" type games with it. At any rate, I deleted the page myself and I will continue to do so until its gone for good. Play your stupid ass games with some other comic.Lessthankate
    • If everyone here ignored the Alexa data used in the nomination, it'd still get deleted, it's here as circumstantial evidence, take it or leave it, some might find it helpful. I don't read The Guardian either, and don't plan to nominate it. A Wikipedia page is NOT the holy grail for webcomics, it is at the top of the checklist, not some impossible goal. We do have real standards, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Yeah, editing an encyclopedia using an internet pseudonym is all ego. I'd like others to get rid of and nominate webcomics too, but no one ever does this. I nominate them in bursts, and in between every one, the list has grown and the signal to noise ratio fallen. If you didn't care so much about your Wikipedia page, you wouldn't have bothered with your petty inter protest on it, telling everyone how much you don't care and how alternative you are. Save it for Petition Online. - Hahnchen 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My problem isn't that its up for deletion. I don't care. DELETE if it isn't wanted. Just don't act like it was hubris on MY part for it being up in the first place. Also, your nominations of comics seem by and large rather arbitrary. Need I remind you the thrashing the webcomic community gave you when you nominated Checkerboard Nightmare for deletion? I also made no mention of how "alternative" I am or think I am. But I digress. I guess you and webcomics in regards notability are like Congress and porn eh? You know nothing about them but you know it when you see it. -Lessthankate
        • No you didn't claim how alternative you were, maybe you should? I never claimed it was hubris or vanity on your part. I wasn't even involved in the CxN nomination. Well, the list of webcomics is so incredulously large, it has been claimed that I was just "shooting fish in a barrel", this time I just picked 4 random unnotable webcomics beginning with the letter A. Arbitrary grouping? Maybe, but they're pretty accurate nominations. - Hahnchen 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heres the thing: If you're picking them AT RANDOM then you are being ARBITRARY. End of story. You can't use Alexa and you can't actually make an argument AGAINST most of the comics you nominate. And "not notable" isn't an acceptible argument considering the vast scope of information available on wikipedia. Admit it. You're just a troll who found his niche and anyone be damned who tries to fight him on it. -Lessthankate
            • You're being incredibly petty and quite bitter here, its a wikipedia article. I can actually make up very good arguments against the comics that I nominate, hence their ensuing deletion. I'm not being arbitrary, I'm not going to go nominate Megatokyo or Penny Arcade, nor would I want to really. WP:NOT, you'll see that Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Just as it isn't a phone book, nor is it an index of living people. You may want to see a list of hundreds of George Bushes on the George Bush disambiguation page, I don't. - Hahnchen 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And yet you actually never do. Its always "ALEXA! NOT WEB DIRECTORY!!! BLARGH!! STOPA PICKING ON ME!!111" If you had a leg to stand on people wouldn't get so mad at you. Championing an un-popular opinion (all the while playing the role of the vigilint watchman) doesn't qualify it, sorry. We're not talking about listing every variation of the "whacky Megaman recolor adventures" here so stop being obtuse. If you can't actually make an argument, just say so. If lack of information is the problem (and thats the ONLY wiki rule web comics entries seem to be in violation of) then contact the people who run the comic and ask them if they want to expand it, or delete it. I don't see how you can claim to be acting in the best interest of this catagory when you're not willing to work with the people who actually MAKE the stuff being catagorized. -Lessthankate
                • If by people you mean some easily incensed webcomic fans, you'd be correct. It's to do with the harsh way I put my nominations across, I'm not the only one to nominate webcomic articles, Abe Dashiell does it a lot too, but he's a nice guy about it. I've probably never come out with the "stop picking on me" line, being that my arguments are generally a lot better than whoever wants to pick on me, and that I care just a little bit less. I'm sure my actions don't qualify with you, but remember, I do care just that little bit less. - Hahnchen 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • (after edit conflict) - I see you've altered your comment to include some "whacky megaman recolor adventures" in. So they're not notable are they, is yours? You never mentioned it. The point you make about rational arguments? Try it out yourself. - Hahnchen 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, I don't care if my comic is included and if you noticed, I even say my comic isn't notible. I just don't like the way idiots like you go about removing stuff like this. -Lessthankate
  • Delete, per Hahnchen's webcomics expertise and persuasive arguments. This article clearly does not meet WP:WEB and is unverifiable through reliable sources. Let's all be WP:CIVIL while we're at it. -- Dragonfiend 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, lets ignore the fact that of the two arguments he has made, one was rejected and the other is highly subjective in regards webcomics. Just delete the damn page and be done with it. I'm sure you'll feel just as good about it as if a vote had gone through. -Lessthankate
      • Comment: This isn't a "vote," and I don't see any "argument" that has been "rejected." Could you be more clear on what you mean? The nominator's point seems to me to be that "nothing I can find tells me that this 4 month old webcomic is any more notable than a myspace page." Do you have any verifiable information from reliable sources that indicates otherwise? If you're new here, you may want to review the content policies of this encyclopedia, begining with WP:V. -- Dragonfiend 04:48, 12 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 delete. Sango123 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment Derangement[edit]

Webcomics and furries, probably the 2 most over represented topics on Wikipedia. If this webcomic involved startrek fandom, then we'd probably have it all. Sadly, it doesn't, but you can still see it here. Furtopia is a furry webhost, and has an Alexa rank of 150,000 (which is in itself poor), can you imagine of what infinitesimal proportion of those hits it draws? Well you don't have to imagine, since the webcomics launch in late 2004 and with 50 strips under their belt, their webcounter shows 6000 hits! Maybe they've been really really popular and the counter rolled over because it exceeded its limit of 9,999,999 but with only 40 Google hits, I doubt that. - Hahnchen 01:47, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo-Pazzo[edit]

I'm not even going to pretend to research this. Take a look at the article and just vote delete. It's so easy. - Hahnchen 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability--Xrblsnggt 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Glad to oblige, since not many google hits reference the actual flash cartoon and it's also ranked some #66000ish on newgrounds. As a contrast, There She Is!! is ranked 9th/109th (score/popularity) on the same site. --ColourBurst 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New article, allow for organic expansion! -- Librarianofages 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Allow for organic expansion" always seems to mean "Wait, it might become notable someday." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fan-1967 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's nothing to expand. It's some guy's flash cartoon. The article doesn't even make any sense, but I suspect that's derivative from the subject matter. Opabinia regalis 02:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because flergle. Danny Lilithborne 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. "Organic expansion" is only useful if the subject is encyclopedic in the first place. --Kinu t/c 03:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Comixpedia is the correct place for this kind of thing.Perhaps a notice could be placed on the list of webcomics page pointing out this alternative wiki outlet Bwithh 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comixpedia is for sequential art, not animation. This is a flash cartoon, not a webcomic. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even notable on Newgrounds. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this does not meet WP:WEB and waiting for the day it may be would violate WP:NOT.--Isotope23 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with the insightful nom, I was still obligated to check out the article before voting. Wow. WP:WEB Alphachimp talk 23:13, 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 nomination was delete after discounting new users and anons. Jaranda wat's sup 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Staredown Professionals[edit]

Non-notable - the only mentions of it in Google are its own web pages, this Wikipedia entry, two blog entries and a Craigslist posting. McGeddon 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No stupider than professional Wrestling. --Xrblsnggt 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thats subjective, but it does appear to lack notability which is the problem, not whether or not it is less or more stupid than any other "sport". -- Librarianofages 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry, you're right. Professional wrestling has many noted MENSA members.
  • Delete total lack of notability, which is somehow not surprising. I want to see the world championship staring match on EPSN. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. Plus, theres a wikipedia article being used for a semi-inline citation, which isnt allowed. Zos 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no apparently notability. Comment about professional wrestling is irrelevant, since articles (and their topics) are to be judged on a standalone notability basis. --Kinu t/c 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after staring at it for a while. NawlinWiki 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't deserve deletion, but needs expansion.--SweetNeo85 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously the next Viral thing. I would wait and see if it becomes a phenomeneon. It has been Dugg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.164.183 (talk • contribs) 01:59, July 11, 2006.
  • Delete I find the whole trend toward calling various non-athletic activities "sports" highly disturbing... eating, math, staring. But that's not why I'm voting to delete this. I'm voting to delete this because it only gets 9 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even as comedy this is old news - see Stare-out. Catchpole 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stupider than professional wrestling, by a whisker. Bejnar 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you questioning the notability of staredown? Staredown is a sport that has been played for thousands of years, in various forms since the advent of recorded history. The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians in particular shared in this glorious pursuit. I encourage you to join a local staredown club and start competing. See you at the toe line !! Chipwood
  • Keep I went to a tournament in Reno last year. Don't knock it. It rocks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.31.255.3 (talk • contribs) 00:53, July 12, 2006.
  • Keep This was challenged for its notability before and lost, so just let it be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.31.255.3 (talk • contribs) 00:55, July 12, 2006.
  • Keep Look, it's not the NBA or the NHL but it's a professional league that deserves respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.40.231 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 July 2006.
  • Keep This was a close call, but I think the citations I found online qualify it as notable. —The preceding comment was falsely signed as Hodges, and was added by 24.7.40.231 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 July 2006.
  • Delete This is definately viral marketing. Please see Unflinching Triumph Trailer. This article appears to be legitimizing the pretense of the movie. Also, almost all references to NASP (found via google) seem to be the same (or very similiar) summaries. Finally (while not extremely convincing, yet still another nail), Philip Rockhammer has a myspace page complete with blog which seems very virally placed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.0.125 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No such organization exists. The entire thing is a very well made spoof. If you watch the "documentary" you will realize that the whole thing was contrived. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.97.164 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--even if the movie on which the NASP is based becomes notable, at most a small entry under that movie will suffice to explain that there's a spoof site out there. At the very minimum, if the movie ever had a huge following, an explanation that this organization was fictional, along the lines of the entry for The Hanso Foundation, would be necessary. FunnyYetTasty 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't deserve deletion. There are some fucking haters here. Seriously now. There's wiki articles for everything here. Let this one be. Asshats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.66.64 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, if that's not convincing, I don't know what is. I'm sure the closing admin will take all of these very useful reasons for keeping into account. --Kinu t/c 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not need to be found in Google... its just that those ppl are not IT-savy enough. -- mh 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. Peter S. 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and write about unflinching triumph istead Cd 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, isnt this the same guy - the interviewer on rock paper scissors? and the guy here in Patterson Pack. I would wait, maybe there 25 other games out there that this joker has done. In that case I would rename the page to 'biggest viral marketing campaign ever'. This is a developing story.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fa Lun Hai (Farenheit)[edit]

Band/group article does not assert its importance/notability, and is mainly just links to another wiki site. Seidenstud 02:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am in the progress of putting everything together and will not just be links and the only links are they dramas they are in and the members names linked to dramawiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudi1123 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Lay off the AFD's on new articles, ALLOW FOR ORGANIC EXPANSION -- Librarianofages 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even so, the fact that there is no assertion of the subject's importance, as well as the 0 ghits [2] makes one very suspicious. And besides, since when is Wikipedia a place for Organic Expansion? I thought it was an encyclopedia, not a creative writing blog. -Seidenstud 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and contextless. Of all the articles to start defending organic expansion on. Opabinia regalis 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BAND. Zos 02:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete Rewrite. May have notability from the link on those wikilink. SYSS Mouse 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless completely rewritten. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. They don't even have an album out yet. Two hints for bands: This is not the place to advertise, and, put your best article out from the start (complete sentences, the works). Tychocat 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a vanity page for a band? Hmm, I think I've seen that once or twice before ... WilyD 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wickning1 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- ColourBurst 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this non-article about a nn band. -- Hoary 09:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is not a Japanese band, so don't put it under Japanese-related. "Japan" does not equal "Asia". --ColourBurst 22:52, 12 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband Network Gateway[edit]

Non-notable technical neologism. Cheese Sandwich 02:05, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn up and go[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Cheese Sandwich 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable neologism. (They coined a term for a bus that shows up on schedule?) --Xrblsnggt 02:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment deserves to be BJAODNed for our children. And the article, weak delete. --Ouro 11:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 02:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dionyseus 07:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Although this actual term is specific to one bus company, the concept is becoming more popular with bus companies globally. To answer Xrblsnggt's point, the issue is that these buses _don't_ have to run to a tight schedule. Let's say you expect 120 passengers an hour on a particular route. You can either run a bus that can carry 60 passengers every 30 mins - which means that it has to keep to the schedule accurately, the passengers have to know what that schedule is, and, if they miss the bus they intended to catch, they have a 29-minute wait ahead of them; or, you follow this concept, run a bus that can carry 20 passengers every 10 minutes, so that the passengers don't need to know exactly when the buses run - they just Turn Up at the bus-stop, knowing they'll have a maximum wait of 9 mins, so they can Go at their convenience rather than the convenience of the bus company. Perhaps something about the concept could go into the Bus rapid transit article? Tevildo 10:20, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Empathic Programming[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can find a place for it in a redirect/merge. Possibly a psychology or neurology article. Zos 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have heard this term before, but cannot site it as being notable. -NickSentowski 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In which the following should be considered at the same time Noetic Psychology. These psychology terms go right over my head! --Richhoncho 19:25, 14 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 per CSD A8. Naconkantari 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Burton[edit]

Minor news anchor from Pittsburgh. No assertation of notability, decidedly unencyclopedic tone, includes subject's favorite web sites and movies. De-proded by anon. -- Vary | Talk 02:11, 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 nomination was no consensus, noting the suggestion that this be merged into the Frederik Pohl article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh Numbers[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It looks like a thing some Average Joe made up. Green caterpillar 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems like a rip off of Carl Jungs synchronicity. Zos 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Strong Merge into fundamental physical constants This is not made up by an Average Joe, it really was a term/concept coined by Frederick Pohl in his Heechee/Gateway sci-fi saga (the original trilogy is terrific soft sci-fi, and was one of my teenage favourites). An example of the term's usage by Pohl can be found here. Here is some detail on the concept from a math forum[3] - there's an mention here that the term is known enough for it to be a title and subject of a math lecture. Another mention and explanation on a math webpage here[4]. The term seems to have some currency in math/physics circles. However, I am voting "Weak Keep" only for now as I wonder whether this term is too obscure/not widespread in use enough for Wikipedia Bwithh
I am placing an appeal on the Wikipedia math and physics portals and the math/science helpdesk to call for mathematicians and physicists to evaluate how widespread this term is in their world Bwithh 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Herm... So this is what it feels like to be at the keep end of the afd vote going all the way the other way. Um.... I'll guess I'll just have to take as many of you with me as I can... "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!" Bwithh 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it was not coined by Frederik Pohl. He just used it in his book. Green caterpillar 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know who coined it then ? I'm interested Bwithh 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I came here from the math reference desk. I would recomment to Bwithh that the better place for notices like this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Math AfDs are discussed there quite regularly. Anyway, this is not notable enough for an article as far as I can see. -lethe talk + 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I posted there already too <=P Bwithh 05:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly merge into Frederik Pohl, otherwise delete. --Trovatore 04:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Not important enough for its own article.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not heard of the term in 40 years of maths experience, but then I'm not a sci-fi fan, so if we have to have something, merge it. Madmath789 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Frederik Pohl and provide examples.BenC7 07:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Frederik Pohl. If ever anything can be writtten about this over a few lines then it may again become a separate article. But I doubt it. DirkvdM 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would not merge as the article doesn't provide enough depth for it to be unbalanced. If more depth was provided on other subjects covered in the author's book, then Merge. Certainly doesn't need its own article. I have never heard the term used and from googling there are very few references to it, all refering to the author who invented it. Leave a redirect to the authors page after deleting or merging. EAi 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pohl certainly could be expanded, but this is not a good place to start, so I oppose a merge. Not good mathematics, or (as far as I know) physics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm not sure where we discuss this as a physical concept, although it is not uncommon to observe such things; the coincidence between the gravitational constant and the age of the universe is perhaps the most common example. For merge target, I would suggest Heechee. Septentrionalis 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- since when did we delete article because we didnt understand them its clear what the article is talking about, and if someone searches for gosh numbers, because they don't know what they are, they wouldnt have a clue hwat had happened if the turned up at frederick pohl or whatever. Philc TECI 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what fulltext search is for. Samohyl Jan 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
??? -- Philc TECI 00:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can certainly expand this article with the links Bwithh gave us. If the article still isn't big enough to keep, then Merge it with Frederik Pohl. I'm strongly against deleting it. --Yanwen 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pohl article or delete. "Scientific" terms made up by sci-fi writers are not, except in a few rare cases, notable enough for their own articles. -- SCZenz 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pohl article or keep. Whoever coined the actual term doesn't matter, but the concept itself is interesting and deep enough that it shouldn't be relegated to obsurity. capitalist 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pohl article - Here from the math RD. Ten years of math and physics study and I've never seen it before. Google gives 109 hits, 76 with -pohl. It's a cool term, though, and someone might one day look for it, so merge. --George 05:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept at least is a very common idea, and link to more common terms for it. Mathmo 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT merge with the Pohl article, link to and from it if you like. However this concept is much bigger than this writer (who I've never heard of at least....) and should not be relegated to merely a mention on this writer's article. Mathmo 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For everyone saying this concept is important, what concept do you mean exactly? What reasonable title would you give such an article? As a physicist, I must insist this concept isn't common at all, because it's too vague to be useful to anyone. It basically amounts to "numbers that relate to physics in some way that are interesting" (by some undefined standard). If anyone wants to tell me how to write an NPOV article on this subject without original research, please be my guest. -- SCZenz 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would give it the title physical coincidence, by parallel with Mathematical coincidence. Pohl's example is the identical apparent sizes of our sun and moon; I have cited the near-equality of the gravitational constant and the age of the universe (in natural units). One of these is (probably) meaningless; the other has had a physical theory based on it. Septentrionalis 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mathematics article is borderline OR; certainly it isn't based on sources. I fear the same problem with physical coincidences. -- SCZenz 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Okay, I'm not a scientist or mathematician on any kind. But based on what I remember of the Pohl's books, Gosh numbers are not just physics/astrophysics coincidences but also values underlying basic laws of the universe which are apparently arbitrary yet also vital to the survival of life as it is. The key plot point in the Heechee saga is this Spoilers ahead - an advanced race of aliens called the Heechee have left their technology behind and have apparently vanished. In fact, they're hiding from an even more advanced race of aliens which have been around since before the Big Bang, and are trying to reverse the Big Bang, so that they can "re-roll the dice" for the gosh numbers which came into existence with the current universe (their lives were based on the old gosh numbers, and the new gosh numbers are apparently unbearable. For a scientific discussion of [gosh numbers in this way - one in a science magazine and not based on my memories, see this cached article. Money quote:"When an old universe gives rise to a new one, the physical laws - as determined by the Gosh Numbers - change slightly and randomly, the same way that genes change when they mutate within biological organisms from one generation to the next." Bwithh 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this seems to be the Smolin which discusses Gosh numbers in the article: Lee Smolin. also see [5]. Bwithh 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell at the moment, the standard citation for Smolin's theory is L. Smolin, Did the universe evolve?, Class. and Quant. Grav. 9 (1992) 173; and Pohl wrote a while before that - so he's borrowing Pohl's term. Septentrionalis 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this AfD is convoluting the concept from a particular sci-fi novel, which I do not think is notable enough for a separate article, with this general concept of coincidences. I wish people wouldn't do that. -- SCZenz 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My latest note emphasizes that the concept is not just about coincidences. And the article link shows it has been used by a noted physicist in a popular science (and scifi) magazineBwithh 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a merge into Fundamental physical constants? Septentrionalis 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a GREAT idea, Septentrionalis. Changing vote to reflect this new idea Bwithh 12:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like it could be expanded into a good article. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge into either Frederik Pohl or fundamental physical constant. The use in the Pohl story gives as the main example that minus 40 degrees Celsius is the same as minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit. That has nothing to do with fundamental constants of the universe as claimed in the present article. There are no known examples of unexpected relationships among the fundamental constants, so it is not possible to expand the article with examples. Apart from the fact that the concept of the article is not the one described by Pohl, there is no good reason to single this out among all the ideas described by Pohl in his many novels. --LambiamTalk 14:01, 14 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 was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton's list[edit]

The game is real, but the article is massive amounts of cruft, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's also unverified, and mortonslist.com, the associated website, is MIA at the moment. Opabinia regalis 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit it and tighten it up, don't delete. All information has been taken from interviews with the authors or otherwise noted as speculation. There are currently no outside links to mortonslist.com or elsewhere, and mortonslist.com is only experiencing temporarily problems. Since the game is real and warrants an article, let users fix it in the spirit of Wikipedia. It's only been up a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.127.152 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 July 2006
Comment Unless the interviews have been published by a third party, they're essentially original research, and speculation shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article whether it's noted or not. mortonslist.com has been experiencing "temporary" problems for two months if the site notice is to be believed. Opabinia regalis 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, chiefly because of the amount of unverified material in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - {{sofixit}} --Avillia (Avillia me!) 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Tychocat 08:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The entry is about a book, the process of creation, and the background of something much more than a game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.101.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - A valuable entry that should not be deleted. Brad Luttrell Knoxville, TN --208.60.92.211 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Morton's List is more than a gaming guide, it is a manual for other ways to live life. Ian Gilliam Knoxville, TN --130.94.245.146 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep the entry needs editing. but Morton's List is a real game and the information is correct--cory in tennessee— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.214.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete non-notable book about a non-notable game. --InShaneee 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book is real, has religious ties, and the information presented is accurate. --Steve Hoffman, Buffalo NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.172.199 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Non-notable book, non-notable game. Maybe if this becomes a success it could merit a listing, but as of right now, no. Wildthing61476 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 6,000 copy selling game, promoted largely through word of mouth and with no major distribution, seems rather non-non-notable, especially considering some of the truly obscure games and sub-cultures that Wiki contains information about. The article is a little over-wrought, but the information is interesting to those who play. --Rick, Brooklyn, NY69.112.101.41 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Whispering 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. There are a lot of IPs here... Alphachimp talk 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Solicitation for outside action here. --InShaneee 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have never played the game, but it is real and clearly deserves an entry. I see the website is working as well. No doubt this article needs to be improved greatly, but that is the nature of a wiki, not impulsive deletion. I welcome an entry on this game because it is clearly unique and a neutral description of it would be helpful to those interested in what it's about. Let's not waste more energy with debating deletion; let's be constuctive and make changes. Unverifiable content can be removed and a more succinct description could suffice. --BFR 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's 3rd contribution. --InShaneee 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. There are no haters here, just editors. Bejnar 21:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I likely would never take part in this game, but because I or anyone else feels that way should not be a reason to delete it. The website is working fine as of July 12, 2006 at 6:39 p.m. It is definately a unique game and a discription and the history alone justifies a page for it. Gary Seven 01:40, 13 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Bell[edit]

Found this while I working on the AFD for Jon Burton above. Substantially similar to an article Speedied back in April (only major changes are some wikilinking and the picture) but given the circumstances, didn't think speedying as a repost was appropriate. -- Vary | Talk 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Shes won awards. It needs to be verifiable and cleaned up. Zos 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but provide sources for the award statement (according to Google, it seems to be true). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six regional Emmy awards is notable. Some sources: [6], [7].--Fuhghettaboutit 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Fuhghettaboutit. Dionyseus 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a six-time Emmy winner would be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral She is NOT a six-time National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) Emmy award winner. Her name does not appear in the Emmy lists on their official site www.emmy.com. However, she has won REGIONAL awards from the Mid-Atlantic chapter of NATAS: individual achievement awards for best news anchor and best informational reporting (Sept. 2005), and she contributed to reports which won awards such as "Hill District Trash" report which won best service news feature and "Airfare Secrets" which won for informational news feature (Sept. 2005). Bejnar 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has won numerous awards. It shouldn't matter if they are regional emmy awards or not. 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zered Bassett[edit]

Non-notable skateboarder with a POV article. Naconkantari 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Zos 02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page. Axiomm 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not quite notable enough. DarthVader 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I'm tempt to speedy this unsder A7 Jaranda wat's sup 06:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search registered 13,400 hits, he appears to be a very notable skater. He won the Transworld Skateboarding Magazine 2005 Rookie Of The Year title. [8] The article simply needs improvement. Dionyseus 07:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case of some users wanting to delete just because they recognize the person. I simply don't believe in CSD A7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.9 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Can't sleep, Yankees will beat Red Sox 11:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for me. And POV is for cleaning up, not for deleting! Ansell 06:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dionyseus and Ansell, this person is notable in his field. RFerreira 00:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom FullSmash26 04:26, 15 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. Jaranda wat's sup 05:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kangamangus NH[edit]

No assertion of notability, limited context on the location and date of the events described, and no sources to back up the article. Prodded in June but deprodded by original editor; no improvements made to the article since. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as incoherent rambling, and dare I say... patent nonsense. --DarkAudit 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. The article is incoherent, and it's impossible to figure out what the article is supposed to be about. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete it's junk. Danny Lilithborne 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Nonsense article. -- Gogo Dodo 03:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead Jaranda wat's sup 05:34, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KH Experience[edit]

Advertising for non-notable Kingdom Hearts II fangame that fails WP:WEB. The article itself also incorporates some kind of guestbook feature, which violates WP:NOT. Originally prodded by me, deprodded by anon editor. Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Zos 03:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, and "kh experience" has 157 Google results, almost all of which are unrelated. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a game but a series. This page gives information on characters in the serieplease do not delete it! I am begging you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.120.160.42 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. As per... I'll leave that for you to decide -_- --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 03:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and do not speedy. Games/series do not fit any WP:CSD criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's kinda sad when people beg. Danny Lilithborne 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The anonymous editors might want to try deal with the issues at hand, rather than begging. Tychocat 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No delete. It's not a fan made game its a forum, are you blind!? It's an RPG so what?

  • Delete, as forums are also generally non-notable. --Habap 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are enough to drive the most polite man insane! First you delete KHIH then KH3:AoD and now KH Experience, whats wrong with you- Darkside 597

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

This deletion debate has been blanked upon request of the deleted article's subject. Please see WP:LIVING. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. nn-nelogism

Netcohort Society[edit]

Neologism. Cheese Sandwich 03:41, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgeoning Online Classified Listings[edit]

Press release, exclusively promotes [10]digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:06, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of nutrition topic lists[edit]

Listcruft. Certainly incomplete and potenially very huge list. Would work much better as a category, if there isn't one already. -- Koffieyahoo 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Page is at 57kb! Zos 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete looks like a lot of work has been done for it, but it's just too broad - maybe break down the article into the sub-sections and use those instead. Deleuze 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after changes - but I still think it might work better as a catagory or portal. Deleuze 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's not the same page any more. I've chopped it into component lists as per the discussion above, and have renamed the page accordingly. Is that small enough for you? Based on the changes, I'd say it's okay to...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of food topics[edit]

Listcurft. Certainly incomplete and potenially very huge list. Would work much better as a category, if there isn't one already. -- Koffieyahoo 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unwieldy, indiscriminate collection of information.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable and overly broad. Deleuze 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable indiscriminate list (WP:NOT). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why do people create these articles? Rob 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deleuze. Green caterpillar 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Food-related is pretty straight-forward, and discriminant. The purpose of the list is to present all the food-related topics on the 'pedia, which is useful for monitoring the subject area as per Wikipedia:List guideline. The subject "food-related" is of much narrower scope than the list of mathematics articles, which has grown so large that it now consists of 27 component lists (one for each letter of the alphabet, and another for digits)!
Part of a series on
Mathematics
Areas
Relationship with sciences
Mathematics Portal

The list for the letter A alone is larger than all the lists I've built combined!!! And then there's the mathematics topic lists and the list of mathematicians (which is 166 kilobytes long!). That food shouldn't be afforded similar treatment doesn't make any sense, especially considering the central role it plays in all of our lives. If the approach is okay to take on the far broader subjects of Mathematics, Philosophy, Biology, etc., then why isn't it appropriate for the narrower subject of food? Your stance doesn't make any sense. Please explain. --Transhumanist 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is unmaintainable is that there are way too many food-related topics, because one could include list of foods, food agencies, meal types, etc. Green caterpillar 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that is too many articles? And what is unmaintainable about it having that many articles? What difficulty in managing the page does that present? As pointed out above, Math is far larger, and those guys maintain it just fine. What makes you think that this list will not be any easier to maintain than the huge multi-scope list of mathematics articles? The Math articles list contains thousands upon thousands of links. So how can you conclude that the food list will be too large, when it won't be anywhere near the size of Math? --Transhumanist 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone could distantly relate almost any article to food, and there would be a lot of disagreement on what should be on that list. For example, users might debate whether articles like feces should be on the list. I predict there would be a lot of confusion and edit wars too.
However, I am thinking of a solution. If we were to make this a category, and make sub-categories, such as "List of fruit-related articles" and "List of Spanish foods related articles", an agreement might be reached. Green caterpillar 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's much more clearly defined what a mathematics article is than what a food topic is. A mathematics article is an article that is mainly about math. What is a food topic? Does it include farming related articles? Does it include articles about every plant or amimal you can eat? Does it include every dish that has it's own article? I'm if we start to include all all those it's easy to make a list that is longer than the mathematics list within a few days.
Moreover, the mathematics list is partially used in the development of better mathematics articles, the food topics list isn't (at the moment). -- Koffieyahoo 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there already a category for this? If not, it could, as you said, be made into one. Green caterpillar 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to "food topics", no, I don't think there is one category for it. However, my guess is that there are already a few categories out there that would cover the whole spectrum. -- Koffieyahoo 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such as... Green caterpillar 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the top of my head Category:Agriculture and Category:Food and drink (including all its subcategories). -- Koffieyahoo 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could merge this list into that category. Green caterpillar 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that most of it is already there, but it's worth going through the list to make sure. -- Koffieyahoo 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would now suggest that whatever is not there we put, and then just delete it. It would sort of be like merging. Green caterpillar 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist, what do you think? Green caterpillar 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC) I see that Transhumanist has a list of food topics in his userspace. Perhaps he could add missing info to the categories, and we just delete this one. Any objections? Green caterpillar 20:01, 14 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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 20:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of life extension-related topics[edit]

Listcruft. Category of articles is very badly defined. List had the potential to become huge. -- Koffieyahoo 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator - Note that Ben Best has extensive experience editing biological, medical, and life extension-related topics (see his user contributions), and is therefore especially qualified from among those participating in this discussion, to judge whether or not a list is useful for navigating the subject at issue. I also have strong familiarity with the subject the list supports as well, as my edits to the article life extension clearly show. I carefully constructed the list to support this subject, and every item on the list pertains in a direct and important way to the study of life extension (anti-aging) or the life extension movement. Please retain this useful tool for the following reasons: that we believe it will be useful to those who wish to study life extension, and that it will also be useful to us as (and to others who are) developers of this subject area on Wikipedia. Please give special consideration to our reasons stated below. Meanwhile note that based on their user contributions, those who voted to delete the list may not have a strong familiarity with the subject, and that a casual glance at the list by an editor inexperienced with this interdisciplinary field of applied science may not be a good indicator for deletion. Thank you. --Transhumanist 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If anything, this would work fine as a category. joturner 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yep, bad idea for a list. Might work as a catagory. Deleuze 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Shorten the life of this category. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) -- Gogo Dodo 06:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That the list may become huge is not a valid reason to delete it. By doing so, you are directly violating Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Here's a quote from that page:

There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dialup readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.

  • commentary continued: The above policy applies to lists as well as to conventional articles. There are some extremely large lists on Wikipedia, and some have grown so large that they have been split up into several pages. This list on life extension topics compares favorably with the indices of books on the subject. Because of this, the list should be kept, and refined over time as we learn through trial and error how to optimize the list's support of the featured subject. I didn't create it to be cruft, and I'm committed to making the list as useful as possible. It is incredibly frustrating to have some stranger who is unfamiliar with the topic come along and kill it with an axe rather than constructively discuss how to improve the list on its talk page. No effort whatsoever was taken to improve the approach, just "Articles for Deletion." Yeah, that's real constructive. --Transhumanist 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that being said, why don't we discuss how to modify the list so that it optimally supports the theme subject? What has to be done to the list to make it valuable enough to keep? No objections other than potential future size have been presented, so I have no idea where to begin. And since I was closely following the instructions from Wikipedia:List guideline, I'm completely baffled as to why you would want to delete the list. Is there something political going on here? The reason I ask is because here is what the guideline article has to say about creating a list:

Lists on Wikipedia have three main purposes:

Information
The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
Navigation
If the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
Development
Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.

Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.

  • As you can see, I've created this list of related topics as a navigation tool, and to be a survey of the subject area (hence its informational value), and also as a tool to indicate the state of the 'pedia in that subject area (notice its redlinks). It also serves well for monitoring this subject just as mentioned in the guideline. I've done everything by the book, yet here we are. I respectfully request that you reverse your positions and give this (and the other lists I have created a chance to prove themselves useful). Please give this matter some thought. Thank you. --Transhumanist 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, the number of redlinks is minimal, they're basically in the "Theories of aging" sublist. Second of all, a list has to have some added value above just navigation, because that alone is perfectly doable with the help of categories. The added value usually comes from either a maintainance perspective or a navigation perspective. Given the nature of this list I would say it was created with the second perspective in mind. However, to be useful from that perspective requires the subject list to be narrowly defined, very long list are not useful in this case, and that is simply not the case here. -- Koffieyahoo 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redlinks are minimal only because you nominated deletion before more could be added. In that sense you've totally discounted the fact that it was an ongoing effort. --Transhumanist 06:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In whatever way you look at it, the number of red-links will always be dwarfed by the temendously huge number of existing articles that should be on the list given its underspecified topic. -- Koffieyahoo 06:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • that does not diminish the list's usefulness pertaining to redlinks. And the topic is not underspecified. I have extensive knowledge of this field and atest to the list's applicability. --Transhumanist 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is better as a list, as it is too broad for categorization. Useful navigation tool. (But make it "life-extension-related".) Outriggr 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each topic on the list pertains to Life Extension in an important and fairly direct way. --Transhumanist 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not arguing that (and incidentally, am on your side. I tire of seeing AfD's that want to delete one arbitrary article out of a huge precedent-setting group of similar articles). I said that because, if this were turned into a category, then you'd have someone doing a Category for Deletion because the category was "original research" or such—in the view that categories are purely categorical (ie. member "x" of category "Life Extension" implies that "x" extends life), and are not mechanisms for grouping items about a topic. In CfD's I've participated in, the above view seems to lead to someone saying "it should be a list". So you have made a list, and now someone wants to delete that. Outriggr 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was sympathetic to the view that it could be a category (and I do think that there should be a life-extension category), but the list is too broad for that or any category and yet is useful as a tool for those interested in finding relevant subjects (as I am). It would be an awesome task and somewhat inappropriate to include every item in this list in a life-extension category --Ben Best 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if this list is not deleted I will create a life-extension category (unless someone beats me to it). --Ben Best 17:12, 14 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHOG[edit]

Slang term unlikely to become more than a dictionary definition. (This text copied from June 5 proposed deletion by Mr. Lefty) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:40, 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mayo[edit]

No notablity, no references, and claims to be an astrloger who started a questionable school. CaliEd 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An out of print 120 page book published in the 1970s doesn't make him notable. It seems this article is used as a promotion for the school listed for deletion. It is created by the same author. So this guy self published books in the 1970s, so what? CaliEd 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Published author of serious and popular books, notable in his field. Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smerdis of Tlön, notable within his subject area. Yamaguchi先生 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10,000 google hits are not all necessarily the same Jeff Mayo. No notability, no references = vanity. Sandy 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has books with serious publishers Penguin (Astrology: A Key to Personality ) and a Teach Yourself Dlyons493 Talk 02:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately. He has 6 books in the Library of Congress, and the publishers are not vanity press. Using a more targeted google ([12]) comes up with 1350 hits. Many of them are Wikipedia and mirrors, but there are some that appear to be astrology sites, including some reviews. He appears to have a certain amount of notability in astrology circles. TedTalk/Contributions 03:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This man was discussed in one of my highschool classes less than 6 years ago. - NickSentowski 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons and Smerdis. More notable than some pokemon characters. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we can hold the Mayo. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are astrologers who are doing psychology-based astrological counseling who feel he has made important contributions to Astrology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arden4.1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) - their first and only edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE into Jeff Mayo. Herostratus 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo School of Astrology[edit]

This is an ad for a questionable school for astrology. It is a link to the .com page. Adcruft CaliEd 04:47, 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 nomination was speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Car Club of Australia[edit]

One club of hundreds, no claims to notability presented.--Peta 04:48, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Nod[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry, where these articles used to be a redirect to Structures_of_the_Brotherhood_of_Nod and Ariel units of the Global Defense Initiative, but the pre-redirect text was restored. I think the arguements on the other AfD are valid. Wikipedia is most not a how-to guide This is fancruft, and I don't want to see a revert war on content that probably should've been listed along with this. I don't feel speedy is appropreate, since it had a good deal of content other than the redirect, so AfD seems like the right thing if this article is to go with the rest of them. Kevin_b_er 04:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 nominated Orca aircraft for deletion and pointed the template here, and I'll support co-listing it as well in this discussion. Unless altered, Bwithh and Alphachimp's comments do not reflect this added entry. Kevin_b_er 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I support the co-listing. My deletion vote and reasoning stand. Thanks for the talk page message. Alphachimp talk 05:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In this form the articles are too game oriented; I can not make a valid argument for saving them. Note that this is not a creation of deleted material, as these pages existed before the mass merge into the larger list articles since deleted by Proto. There are a handful of these pages around, they should be listed in the C&C template soon so that they can all be seen. TomStar81 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please try to stay civil. There's no real need for all caps. Alphachimp talk 05:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read the article(s)? If you take the time to actually read them you would see that they do not tell you how to do anything, although in this case they are decidely game cruft. Come on people, use a little common sense. TomStar81 05:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Yes, I read the articles and I agree that they are gamecruft. I just didn't think the all caps was appropriate. Alphachimp talk 05:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for saying so. I went ahead and just removed the whole comment. TomStar81 05:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft including the Orca plane thing Bwithh 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yup gamecruft Alphachimp talk 05:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles - I missed them when trying to clear out the crufty crufty cruft. Proto///type 08:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, excessive gamecruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:00, 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 nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzball MUCK[edit]

No reasons for notability given. --Peta 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's no FurryMUCK. Danny Lilithborne 05:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed it is not, but if you had read the article you would know that Fuzzball is the software that FurryMUCK runs on, it is not a MUCK in and of itself. I vote keep Arkyan 06:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read it. My point stands. Danny Lilithborne 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What point? Saying that Fuzzball MUCK is "No FurryMUCK" is like saying "Yeah but marble is no Michaelangelo's David". It's the software that runs the MUCK, you are comparing apples to oranges - even worse, you are comparing apples to apple trees. Arkyan 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see the problem. Just because a MUD is popular doesn't mean the operating system it runs on is. Danny Lilithborne 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, just because Wikipedia is notable, neither MediaWiki nor Apache are notable - clear as day... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. Check of Google shows a lot of Wiki mirrors and download sites, no third-party non-trivial articles. Tychocat 08:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge into one giant MUCK software article. The software itself is notable, being one of the major MUCK drivers, but it's kind of marginal stuff. On the other hand, there's little problem with keeping the stuff in separate articles anyway; For example, there's articles on LPmud drivers too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with TinyMUCK, which Fuzzball is a derivitave of. --Kitch 12:05, 12 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nekobe[edit]

A online story, no evidence of notability.--Peta 04:59, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lorenzen[edit]

non-notable Rlitwin 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A prior version of this article went through the deletion process and the result was delete. The reason was non-notability. The new article may have some new content but the person in question hasn't grown greatly in notability since then. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lorenzen (prior deletion). Rlitwin 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Considering the subject as an academic, he does not appear to be more notable than the average professor. See WP:PROFTEST. --Metropolitan90 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. Dionyseus 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person is well know in the library instruction field and meets the criteria for a noted professor or academic. He has 64 citations at Google Scholar on the search (lorenzen "library instruction"). I think that is notable. LarryQ 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article similar to Jessamyn West which survived a vote for delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessamyn West? Most Wikipedia users have no clue who is important in the library world but a Google search quickly shows notability. LarryQ 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jessamyn is noted in the library world primarily as a blogger, and also as an ALA Councilor (she just finished her three year term). I am in the library world, and I have never heard of Michael Lorenzen. If you want to use a Google test, I think you will find there is no comparison between Jessamyn West and Michael Lorenzen on that basis. (You might check my results as well - "rory litwin" - and you will see the kind of results a non-notable can get in the library world.) Michael Lorenzen is one of thousands in the library world in terms of notability. Lots of people write articles. If you look at Jessamyn's articles for deletion discussion, you'll see that it was close, and a deciding fact seems to have been that she was selected as one of a dozen or so bloggers invited to attend the 2004 Democratic National Convention as bloggers in the press corps. So, it seems to me that Jessamyn survived the articles for deletion vote mainly because of her notability as a blogger. She was one of the earliest bloggeres and is very well known in the profession for that. There aren't any other Wikipedia articles on contemporary librarians who are as non-notable as Lorenzen; his article is really an exception, in my opinion. The others are either actual professors, ALA past-presidents, historical figures, etc. Rlitwin 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I don't think 64 hits in Google Scholar meets the professor test. Compare professor Kathleen McCook, who I think is notable in the library world. (kathleen mccook library gets 292 hits in google scholar.) Rlitwin 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, most of Lorenzen's articles were published in state and local publications, not national publications. He is probably very well known locally and somewhat known nationally, but notability requires a little more in an encyclopedia, IMO. Rlitwin 14:06, 15 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMC collectibles[edit]

WP:NOT Non-notable toys. There are models of almost every car ever made, including these rather non-notable ones. There are vast numbers of collectable objects. We don't want to import eBay into Wikipedia. John Nagle 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it neccesary to remove an article that largely mirrors a feature of collectible car magazines, a section that discusses what models and toys have been made of a car? On what basis does this article deserve deletion? Who has it offended? Why is the information contained, namely fairly specific and cited information deemed of no consequence? Is this not merely an act of malicious hostility against an editor??
I haved scanned WP:NOT and I can find no statements supporting your assertion. You may well not want to import eBay, but that policy is not reflected in the text. Is there some other place where you can cite a prohibition on a page which associates real cars with their reproductions? It DOES say that wikipedia is not to be a battleground, which you and othters appear to be trying to make it be. The list is verifiable, it is NPOV, and cited. --matador300 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking for myself, I see no "malicious hostility" by John Nagle against anyone. Point of fact, he raises the issue of notability, which is per WP policy and not addressed by the above comments. I note that matador300 is in fact User:Wiarthurhu, the originator of the article in question, a point not obvious from the way the sig is designed. Tychocat 08:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a quick point, while I'm neither supporting or opposing this vote, you state that notability is "per WP policy". It isn't. I'm not saying that AfD's shouldn't be judged by that criterion, but it's a common mistake to assume that lack of perceived notability is actually a WP policy (the only mention of notability/importance in official policy is the CSD which states that if an article doesn't assert its importance, it's a candidate). Seb Patrick 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, current version lacks context. Would not be against finding some other place for this, at model car, Hot Wheels, or some similar place, but lists of toys categorized by the manufacturer of the origina cars they're models of does not seem to be a useful way to organize the data. Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already have web pages on my website organized exactly this way. Fans of AMC have a place to find replicas of the full sized cars. --matador300 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have coverage of Model cars, and several brands thereof. This content could be fitted into that family of articles. Wikipedia generally doesn't have exhaustive lists of collectable objects; that would be listcruft and advertising, per WP:NOT. See, for example Franklin Mint, which over several decades produced huge numbers of "collectables", including some very nice model cars. But their product list isn't in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has lists of every hot wheels car made for each of the past 3 years, with wikified names where the cars have entries.--matador300 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was an absolutely stellar, complete and insightful description of the phenomenon, it would be OK with me - after all, there are many minor TV show characters or even pokemons (!) who have their WP entries, and they are really good and I'd say add to WP's unique breadth. But this is a rather poor attempt. I would advise the user to try to develop it in the namespace and later get some impartial users to review it before moving to Wikipediaspace. Bravada, talk - 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey look, some other people have already modified and added to it, give it a chance folks. --matador300 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article There is a big article on Barbie that focuses on a very narrow audience, promotes one company, one product, and there are tons of eBay Barbie items. Using the same logic that is voced by those that want to delete this page, then the Barbie articles, as well as all other toy collectible pages, should also be eliminated. The WP:NOT is a guideline -- not policy. The only requirement is a Google search test. This article passes. 17.255.241.82 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - yeah, VERY narrow audience indeed... Barbie continues to have a huge influence on contemporary lifestyles in a large part of the world, is not only a huge brand and perhaps the best-selling toy ever, but also a very important icon of popular culture of the last few decades. I'd say if we were to bury a time capsule for post-WWII times, Barbie would be one of the first items that should go in. Quite the contrary to a collection of miniature cars from various manufacturers that don't even have too much in common. And please do not pretend to be more than one person, this can lead to schizophrenia. Bravada, talk - 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to add some more content to this article, but then I found this page. I did not know that the requirements included absolutely stellar, complete and insightful description of the subjects. I am new to this, but from what I have seen so far that hurdle would eliminate most of the entries in the WP. Categorizing toy cars by their original auto manufactures is very useful. I know many hobbyists that build their collections in that way. They do not want everything from a particular source, but by the type of make and even model that holds their interest. For example, topical areas are common in stamp collecting. Moreover, it looks some people hold Barbies very dear and a huge influence in their lives. I guess that Weepuls and most of the other objects listed in the toy category not only have stellar and insightful articles, but they also are more notable in our culture than part of the toy car hobby. I am learning something new! --CZmarlin 00:47, 15 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rulebook[edit]

Dicdef Arkyan 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can see a good article on the evolution, first use etc... of rule books but this is not a good start --Peripitus (Talk) 07:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Check the history. This article was originally more detailed, but culled to keep it from becoming List of games with rulebooks (but culled a bit too harshly IMO). This could become a good article, and keeping it is unlikely to do any harm. --ais523 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A rule book is a book containing rules. If you want to discuss rules, see Game. There's not a lot you can say about the books themselves. -- GWO
  • Delete per Peripitus. As for ais523's comment, this is not a good start either. —Caesura(t) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's important to give more information because a rulebook is a list of rules. But please give more information by adding details why rulebooks are important. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep More is needed to make this moderately relevant or purposeful. Michael 01:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has possibilities as something other than a dictionary definition. Don't delete just because it is only a tiny stub now, that has never been the wiki way. How have rulebooks evolved over time for instance? Ansell 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horticube[edit]

Does not meet the guideline for products or services. Forty-four unique google hits, zero "news" hits. Delete unless evidence of multiple non-trival write-ups by third party sources can be produced. - brenneman {L} 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sounds like an important product to me. The word 'horticube' registered 534 google hits, and the word 'oasis cubes' registered 8,150 google hits. Dionyseus 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually 244 unique results and still zero news. While google numbers are not the hurdle (third part commentary is,) we can provide some other figures to use as a benchmark. The searches on a random three items on my desk right now: "Sixsixone" (my bike helmet) returns 735 unique results, "crumpler bag" (my messenger bag) returns 589 unique as well as one news hit, and "schaum's outline series" (my fluid dynamics handbook from 1967) returns 198 unique results. So based on this metric, this is more notable than an obscure thirty year old book on mathematics? - brenneman {L} 08:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advertising. Fails WP:CORP for no non-trivial third-party articles regarding this product. 534 Ghits are NOT enough to be notable, in and of themselves. You have to be able to show notability in the type of coverage the company gets - one news article in The Times is good; a million catalog listings are not. Tychocat 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep they can be used for growing tomatoes, lettuce, onions, basil, thyme, oregano, Ficus, Spathiphyllum, Ivy, Zinnia, Gerbera, and Roses, and many other crops. Oh, all right Delete Dlyons493 Talk 12:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Google test should not apply toward horticultural subjects, and unique hits are never an accurate indicator of importance. According to Wikipedia:Search engine test, Microsoft, a subject which one would expect to achieve a large number of unique Google hits, only returns 500. That should not imply that this subject is half as important as Microsoft, but that the test itself is inherently flawed. Yamaguchi先生 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure which test you're referring to. If I do an internal WP search, I get over 16 thousand hits for Microsoft. If I do an internal WP search for Horticube, I get four. If I do a general Google for Microsoft, I get over 2.23 billion hits for the Web. As previously mentioned, Horticube gets... 534? ITychocat 06:35, 11 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami Apocalypse[edit]

Non notable, fails WP:BAND: only record is self-released, as far as I can tell only two Google hits for the band Fram 07:24, 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 nomination was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twink (gay slang)[edit]

This is an unverified and non-notable neologism which at best belongs on wiktionary. The unsourced image should also be deleted. Nooorii 07:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. NN. Dionyseus 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Surprised this made it to AfD; this is an extremely popular and widely used term in the gay community. It's a kind of a reverse of bear, which has an extensive article here on Wiki. The article can use some work, but it quite certainly passes the WP neologism test. Consider renaming to just "Twink," however. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twink is already a disambig page, although User:Nooorii prematurely removed the twink (gay) link [13]. Please wait for such action until if and when afd closes with a delete result - otherwise people may think this is a bad faith nomination Bwithh 08:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for List of pornographic sub-genres link [14]. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. On further checking, ditto for List of LGBT-related topics link [15], Twinkie (slur) link [16], Bimbo link [17], Eurocreme link [18], and several others. Also changing the Wiki link to Twinkie (gay slang) to Wictionary for several porn actors and other associated entries. Unless Noooorii is blithely unaware of the AfD process, this has strong hints of a bad-faith nom. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't this kind of related article link deletion typically done by admins in relation to a speedy or afd which was successfully closed for delete rather than a first day user? Bwithh 08:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further grounds for suspicion about bad faith nom: Nooori's account appears to have been specifically created to nominate Twink for deletion, and to edit out references to the term (with a little incidental editing/deletion nominating of other porn/sex articles along the way). See his or her history. Bwithh 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Did nominator at least google this term? 3.85 million hits for' twink gay'[19]. It can be more than dicdef as there's a cultural history of its development, if the article were expanded. Picture should be removed. Bwithh 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. No part of this article is referenced and it should be deleted. Nooorii 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could have done some research and added some references - it would have taken less time than removing all the wikilinks did. Now someone has to go around and clean up after you. Natgoo 08:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." That said, frankly, if we were to hold every Wikipedia article to the rigorous standard of requiring every fact to be cited, we would be lucky to have .1% of the articles that we have now. The policy is good, but it's certainly not a "non-negotiable policy," as Nooorii refers to it. (Also, I just find it ironic that Nooorii refuses to deviate an inch from the verifiability policy but does not even come close to following the traditional AfD process.) RidG Talk/Contributions 08:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_ask_for_citations says "If an article needs references but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the templates..." (emphasis mine) - Nooorii knows how to use the unref tag [20], so this whole nomination is all a bit weird. Regardless, I've added some refs, and restored all of the wikilinks. S/h/it must have spent a fun hour this morning looking at gay porn actors. Natgoo 10:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try Google Scholar [21] and Google Books [22]. Enough verification for you? Bwithh 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nooorii just added a speedy delete tag to the article too. This is beginning to look like a bad faith nom. Bwithh 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The speedy delete tag was added first, not second, please check your facts. Thanks! Nooorii 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well then there's no need for both tags, right? Bwithh 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right so I have commented it out right now even though this is as of right now an unverified and overglorified dictionary definition. Nooorii 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm beginning to lean more and more to thinking that this is a bad-faith nom. Nooorii - Bwithh added two links to Google Books in the AfD debate, and even a cursory inspection of the results should confirm that this is in fact a notable term. Did you simply not see Bwithh's post, or do you continue to insist that this is an "unverified and overglorified dictionary definition"? RidG Talk/Contributions 08:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; add references; expand to address sociological issues (in the same vein as bear community, as noted above). Notable and verifiable aspect of the gay community. --Muchness 08:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unverifiable? Would you like me to link to all the gay porn sites with 'twink' in the URL for justification? Perhaps the published book Twink: True stories of young gay men may convince you, if the google search doesn't. It's a legitimate gay subculture/ preference, Wikipedia is not paper, and this is just the sort of thing I'd have been likely to look up in WP if I didn't know what it meant. Natgoo 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granted, the article could use a bit of work, but this is a widely-used word that also has a well-known and well-documented cultural impact associated with it. It's not like, say, a phrase that random people on the Internet use but has no real impact on anything (e.g., lumber cartel, there is no cabal...) GassyGuy 08:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I originally voted to delete, subsequent evidence has convinced me to change my vote. Dionyseus 08:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would appreciate it if Noorii could comment on his extensive editing (see above) of pages that link to the article he brought up for deletion, as I am still trying to determine whether this is indeed a bad-faith nomination or simply lack of knowledge of proper AfD procedures. RidG Talk/Contributions 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and send Noorii to bed without supper. Danny Lilithborne 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Definitely notable, and not really a neologism. Judging from the nominator's edits, I'd say this is a bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it's important to keep all slang terms here, just because they're considered colloquialisms does not mean that they do not perform an important function with regards to communication. And communication and knowledge lead to peace and acceptance.
  • Keep and how! Widely used term and idea - article seem okay. WilyD 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Bwithh. Surprised there are people out there who have never heard this slang before. —Caesura(t) 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, agree the term and concept are important and widespread, the most convincing delete argument for me is that this is more a definition than an encyclopedic entry, but I think the article barely makes it over the line into more than a definition, and more importantly provides the scaffold for further encyclopedic additions. I am certain that there is more to say about twinks and twink culture.--Joe Decker 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep close to a bad-faith nom. <shown yellow card> Carlossuarez46 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree that this is close to a bad-faith nom. SchmuckyTheCat 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the unsourced image should be tagged and/or deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a speedy candidate. Looks good now, would have been fine before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the sensible contributors. --New Progressive 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, a common and defining term in use for over 40 years inside the gay community. Glowworm62 14:39, 14 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Code[edit]

Original research, non-verifiable, hardly notable, another walled garden. Nooorii 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Dionyseus 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it no longer actually exists, it isn't verifiable, let alone notable. --Habap 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, unverified original research. Yamaguchi先生 18:18, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space cruise[edit]

Non-notable band. No claim of albums in article or on myspace page. Band not on amazon.com, little of famous songs on google[23][24][25]. Prodded, deprodded, speedied, prodded, deprodded, ... Weregerbil 07:41, 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 nomination was speedy buried by the Wikipedia deleting society. Kimchi.sg 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop luffa hole digging society[edit]

Nonsense -- Shadikka 07:52, 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 nomination was delete all. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Olympic[edit]

Self-promotional advertisement for an internal foundation of the WCP Group (afd) which is already up for deletion itself. Article reads like a corporate mission statement. Google hits for "International Digital Life Foundation": 0. No Alexa Traffic Rank listed for www.digitalolympic.org. Fails WP:V verifiability test and WP:SPAM.

Also nominated are word for word copies of this article including:

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:02, 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 nomination was delete all. Jaranda wat's sup 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German organized crime[edit]

Also nominating for deletion:

Can anyone find any verification that any of these people and crime organizations exist? I'm guessing the last sentence of German organized crime mentions the only real person in any of this... Weregerbil 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an historian at Oswego State University (New York) I can assure you that the FBI actively investigates the Deutsche-Italiano Alliance. No connection has ever been made to these people to suggest that the crime organization does exist, but remember, J. Edgar Hoover denied the existence of organized crime in America for over 50 years. Check the U.S. Census records, these people exist. Don't forget that Al Capone was never proven to be a gangster, but we don't delete his page do we? User: Jgarrison

Comment So do you have any verifiable sources for the information in the articles? Without reliable sources the articles are pretty much guaranteed to go away. Weregerbil 08:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and GeorgeStepan. I can't speak for the FBI, but I'm finding zilch on the "Deutsche-Italiano Alliance", or Frank L. Baker, or Arthur L. Baker, et al. I note the only external link goes nowhere, and a search for the alleged "Washington County War" only turns up the Old West story about Billy the Kid. Sure, the people probably exist - with a name like Baker? Good thing the gang isn't named "Smith"... - but the sweeping generalizations and lack of citations speaks hoax, or even an attack page. And yeah, Al Capone was never "proven" to be a mobster, but there are lots of newspaper articles and bios identifying him as such. Tychocat 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I overstepped myself, in light of User: Jgarrison's stated qualifications, and I apologize. My point remains, however, there are sweeping generalizations made and events reported in the article, without any verification or sourcing that I can find. Tychocat 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; even if everything is true, has not garnered sufficient public attention to be deemed more notable than any other group of criminals. Let us not empty the population of our jails onto the pages of Wikipedia! bd2412 T 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. I was wondering when these would come up for deletion I got some of them speeded but it looks like some slipped through. Whispering 19:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom --Nick Y. 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of the FBI website turns up 66 references to the Mafia, 17 for "Al Capone", two for "al Queda" (keeping in mind the myriad possible transliterations into the english alphabet), and zero for "Baker Crime Family", "Arthur L. Baker", "Frank M. Baker" or "Deutsche-Italiano Alliance" et al. I get a couple of hits for "Arthur Baker", he's an FBI Special Agent. I would not expect the FBI to publicly discuss ongoing cases, as one possible explanation for the names not appearing on their website. Tychocat 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Adirondack Park, New York, about 45 minutes away from Granville. I don't know anyone personally from this area, but I can say this much, these people do exist. When you live this close you hear some of the stories of the acts of violence that these people have committed. It would be an atrocity if you delete this article, for the accusations stated therein are true, as true as many of the Bigfoot or Champ stories are.

Without reliable proof, we can't keep them. 68.39.174.238 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The latest edit to the article adds a new name, Klaus Speer. This person appears to be an actual crime figure in Germany, but the citation itself fails to verify any connection to United States. The material on Speer in this article is also copyvio from the cited weblink here. There are two sentences added, one which states a link to U.S. organized crime (no verification again), and a second which alleges Speer was the inspiration for a movie character (no citation given). Lastly, I rechecked for a "Michael Darius" in the NYPD, and found 27 Ghits, all for a character by the same name and occupation, from the novel "A Mourning in Autumn" by Harker Moore. Google turns up nothing, still, for "Michael C. Darius", beyond this article. Tychocat 07:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the User Tychocat, I'm not sure if you think you can outsmart everyone, but I have read this article. If you search for a person in the NYPD, you are searching in the New York City Police Department, not New York State. I believe that you are aware of this, but were bothered after you had found out that the author has a degree which says that he knows more about history than a lot of other people. I never read that book, I'll bet that you did. However, if Michael Darius' occupation was as a New York City Police Detective, then he really doesn't have the same occupation as the man alledged in the article, does he? If you want this article to go away, I suggest you stop trying to outsmart a Ph. D. User: Mike Freed

Comment - The new material just added by yourself nominally lists citations, but as a scholar you ought to know the proper format for a book citation is to list the entire title, author, year of publication, and publisher, which would allow for proper verification. Just listing the last name of the author and the year of publication as you have done, doesn't lend itself to any fact-checking, which you should also know. I've also done some checks in Google Scholar, and cannot find Beuys (1967), Kollmar (1974), Busch (1992), Boettcher (1975), Steinke (1982), or Mätzler (1968). Fatigue set in before I could complete a search for all of the citations. But, no one by the name of Boettcher had any scholarly publication regarding crime listed in Google Scholar in 1975, likewise last name of Steinke in 1982, or Mätzler in 1968. I welcome a check of my findings so far by any experienced editor, and if I'm wrong I will cheerfully change my nominations. Tychocat 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all per nom. and Tychocat's research, which has found no references for any of this information. Clearly a hoax or someone's fever-induced hallucination. ---Charles 04:47, 15 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCKF[edit]

Non-notable forum that fails the WP:WEB criteria; only 328 Google results [26]. The forum doesn't even have its own website domain. --TBCTaLk?!? 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Forum has had "2 visitors in the last 15 minutes: 1 Member - 1 Guest - 0 Anonymous" when I last checked.--Andeh 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As original research and otherwise non-notable forum. Wickethewok 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Verging on nonsense. Rob 13:33, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.B.Q. Films[edit]

Deprod by author without explanation. Appears to be NN (<50 Ghits, all the ones I checked were irrelevant), WP:NFT (it appears to have been some sort of school project). --ais523 08:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete NN. Scanning through the poorly written and poorly formatted article, I found out that the article's title refers to a production company. A google search of "B.B.Q. Films" registered 22 hits. Dionyseus 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment It's worse than that. The Ghits seem to be irrelevant, and hidden in the 3rd paragraph longer than a single line is an admission that it was originally a school project. --ais523 09:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per comment from ais523. I originally voted to 'delete,' but at the time I was under the impression that the article was related to the 2000 film Road Trip, which turns out to not be the case. Dionyseus 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, nonnotable school film. NawlinWiki 12:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not sure this fits any of the speedy criteria. Non-notable student film, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a speedy but does deserve to be deleted. And as a school project, I think it should dies under WP:NFT unless it became something more widely known and relevant. Janet13 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this barbeque sauce has gone bad! MikeWazowski 06:23, 11 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-aryanism[edit]

Article is about non-notable website which only receives 38 Google hits [27] (lists 56,000 hits, but actual number is 38). Another user on the discussion provided Google results that show 3660 hits for the general term "Pan-Aryanism". Does not meet the criteria of WP:V and also violates WP:POINT. I have requested verifiable sources to establish notability of subject matter, none have been provided. Pan-Aryanism redirected to Aryan race since 11 November 2005 [28]. As it stands, the article is simply about a web-based neo-Nazi forum that split off from Stormfront early last year and is flagrant self-promotion. Doesn't deserve a place here at Wikipedia. Darkskin 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. The term is notable, and appears in scholary discussions, e.g. in Kathleen Blee: "Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement", in Colin Flint (ed.): "Spaces of Hate: Geographies of Discrimination and Intolerance in the U.S.A", in William Pfaff: "The Wrath of Nations: Civilization and the Fury of Nationalism", it's a topic in the HON 302A Contemporary Fundamentalism seminar of SUNY Plattsburgh, and in Richard M. Dorson, "The Eclipse of Solar Mythology", Journal of American Folklore Vol. 68, No. 27 (1955). The article in question does not do a very good job of discussing the topic, though, but gives a one-line definiton with some mentioning of the Pan-Aryan National Front web site, which does get 365 Google hits. As far as I can tell, Darkskin is mixing up the the term "pan-aryanism", the PANF, and the PANF website, both in his discussion and in his Google queries. I'd prefer to have some expert go over the article and give a reasonable description of the term and its history. Redirecting it to Aryan race would be ok if the term is discussed there. Please also see the recent discussion at talk:Pan-aryanism--Stephan Schulz 10:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is not good. However, Stephans points above seem to stand scrutiny. He's already put a bit of time into this, and if he's willing to do a cleanup on the article it should be kept. Arker 22:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons stated above. --Gramaic | Talk 04:55, 11 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Thurmond[edit]

Non-notable Gil Gamesh 09:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. I can't really even tell what this is. It looks like a genealogical entry, which violates WP:NOT. There's no assertion of notability here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author is User:Tjmorrisauthor, so it probably violates WP:VAIN. --DarkAudit 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Coredesat. Themindset 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice should someone want to try writing an actual article next time. This is a horrid mess. RFerreira 00:21, 13 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debach Enterprises[edit]

Non notable company -Ladybirdintheuk 09:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 09:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. Tychocat 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one who wrote the article but this was when I was pretty new to Wikipedia. Its pointless, an embarrassment to my otherwise excellent contributions. Get rid of it --Edchilvers 17:25, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux War on White[edit]

Advertising, non-notable campaign. Few lines in parent company's article would do, if anything. Chrisd87 10:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Don't even see a few lines in parent company's article as having any use, since WP is not a newspaper. Tychocat 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. --TeaDrinker 05:16, 15 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo directory[edit]

Non-notable web site, no claim per WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a web link directory. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:34, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfunny Truth[edit]

Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unfunny Truth) closed as consensus merge; this was not done. Nobody voted keep. There is actually not much to merge, since this article lacks any citations from reliable sources. The article seems to exist primarily as part of the YTMNDers' Googlebombing campaign, as a consequence of which the site has had to be blacklisted due to repetaed spamming. In the context of a global analysis of criticism of scientology, I'd say this is of striclty limited significance; it does not appear to be by any credible or respected critic of Scientology (of which there appear to be several) and does not appear to bring to light any novel arguments, analysis or cases. Essentially it's just a single presentation of the usual knocking copy about Scientology (admittedly a soft target and well worth knocking). No evidence is presented of notability beyond the YTMND community. The copyright status of the sounds and images is, as usual with YTMND, somewhere between unclear and questionable. I would say we should simply delete and redirect to Lisa McPherson, since that is the bulk of the content. Incidentally, this is actually one of the better YTMNDs, it even has references, it's just not provably significant outside that community. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Scientology versus the Internet.--Andeh 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The previous concensus and notice of merge generated nothing. A deadline to shift the few worthwhile bits to Scientology versus the Internet (which already has an unhyped version of the events) would get the job done. AndroidCat 11:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merges that are not done after 20 days or so aer probably never going to get done (particualrly when they are this small). Batmanand | Talk 12:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as {{db-repost}}. This article (with a slightly different title) was previously nominated for AfD by me and was deleted [29]. --IslaySolomon 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually the content seems to suffcicient different not to merit a {{db-repost}}. However, please see this previous AfD discussion: [30]. --IslaySolomon 13:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to repeat myself: "Delete. This is not likely to be a search term, and the overwhelming majority of YTMND sites are not notable." --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Links to this page are spammed to scientology articles here daily. --InShaneee 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Scientology versus the Internet, there's not much to merge ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without merge or redirect) per Coredsat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as people using Wikipedia to make mischief. Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Sarah Ewart. -- GWO
  • Merge - There are lots of criticisms of the Church of Scientology, but the Unfunny Truth was the first one that could sit a person down and show you a 5 minute flash of well-condensed information as to what the criticisms are all about. It may not deserve its own thread, but it should be merged with Scientology versus the Internet, especially given the Church's actions to suppress the Unfunny Truth. --Neverborn 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Wikipedia is an informational archive: This page contains verifiable information rather than opinions or outright libel as 'mischief creation' would imply, and as such should not be deleted. Should you find the content biased, it is a simple matter to reword it more objectively, and there is an existing tag for "needs citation" if that is your concern. Frankly, I can only see one reason to delete this page rather than merge it.--71.55.25.64 23:23, 13 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Melchionni[edit]

former college player, never went pro. Delete per WP:BIO. I inquired about is notability at his talk months ago, and never got a response. As far as I can tell, he was just a member of a good team. ccwaters 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per WP:BIO, never made the pros, not outstanding college numbers either.. Wickethewok 13:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honerable Mention Delete Not even notable enough at Duke. He'll soon be a distant memory there. --DarkAudit 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The JJ Redick article says the Melchionni was a co-captain of the Duke team. In addition he has signed a contract to play professionally in Italy for Benetton Treviso[31] which is one of the top European teams, having produced current #1 pick Andrea_Bargnani.
  • Keep. Anyone who plays in every game for Duke is notable enough for me, and the pro contract seals the deal. -- Mwalcoff 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep college athletes per WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 11 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul kaufman[edit]

A contested prod. Prod reason: "A failed run for a political office isn't notable enough.". Prod was removed with edit summary: "1 of West Virginian's top 20 most significant individuals". Any Virginian around? (Liberatore, 2006). 11:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for memorials. --InShaneee 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relevance is too localized...Furthermore, this is no place for obituaries. Michael 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad story to be sure, but this is not the place for a memorial. --TeaDrinker 05:20, 15 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2030 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Renomination of deleted article, recreated in violation of WP:NOT A Crystal Ball.

  • Also including 2030 Football World Cup. NawlinWiki 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal ball; we do not need to go further than 2018 or maybe 2022. Batmanand | Talk 12:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Previous copy was G7'd (re-creation is by a different editor), so probably not a G4 candidate. Tevildo 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Looking into my crystal ball, I see that these articles' days are numbered. They can be recreated in 2026. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G4 this puppy. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as deleted and reposted content. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and explain to User:Gdgd bermuda how to use a redirect (see my comment below) - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Green caterpillar 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's substantially different from the original, Speedy as recreated material if it's not. Worth protecting until they at least decide on a venue. Ziggurat 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and hope to see you again in 2026. RFerreira 00:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page contains nothing except a sentence of speculation. -- dcclark (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too early for this page. -- Alias Flood 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was already speedied. Can we just protect it already? Alphachimp talk 04:28, 11 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2030 Football World Cup[edit]

WP not a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 12:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with the above. Batmanand | Talk 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Protect was tempted to list this myself when I saw it under new pages. What can you write about a sporting event that will happen in 24 years?.--Andeh 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment in 2030 FIFA World Cup. Come back in 2026. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 2030 Football World Cup will most likely take place on the moon, because the earth will have been pillaged by space monkeys. I imagine low-G football is an interesting experience. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too early for this page. -- Alias Flood 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — RJH (talk) 17:23, 11 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 keep, no valid reasons to delete were provided by the wild flurry of anons. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Nasties[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

vanity listing, unsubstantiated claims, high school band at best, no recordings, major performaces, air play. Arthur Ellis 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Reasons for nomination were changed after discussion had begun. I have reverted this change. If the nominator has other points to make, please make them in the discussion below, not up here. Thank you. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and Stop the Madness This page MUST stay here this time. Spare me your "vanity listing" horsesh*t. I am not related to Warren Kinsella at all. I am just a journalist, radio show host and punk rock enthusiast since many years ago and The Hot Nasties SURE ARE one of Canada's great punk rock act. They do have a 7" and it's called "The Invasion of the Tribbles" and it sells for about 200 $ on eBay most of the times since it's very rare. It's been put on Frank Manley's "Smash The State" Canadian Punk Anthology LP and 7". There were NOT an "unknown high school band" like Arthur Ellis, whoever he might be, says. Like the Fits, Genetic Control, the Dishrags, they were one of those who defined Canada's punk rock sound. So, Mark Bourrie, please STOP asking for deletion just because of a little conflict you have with Mr Kinsella. I know punk rock way more than you do and my record collection is bigger than yours. You destroyed my work once, I sure won't let you do it twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.160.237 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: at the bottom of every edit window you use. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Emphasis mine. --Firien § 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Dionyseus 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From a quick Google and a search of discogs this band does seem notable, in terms of influence in the "Canadian punk scene" (whatever that is). The article just - just - squeezes under the WP:BAND threshold. It also needs some work - sources, a bit of a clean-up - and needs one editor to drop the WP:OWN and another to stop making WP:POINTs, but otherwise it seems fine for Wikipedia. And it's not often you'll hear me say that about any band article. This is clearly an edit war that has spilled over into AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Evaporators covered one of their songs. Representative of the Calgary Punk Scene in the 80's. Has been a subject of two books, Fury's Hour and Smash the State. And finally had a member that went on to become notable for other things, Warren Kinsella. Meets at least three of the criteria for WP:BAND. Geedubber 13:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad faith nomination from repeat edit warrior at Warren Kinsella - CrazyRougeian talk/email 13:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not bad faith nomination. Is every ex-political aide going to have a Wikipedia page for a high school band? The "punk rock scene" in Calgary, Canada, isn't notable. This band put out one self-issued EP twenty five years ago and none of the band members went on in music. The band is mentioned in a book: an autobiography of one member, who is notable for being an aide to a Canadian politician 15 years ago, before the guy became Prime Minister.
    Summary: no air play; no major performaces; one self-published album; fringe band of high school kids. "Canadian Punk Band" says it all. CRzRussian may say this is personal, but all I'm asking people to do ius look at the entry, see if it's wiki material, and put their opinion here. Leave personality out of it. Arthur Ellis 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will somebody ever shut-up that jerk Arthur Ellis/Mark Bourrie ? The Hot Nasties WERE influential. When author Frank Manley, who wrote “Smash The State : A Discography of Canadian Punk, 1977-92”, decided to release a 7” with influential punk songs, the Hot Nasties is one of the bands he picked among HUNDREDS, along with the Fits, Arson and the Rock and Roll Bitches. The Calgary punk rock scene wasn’t notable? Well, the Golden Calgarians, the Sturgeons, Riot 303, Color Me Psycho, Eye on You, Enemy Mind Feel, Beyond Possession, Forbidden Dimension, Silicone Injection and Verdix ALL hailed from Calgary. And the fact that the band has one self-released EP and was a “fringe band of high school kids” is a reason for deletion? Well, then 75% of all punk rock bands must be deleted cause that’s what punk rock was about: young folks playing loud and obnoxious music so no label wanted to sign them, so they had to do it themselves and self release their albums. That’s what D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself) is all about and it’s an important part of punk rock. None of the band members went on in music? UNTRUE. Alan McDonald played in the Sturgeons. No Air Play? Do you know ANY early punk bands who got Airplay? That IS the reason why punk bands SELF RELEASED their albums. Mentionned in ONE BOOK? NO, it is AT LEAST mentionned in two books, i.e. the Frank Manley book I stated before. Again, this guy Arthur Ellis doesn’t know a thing about punk rock so his opinion on that subject shouldn’t matter. He just wants to cause trouble about everything linked with Warren Kinsella. See the Warren Kinsella listing and how it was locked only because of user Arthur Ellis’ manoeuvers. This IS wiki material and PLEASE stop giving some importance to that guy Arthur Ellis on all topics related to Mr Kinsella. 205.237.53.91 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.53.91 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • CommentKeep since references have been added. If they're notable, surely references can be added? Otherwise, I'd say axe it. WilyD 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interesting triva for a Canadian political junkie. --Ben Houston 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --InShaneee 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN64.26.170.69 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, we don't accept the opinions of non-registered users in this section of Wikipedia, unless that user can offer some degree of useful discussion or expertise we wouldn't otherwise have access to. Thanks for contributing! Why not register for free (it takes about 10 seconds), start contributing and come back here when you've picked up some experience? We'll be grateful to have you! :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have un-struck out the comment by User:64.26.170.69 because we do accept the opinions of non-registered users on AfD, although I can certainly understand why a comment consisting just of "Delete NN" submitted by an anonymous person would be discounted by the closing admin. "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." --Metropolitan90 02:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per evidence. Anon needs to cool off. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable by association. I would vote to merge with Kinsella, but the article works OK on its own. Anon makes a good point about DIY punk. --Joelmills 02:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly important to some. — Reinyday, 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE as clearly unimportant as Bulgarian Macarena bands.--142.78.64.58 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious vanity listing, no impact, not notable.--64.230.36.153 22:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity listing. No contribution to popular culture, mainstream "punk music".142.78.64.223 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POINT nomination by a personal foe of Warren Kinsella's, with no legitimate basis in reality or WP policy. Notable enough; keep. Bearcat 00:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, bad-faith nomination by a user with an axe to grind against all things connected with Warren Kinsella. Band does have some significance as an early Canadian punk band (and this has been noted by others, including Frank Manley's Smash the State compilation and book) to release (note: pretty much all Canadian punk releases at the time were self-releases/DIY; that was the way to get a record out), tour. Additionally, many of the delete voices on this page come form anon IPs whose main "contributions" have been vandalism of Kinsella-related pages. You do the math. Ianking 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please check the contributions of the IPs before deciding. You will find Ian King misrepresents them. This is a band that existed 25 years ago in a small market in rural Canada. It never left te market to tour. It self-produced one EP. None of its supporters have been able to show it had any shows in any venue at all. None of the band members made a significant contribution to any aspect of the music industry afterwards. One song has been re-recorded by another Canadian "punk" band, which issued the recording on its own label and has not been shown to have any following outside the very, very narrow niche of Canadian retro-punk rock. When this page was offered up for speedy deletion earlier this month, there was not one single comment, and it was actually deleted. Now Warren Kinsella has managed to muster up a few friends, along with the page-writer and his socks.
    In summary: not notable. 209.217.66.150 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually The Evaporators' cover of Barney Rubble Is My Double was on their Ripple Rock album which was released by Jello Biafra's label, Alternative Tentacles. Geedubber 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone identifying himself as Mark Bourrie and connecting from that same IP address left a comment over on my weblog around the same time the above comment was added. And yes, I do find it curious that we've got all these similar voices coming from a block of IPs used by one particular ISP's Ottawa-area modem pool. To add to Geedubber's point about the Evaps, Ripple Rock was published in Canada by Mint Records, a successful label that's had about 100 releases (including notables like Neko Case and the New Pornographers) and has been in business for 15 years. Ianking 05:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bearcat's comments. --Victoriagirl 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments user 209.217.66.150. Noty notable in any way. These two (the band and album) are discussed at Warren Kinsella, which is all the notabilityy they have and deserve.209.217.110.236 12:19, 14 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Tribbles[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Not notable; self-published 25-year-old EP by Canadian high school garage punk band. No sales, no airplay. Arthur Ellis 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Bad faith nomination. Again, this is a war instated by user Arthur Ellis against everything linked to Warren Kinsella. The Hot Nasties are the most influential band of the Calgary Punk Rock scene. Read "Smash the State : A Discography of Canadian punk 1977-92" by Frank Manley if you want an idea. YES it is notable. The fact that it was self-published must not be taken into account since nearly ALL early punk rock bands self-released their stuff because major labels didn't want to sign punk bands. No sales? UNTRUE. They made 1 000 of these and they sold out very fast. Now, this 7" is selling for more than 100 $ everytime it gets on eBay. No Airplay? Have you ever seen an early punk band who got Airplay? Please stop the madness and keep this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.237.53.91 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment if this is a notable release, surely references can be added? WilyD 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, WilyD, Sorry to have called you jerk :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.237.53.91 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep I sure am! This article is now an obvious keeper! Looks to me like it passes WP:MUSIC, WP:VER, et al. WilyD 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable album by a non-notable band. --InShaneee 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per InShannee 64.26.170.69 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. Geedubber 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to mean a lot to punk enthusiasts like 205.237.53.91. Bad faith by Arthur Ellis. The record would be an excellent fit to the Wiki discography. Pete Peters 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. — Reinyday, 04:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If a 25-year-old self-published EP by a Calgary Canada high school punk band is Wikipedia material, then what isn't?209.217.124.37 18:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, Pete Peters, who's been registered with Wikipedia all of two weeks, we do take deletion comments from IPs.209.217.124.37 18:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 209.217.124.37 is clearly a sockpuppet for user Arthur Ellis. Something must be done about that particular individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.53.91 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not Wikipedia material. Any tally of pre-nomination hits on this page? The interest must be minimal.209.217.110.241
Comment: Most of these delete votes are coming from one ISP's block of dialup IP addresses -- and some of thse addresses have been used for various tomfoolery related to Kisnella/Hot Nasties/Bourrie, et al ad nauseam, all speaking for one side of the pissing match. Admins, please take note. Ianking 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hot Nasties. While this nomination came from a user with a fetish for discrediting all things Kinsella, my view is that the EP isn't notable enough to merit its own entry. Describe it on the band's entry. Ianking 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and DON'T MERGE This 7" is one of the earliest and more important Canadian punk rock 7"'s and sells for more 100$ each time it appears on eBay. It has been influential enough to be included in its entirety on the "Smash the State" compilation as an example of Canadian punk rock.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.160.237 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This article is re-creation of previously deleted content. The prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larkism and the actual content of the article indicate unequivocally that this is a mis-use of Wikipedia, as a free wiki hosting service for a (purported) club that is too secret for Wikipedia and as a repository for joke content. Consensus to delete, over both discussions, is clear. Uncle G 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larkasm[edit]

Recreation of Larkism, deleted as hoax; speedy tag removed without explanation (by anon IP who then put an obscenity on my userpage). NawlinWiki 12:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larkasm is a reputable organization with a prestigious line of mates. The article should stay as it is informative and buff. Beyatch91 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Captainktainer.Bjones 12:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G4. The previous AfD discussion is, I believe, more than adequate to demonstrate a strong consensus for this article's deletion. Tevildo 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G4. Don't forget the salt, though I'm wondering if "Lerkism" and "Larkesm" should also be protected at this rate... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:21, 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 was Merge all to Characters in Bleach series. I've only tagged the individual pages for the merge, since the target page would get too bloated with simply cut and pasting and I have no idea what information is actually useful. The editors with an interest in the articles in question are encouraged to sort it out. - Bobet 09:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Roy, Luppi (Bleach), Edorad Leones, Il Forte Grantz, Shawlong Qufang, Wanderweiss[edit]

Nominating all these articles - although they all seem to have a decent amount of content, it's mostly bloated and isn't very meaningful. The articles in question are about non-notable characters in the manga and anime series Bleach. Wanderweiss and Luppi (Bleach) aren't even properly named according to the naming conventions. These characters are non-notable because they basically appear for a handful of chapters (or pages, in D-Roy's case), and die. They have few (if any) distinct personality traits, and exist mainly for the sake of fighting the series' protagonists. Although I have personally improved D-Roy, Edorad Leones, Ilforte Grantz and Shawlong Qufand (see edit histories), I now feel that the effort was not needed and that these articles have no place on Wikipedia. All the valuable information in them can be condensed and merged into Characters in Bleach series. See also: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Character articles (several users agreed with the deletion proposal) -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Hollow (Bleach). They, unlike the main cast, are all here to presumably get killed off by the main cast. Having articles for each of them doesn't work. Make an in-depth Hollow article for all of them. User:Robinson0201
  • Merge all to Hollow (Bleach). As it turned out recently, Luppi died, which I was not expecting, so the defeated likely do not need their own articles any more. --Merovingian {T C @} 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Characters in Bleach series due to lack of individual notability. –Gunslinger47 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Characters in Bleach series per nominator. — Reinyday, 04:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all stop with this. The pages are already here, so why no keep them? The D-Roy article was already pointed to deletion and it was declined. Leave the guy in peace and go do your job improving other articles instead of trying to destroy what was already done. - Access Timeco 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll abstain from voting for now. In my opinion, the articles were rather unnecessary to start with, but my main criticism of them is that they are a total pain to maintain, and often seem to be just one more location you have to remove the latest bit of unnecessary info from. Of course, they do pass the Pokemon test, or closer to home, are just as notable as Kaien Shiba, so I'm split on this one. Maybe merge all non-Espada? --tjstrf 05:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE Let's just merge all Bleach chars to List of Bleach characters. Of course we should summarize and link the longer, more notable, main character articles. That way we can give poke the boot and use the real standard for fictional characters: WP:FICTION --Kunzite 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You mean Characters in Bleach series? We did that, but the article got to be ridiculously large to the extent it was effectively impossible to edit at one point. Kubo Tite prefers to introduce his characters by the dozen.--tjstrf 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a waste of a good opportunity.. Why in heaven's name are theme songs listed where summaries should be? The characters can all be merged into groups as suggested several times below. --Kunzite 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's quite funny. I'd never noticed how out of place the theme songs looked there. The summaries were pulled due to article length concerns. --tjstrf 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If merge, merge by categories I do admit some characters has too little backstory and information that they may not really require a separate article, but even if this article is to be merged, merge it into something like the "Hollow" article, since the Espada are hollows anyway. Of course, such merging may provoke cries of image removals, but on the other hand, keeping the images may cause the article to grow too big. That is all I'll say. 155.69.5.236Wakipudeo155.69.5.236
Comment: I think they don't have enough backstory and unique information to stand alone, but I don't think they should be merged into already large articles like the Characters in Bleach or Hollow (Bleach). Perhaps all these pages should be merged into new seperate compiliation page? EikaKou
Reply Lists of Bleach Characters by Race might be the most sensible option if we were to divide them, since the current system within the Bleach Character article is by location of residence, which doesn't make much sense imo. However, I'm not sure that image removal is really a concern here. If one of those characters were to be in a flashback, or have survived somehow, or otherwise gain notability within the series, then I don't think there's really a shortage of scanned manga pages with the text shopped out, and they could be easily replaced. --tjstrf 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think none of these articles should be deleted, especially Wanderweiss, as its very likely he'll become more important later on. He's probably an Espada and is still alive and likely will remain so due to his lack of fighting in the current assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.50.229 (talk • contribs)
Reply. Anyone going to the Wanderweiss page is almost certainly going to be a reader of the manga. It would be of no interest otherwise. So, ideally, the page should be made useful with the manga's audience in mind. Here is a list of important information on Wanderweiss' page which the average reader might not know off-hand:
  • He was human-sized as a hollow, prior to becoming arrancar. This suggests that he was a Vasto Lorde. This would make him freakishly powerful, and certainly more significant than D-Roy could have hoped to be.
  • And, um...
Merging the article and turning the page into a redirect does not prevent the page's recreation if and when (probably when) we know and care enough about him to warrent it. What we are trying to do is set a precidence. Specifically: If a pages is filled with nothing but useless information, even for the relatively few readers who actually care, then the page should not exist. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Important information on the limited subject should be included in other pages discussing a more general subject. Take the Hollow (Bleach) page for example. Creating a new page for each individual type of hollow would be pointless and actually hurt the core article. – Gunslinger47 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but recommend merge/redirect of minor characters by race (e.g. minor shinigami chars, minor hollows, etc). - Wickning1 21:20, 14 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darya khan[edit]

Created by a vandal Daryakhan (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if this article is not a hoax. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a town (not a city) of less than 10,000 people in a place which people refer to as Darya Khan, I have no idea whether this is its official name or local name, the chappie Darya Khan did exist, his tomb is thought to be in Delhi - [32]. If the article survives AfD, it should be moved to Darya Khan. --Alf melmac 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a place in the Punjab with this name, see entry 6.4 on The Pakistani Census Organisation site[[34]] --Richhoncho 19:05, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funding Innovation[edit]

OR and an advert Nuttah68 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per above despite the fact that they have "a posted Website". Wickethewok 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and advertising. NawlinWiki 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be essentially an ad. Possibly redirect to Venture capital or such as a more commonly used term. --TeaDrinker 05:25, 15 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunn Media[edit]

Article for a corporation which doesn't exist. Nate 05:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per lack of context. I guess its some sort of company, but no claims of meeting any notability. Wickethewok 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax (see entries below). NawlinWiki 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article dosen't even make sense to me. Green caterpillar 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was a failed attempt by the creator of the three articles below this to create a template for the company and the 'networks'; it was in the Template namespace when I put it up for AfD, another editor moved it to the regular namespace after that because it didn't link to anywhere. Nate 05:03, 11 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line1 Network[edit]

Article for a fictional television channel which doesn't exist except in the mind of the article's majority editor. Nate 05:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax, if at all possible. Captainktainer * Talk 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as hoax. NawlinWiki 14:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. No Gunn Media. 'Home page' is a non-existent Tripod page. --DarkAudit 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Hoax" isn't a speedy delete criterion. If you want a speedy delete, please state a CSD criteria. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I would suggest that an atricle like this, full of out and out lies, is an act of vandalism. An act of vandalism meant to discredit wikipedia. I would therefore infer that any hoax article, once proven as a hoax, is an act of vandalism against Wikipedia. --DarkAudit 23:13, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line2 Channel[edit]

Article for a fictional television channel which doesn't exist except in the mind of the article's majority editor. Nate 05:41, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line2 Kids Network[edit]

Article for a fictional television channel which doesn't exist except in the mind of the article's majority editor. Nate 05:44, 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 was Merge and redirect to Somtaaw Hive Frigate. - Bobet 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swarmer[edit]

The article isnt needed as the information in it is already in the Hive frigate article.--Awesome Username 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here here. Delete it.--Twile 16:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to main article and merge any unique content. — Reinyday, 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. -- Steel 23:08, 11 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television's Greatest Commercials[edit]

Not notable, little content. - Mike Beckham 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- aren't TV shows on major networks by definition notable? If so, this article needs to be expanded, not deleted. --Rehcsif 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It would be if it wasent such a non-notable short running, low rated program. - Mike Beckham 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand We need dfferent episodes, and examples of some of the more notable commercials that appear on the show. Expand it, and it should be fine. --Kitch 12:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rehcsif. Spacepotato 07:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last AFD it was kept so it could be expanded. 6 Months on no one did. - Mike Beckham 15:16, 15 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 nomination was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. AmiDaniel (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plympton grammer school old boys hockey club[edit]

Probably would prove to be NN if cleaned up. Originally tagged db-nonsense, but an anon expanded and removed the speedy tag. Looks like a cut-and-paste from a website (for instance, see the bottom of the page), but I couldn't find the source. --ais523 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This page has only ever been vandalism [35]. I think this meets the criteria for a speedy delete as {{db-attack}}. --IslaySolomon 12:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The line referred to in the nom was deleted; it's here in the history. --ais523 12:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and retagged; nonsense/attack page. NawlinWiki 14:18, 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 was No consensus, one comment for and one against deletion with a general apathy otherwise even after the relist. - Bobet 09:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Edgefest Lineups[edit]

The main Edgefest article is up for a rewrite and I think that the headliners from each year would fit in there nicely. However, I do not see the full list of all the acts as being encyclopaedic. Incidently, the 2006 listing is also partly duplicated on Edgefest. Delete. BlueValour 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one rewriting the Edgefest article, and it's going to be completely different than its current incarnation (including the 2006 listing being removed). It also links to this article, and I don't really see a reason to delete this article, as it is "historical" information, outlining the progression/history of bands that played the festival. Strong Keep. –Dvandersluis 23:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is that large amounts of indiscriminate information unbalances the encyclopaedia and is not its role. Such lengthy lisitngs are fine on an Edgefest website but not here. As I say above, a note of each year's headliners is the type of balanced, useful information that we need. BlueValour 00:15, 4 July 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, Sam Blanning(talk) 12:54, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelenders[edit]

Non-notable fanzine Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very few g-hits, most of which are in forums. 0 google news hits. Doesn't seem very notable.--Andeh 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Dionyseus 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andeh. Recury 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main Cobblers fanzine and must be kept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.247.214 (talk • contribs)

Hey guys - this must be kept - vital for recognition of Northampton Town Football Club

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 17:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microlink[edit]

At first I thought it was a transwiki candidate as a dicdef, but then I saw the 4th "entry". It's a very popular term apparently with 2 million results, however, a lot of them don't seem to be for this Baltic States IT company. Feels too much like WP:SPAM. Metros232 13:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki without entry 4. --AlexDW 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entry 4, transwiki rest. As I am from Estonia, I can confirm that Microlink is an important company worthy of an article, and this entry probably isn't spam. --Rain74 19:09, 3 July 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, Sam Blanning(talk) 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment: As it stands the dicdef/transwiki issue appears to have been solved, as the article is now purely about the company. However, there is not even a stub here at the moment (read WP:STUB - a stub must assert notability and be a starting point for expansion, this just says where it is and when it was founded). Does the company meet WP:CORP? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded it to a stub level. As a Baltic company, there are plenty of non-English sources, I recommend everyone google searching limit their search to English language webpages. The company English homepage just offers links to the three former subsidiaries homepages. The company was acquired and broken up into national subsidiaries in 2005. It certainly was notable under the multiple press coverage test of WP:CORP, I don't know if it will be much longer now that it is broken up. As an IT services company, there are a number of web-pages out there that they developed. This search tries to filter them out and get only English language results, getting the hits down to about 44,400 with 622 unique in the first 1,000. GRBerry 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rain74. — Reinyday, 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The D.t.G[edit]

Recreation of A7 speedy with different text. A7 rules say that it has to be taken to AfD in this case. Despite the procedural nomination, Delete as NN. --ais523 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Huon 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reminds me of the He-Man Women Haters Club from Little Rascals. NawlinWiki 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete girls have cooties! Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 11 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegem BBS[edit]

I just can't see how this is notable. There used to be thousands of these across the US. So unless this is just really unusual in China. I don't think its notable enough --Pboyd04 22:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are 26,900 Google hits[36] for "Bluegem BBS", though the top hit is to WP. I don't speak a word of Chinese, so I can't say how many of the hits are notable. –Dicty (T/C) 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The weblink doesn't work so I went on via telnet. There doesn't seem much going on. I don't see the notability. TerriersFan 17:46, 8 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Doesn't even claim notability either, just says its a BBS. Recury 13:55, 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 nomination was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Records[edit]

NN records company; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. No claim to noteriety on the page. Mikeblas 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment They've released material by Agent 51 (band), The Classified, and Counterfit (band). Not sure if that's worth anything. GassyGuy 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the official website now seems to be a general advertising site with little of obvious worth. If this was a truely notable company I would have expected the website to be leading on their achievements or performers. TerriersFan 17:51, 8 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems pretty small-time. Recury 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Even the official website is dead, it is a domain advertisement. Dionyseus 13:55, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posturban[edit]

Only hit on Google for this word that addresses topic is [37]. It is word-for-word the same and written by joey.(The Wikipedia page is written by joey know.) Appears to be original thought. KarenAnn 13:26, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable survivors[edit]

Delete 1: According to the talk page, this is copyright text for which only conditional permission has been given for use. 2: sources are not given for most of it - it'd be better to clear the article and start afresh with sourced examples. I don't think that this is in principle a bad subject for Wikipedia, though categories might well be better, and the name of the page is certainly bizarre (though this may be a cultural idiom). Pseudomonas 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This does nothing that a category couldn't do better. (Whether or not this should be a category is another story). --IslaySolomon 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If a category is created to replace it (which I personally don't think is necessary), it'll need to have a more descriptive title; I don't want to get into the politics of the issue and suggest it includes words like "rape" or "victim", but something more than mere "survivor" is necessary. "Abuse survivors", perhaps? Tevildo 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were my decision, I'd have a number of subcategories, since lumping disparate groups together is probably not helpful. In general I think that the term "surviving" is most usefully used of something that would normally be fatal - which some of these may well be, but others may not. I suspect this may be a US idiom, though, as I say. Pseudomonas 14:57, 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 nomination was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, author blanked page. AmiDaniel (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula dental school[edit]

Deprodded. Looks a bit like a copyvio (although I couldn't find the source), and doesn't seem particularly notable. --ais523 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. Some of the text is a word for word copy from the following source: [38]. Dionyseus 14:06, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kitman[edit]

Delete - Not Notable, No citations, not easily verifiable,(Google=0) Paul E. Ester 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN and original research. Google search for the name "Lee Kitman" registered 20 hits. The article claims that Lee Kitman writes books, but a quick search at Amazon.com reveals no books from a 'Lee Kitman'. Dionyseus 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable. I know Google tests are not all too reliable in verifying notability, but for a "highly respectable author, musician, and activist," there should have been at least a few websites mentioning him. Google only digs out mostly unrelated entries. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Strong delete looks like a hoax to me. Dlyons493 Talk 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:ZS. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 18:00, 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Realms LLC[edit]

Was tagged for CSD-A7, but the article is long, researched well and the editor is committed, so probably deserves more than a snap judgment. However - the article also doesn't appear to be asserting notability; it appears to be a bit crystal ball-gazing; it also, from the talk page where the author is detailing his edits, appears to be original research. I'd like community input on this one, please.➨ ЯEDVERS 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this up to you to decide, I would just like to point out that Iron Realms Entertainment has had a stub for 2 years now, while ours was quickly promoted out of that status. As for the crystal ball gazing, the editor Crashaddict spoke with Ryan(CEO) and myself(CTO) about many things to make sure they were accurate. Most of his other information came from our official forums, wiki, and blog and thus is accurate and things that we have already completed. The company has been around since 2003, and Ilyrias will be released at the start of 2007. Our official forums have almost 7k posts and received over 1.3k unique visitors last month, in our genre that is more than most games have in players. I hope that gives you enough information about the two things you were concerned about. PR Baram 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article quite useful and it has attracted quite a bit of players to join up on PR. It would be a shame to delete it, when some supporters of Persistent Realms work so hard to keep it up to date. Just being a player. 205.214.210.31 16:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As PR is very open in its development and tries to include the community’s ideas and wishes for the upcoming game, I find this article very useful for people that would like to know more about the company and how it came to be. 193.154.218.24 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any article here deleted regarding PR will have to be recreated, as I can predict that after Ilyrias opens, it will become one of the largest MUDs on the internet. Given the company's dedication to its players, and all of the recent updates to the game, I'm awaiting the day when the game opens, having none nothing about it one month ago. 216.166.206.18 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the one that tagged it CSD-A7. It doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:CORP at all, and doesn't seem to assert any other kind of notability either. Whatever information about the company is useful on Wikipedia can be merged to the article on their MUD in development. Ehheh 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting, but doesn't meet notability guidelines. --InShaneee 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently ranked 19th on TMS, one of the two largest mud ranking sites. Have held steady at 27th for the past 2 months. I know this probably isn't the kind of "ranking" people have in mind, but it is what most people in the genre use. Iron Realms Entertainment's four games are normally in the top ten, and Persistent Realms is a split off(all of the employees are ex-IRE staff) from that company. The company's name is also already well known, and comes up in many discussions about IRE and new games. PR Baram 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue, I think, is that it would make more sense to merge the MUD article with this one rather than vice versa, but that both articles contain enough distinct and unique (but still useful) information to warrant separate articles. Either way, this becomes more an issue of merging rather than one of deletion. 86.128.20.118 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both articles should be kept distinct, as, although the mud is part of the company, the company is not simply the mud. Also, the mud is currently in the top 100 on TMS page, holding onto 27th place. This is useful information for those interested in the game, and also for those behind the game. This is an informative article, and useful to those new that wish to learn more. – — … ° ≈ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Charitie: --68.187.140.192 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Solicitation for outside vote spamming here. --InShaneee 01:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed that forum topic, over zelous players. PR Baram 03:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've edited the article to fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, hopefully. As for notability, Ilyrias is currently the highest-ranked not-yet-released game at topmudsites.com and expected to have a playerbase of 200 players or more once it opens, which definitely makes it, and therefore the company responsible, significant in the MUD community. --Verithrax 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading some of the things for notablility I have done the Google and Alexa tests. Unless I did them wrong, a search for Persistent Realms returns 667k hits on Google and 83,759 hits on Alexa. PR Baram 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "Persistent Realms" in quotes weeds out all the unrelated pages on other MMO topics. You get 1,300 on google that way, and it looks like the majority of those are various links to your own website (the forums specifically.) Alexa ranking (not search hits) is 5,227,388. Anything above 100,000 is so sparesly linked that the rankings aren't even reliable. Ehheh 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, at least now I know how that system works. PR Baram 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The product looks like a clandestine fan game to me. Maybe if it makes a splash once it's released, it would work. But not now. --Kitch 12:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The product is being developed on a legal license of Rapture by professionals with experience in the field; it doesn't qualify as 'clandestine', much less 'fan game'. The discussion boards for the game, pre-release, have reached the first page at topmudsites.com and are significant and notable inside the MUD community. --Verithrax 03:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page has been updated slightly with better internal and external linkage and more recent/detailed information. 86.128.20.118 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is a promotional page for a non-notable product. The rankings on TMS are meaningless (indeed, PR Baram has stated on the forums that just a few people voting every day are all it took to get them there), and nobody that I'm aware of pays any attention to them as rankings of anything but how much traffic you're exchanging with TMS. Persistent Realms is a company with no released products and an unreleased product with no buzz that doesn't come directly from the company itself. OneThousandYears 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Miss quoting at it's best. On the TMS forums I said it only required a couple people to start voting, which brings in more interested people. In 5 months time we went from unknown to being brought up in conversations on TMC and TMS, a large chunk of IRE's Lusternia are active members on the forums, discussions about us brought up on most of IRE's forums as well. 245 active forum members, most of which visit the forums multiple times a day, nearly 7k forum posts in that time. Then there's the perspective player made wiki for us, discussions on other peoples blogs, player made IRC chat room(which is used all the time), and was even offered the IRE online radio station(player made and run) to be given to us instead of IRE. Far from unknown. PR Baram 04:05, 14 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 was no consensus to delete, with the strong caveat that this should NOT be pointed to as a precedent for any other such nominations. I find a couple of problems with this discussion which seem to create a situation which may or may not reflect actual consensus: (1) incivility (very severe in some cases) on the part of some "keep" voters; (2) internal spamming by David Bergan; (3) the large number of articles here and large number of corresponding proposed remedies. This AFD result should not be seen as communicating any prejudice against future nominations (even immediate future nominations) of individual articles or smaller groups of more-similar articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike maps[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. This article is about Counter-Strike maps, how to make them, and how to play them. It is not suitable for Wikipedia. Counter-Strike has spawned a heap of cruft, and here it all is. The following articles are also included in this AFD nomination:

Terrifyingly, there are also a heap of articles on individual maps. All these must also be deleted (closing admin, if deleted, note each has images of the maps also, which will need to be deleted as fair use will expire):

Note that there was an AFD on these maps in May (thanks to User:Gwernol for informing me). Find it here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_dust. This was closed as no consensus, due to a concerted effort by the Counter-Strike article contributors to keep their nice cruft. These are how-to articles, and are NOT encyclopaedic. It does not matter if they are notable. A map of a level is game guide material. There is nothing that can be extracted from these of any encyclopaedic value. These should all be deleted too.

That is all. Proto///type 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. Proto///type 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Summarizing the position against the nominator The nom's only 2 issues are 1) Wikipedia is not a strategy guide and 2) cruft. He concedes that these pages do pass the policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. So our discussion ought only to be limited to the first 2. Also it must be noted that by grouping all the articles in one AfD, the decision is expected to keep or delete them all, not pick out specific weak articles (ie Surfing (Counter-Strike)) and delete only those. Those advocating the keep position do not necessarily approve of all articles, but since forced with the option of keeping all or deleting all, we see at least one good article in the list we want to keep, and therefore have to keep all unless the nominator decides to relist all individually.
Regarding strategy guide, we opposed to deletion respond that these simply are not strategy guides. Take Cs italy. There is nothing in that article that explains how to play the map. In the game Counter-Strike there simply is no "right" way to play a map, there is no "walkthrough", no "how-to" beat a map because either team can do an infinite number of things to which their opponents have to adjust. What the article has is (A) a description of the map, (B) an overhead view of the map, (C) some screenshots, (D) professional criticism against the map being balanced for both sides, (E) listing of some trivia regarding the map, including the translation of an opera song that can be heard in one section. Which of those 5 counts as a "strategy guide"? If I were to describe the Roman Coliseum, wouldn't the article have the same aspects? (description, blueprint, pictures, archictectual criticism, trivia) Since the nominator concedes that these maps are notable (as the Coliseum is notable) then there is no reason to object to the format.
Regarding cruft, we opposed to deletion respond that cruft is a highly subjective term, and that since notability was conceded these articles cannot be cruft. On the first, we can be sure that one man's featured article is another man's cruft. I could just as easily consider the Roman Coliseum cruft since I am an American with no interest in classical architecture or string theory as cruft because I don't know what 12-dimension space time means, but there are even more obvious targets on wikipedia (ie Simpsons_Roasting_on_an_Open_Fire, List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver, etc) that stay here. Secondly, the cruft guide that the nominator linked defines it as "selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Since the nominator already conceded notability, therefore we don't have a "small population" and therefore this isn't cruft by that definition. The guide also states that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." So cruft cannot even be considered as a reason for deletion... it only sometimes leads to deletion under another policy. As for "poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral", this must be judged on each article individually.
Therefore, we are opposed to deletion seeing that the nominator's only two reasons do not hold up. David Bergan 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Recently found that the nominator is on a personal crusade against "gamecruft"... makes one wonder if he's objectively evaluating the content, or just trying to score notches in his belt. Bad faith. David Bergan 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lengthy discussion moved to the talk page. Proto::type 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as extreme amounts of gamecruft. Quite inapropriate for an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete These are clearly game guides. Dionyseus 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This stuff belongs on Wikibooks. --Tom Edwards 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Wikibooks no longer accepts game guide stuff. Proto///type 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruftacular. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. bikeable (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as gamecruft. The only one that I could possibly see having an article would be de_dust, which is far and away the most popular and well-known map for the game. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but one day a List of Couter-Strike maps might be able to be written that is non-crufty and NPOV. Batmanand | Talk 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-crufty list of counter-strike maps is an oxymoron :) Proto///type 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though CS has a disproportionate impact on the internet community, none of these maps do. MLA 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is NOT paper. Keeping will do no harm. So Keep, just like last time. I feel sympathy for your horror, and I catch the drift of what you're saying, but you're not explicitly stating how your deletion rationale links with AFD guidelines. If you can do that, I might change my opinion. Kim Bruning 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "keeping will do no harm" argument is tempting for every AfD, but keeping non-encyclopedic information is not wikipedia's mission. WP:NOT lists a number of categories of "indiscriminate information" which wikipedia does not collect, including video game guides. bikeable (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heavily dislike people painting AFDs with broad strokes like that. It was closed as no consensus because there was no consensus. I see just as many substantive votes to keep from valid and even long-time contributors as there are for deletion. I also strongly dislike broad statements like A map of a level is game guide material. There is nothing that can be extraced from these of any /encyclopaedic/ value.. The same can be said for say, a plot summary of Hamlet. Another argument is that this is only of interest to a small group of people, well that is true. I don't think anyone just beginning to start playing CS would come here for info on the maps, and anyone that has played the maps once doesn't need our articles. Would someone that has never heard of CS use/need/want these articles? Probably not. However, the same arguments can be made for obscure mathematical and scientific articles. Have you ever heard someone say mathcruft? Thus, this argument boils down to 'I don't like it', which is obviously subjective and pointless. You could go on with well you wouldn't find this in Britannica!, but that is an idiotic argument--why should we limit ourselves to what previous encyclopedias did? Another argument made is that they are unreferenced or original research. In some cases, this is true. However, this is not really a reason for deletion. We delete things that are unverifiable, not unverified.
That all being said, these are really crufty and personally I think they have little value, but like Kim I do not see anyone presenting a valid case for deletion so I must vote keep. Kotepho 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individual maps really don't need their own articles in a general encyclopedia. Though I would not be opposed to a list with brief summaries/screenshots of a few of the most popular maps like dust and office. Wickethewok 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep if this is an all-or-nothing deal. The de_dust series is incredibly important in the context of on-line gaming; dust and dust2 are likely the most popular on-line maps ever. (At any given moment, thousands of players are playing on one of these two maps.) Do a google search and get a million hits or 1.8 million hits. (Other official maps like cs_office are quite important and also deserve a milder keep vote as well.) For an article to be cruft, it has to appeal to only a very small audience. — brighterorange (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Picaroon9288 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Well, my apologies. Delete all per wp:not, then, as opposed to "per nom", (which happened to represent my opinions nicely.) Is my comment revalidated, or am I still so unoriginal that my opinion should be discounted? Picaroon9288 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_chateau. Kotepho has a valid point that the delete voters are hiding behind one word "cruft," which really amounts to "I don't play the game and would never read these articles." I don't watch the Simpsons, yet there is a synopsis of each episode on Wikipedia. I don't bother to learn string theory, but I found a lot of articles relating to the topic. If you're going to use the word cruft as your reasoning, you better define it much more rigidly than how it's being tossed about. I (and others) have put a considerable amount of work into most of these articles, making maps and finding content. The computer gaming center in my town uses these pages frequently when trying to gather info about the maps and select the right ones for their tournaments. That's notable enough to keep. There is no reason to delete pages that people visit frequently. Deletion policy is for screwball topics that no one will visit except the article's author. Moreover, we've already had 2 votes on this issue in as many months. There is no reason to keep bringing this up over and over until the vote goes your way... articles surviving a deletion vote should be immune from further attempts. And strike all votes that use "per nom" or "cruft" as their reasoning. Have to do better than that, since there is already a lot of cruft that is staying on Wikipedia. David Bergan 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator clearly indicated the rationale that Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, which is a specific bullet point under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This seems quite clear to me, and I'm not sure why you, Kotepho and others don't see it as a "valid" reason -- it's clearly laid out at WP:NOT. I changed my "cruft" vote (which was, for me, simply a shorthand for "indiscriminate") to reflect that more clearly, but I think the sentiment of most voters is clear enough. A games-specific wiki, not a general-use encyclopedia, is the right place for this material, just as we send the more crufty indiscriminately detailed Star Wars stuff over to Wookiepedia. bikeable (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tackled the "strategy guide" argument in my comment to the nom's vote. Short version: This doesn't constitute a strategy guide; there are no "walkthrough" or "how-to" elements. David Bergan 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the fact that they are maps rather than walkthroughs makes them less valuable and encyclopedic in my opinion: that is, they do not even rise to the level of a strategy guide. As an analogy, probably a quarter-million cars use the roadway my desk overlooks, and yet detailed maps of it would not be suitable for wikipedia -- although wikipedia contains a fine general description. Detailed content like maps of CS or detailed roadway information belongs in a separate wiki, not in wikipedia. I'm sorry, I know this is a labor of love for some of you, and I would strongly encourage you to retain the info and move it elsewhere. I think it'd be good to have a comprehensive games wiki in which to keep as much detail as anyone wants. bikeable (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an interesting argument, and I'm inclined to agree. Two things, though. (1) Some of us are intimately interested in the CS map content and have been striving to make quality articles. If there were people similarly interested in the major street outside your office, who added pictures, descriptions, comments on its uniqueness, and a history of the road, that is probably bona fide wikipedia material. (2) Now David Bergan in Sioux Falls, SD isn't likely to stumble upon that street article... but you would have to agree that if you did it up right it would notable to a significant number of people (ie everyone who drives it). And if David came along on a mission to delete street-cruft, you would probably feel resentful because of the 10+ hours you put into the article just to have some hick in the Midwest insult your work by calling it cruft and try to bring it to an irretrievable delete. You knew the subject was notable when you started the article (because of the plethora of drivers), but feel upset because a group of people who don't drive that road are telling you your project sucks. And you know that the article gets a fair amount of hits because your fellow businessmen discuss it with you (as the computer gaming center in my town discuss the CS map articles with me).  ::::*Today, as is, I still have to vote to keep. As sane as your argument seems, the maps are notable (played a lot) and the content doesn't violate the WP guidelines. There still is no valid reason to delete. Kindly, David Bergan 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these articles were game guides I would be voting delete, but they aren't. RuneScape armour, Ragnarok_Online#Statistics, Flyff#Flying_Quest, a lot of DotA_Allstars, etc. are all stuff that should go. An article about something in a game is not always a game guide though. They only describe the map briefly and in wide terms, but also discuss things such as the history of the maps and their creators, which seems to be sourced with links that are not too objectionable (caveat, I only looked at a few of the articles). Kotepho 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. We can and should write about important games and their important components, and we can (and already do, in many cases) say interesting things without being a strategy guide. — brighterorange (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom--Nick Y. 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep summary article Counter-Strike maps, which seems to be a reasonable, factual, verifiable article on a very popular and notable topic. I have no vote on the subject of the individual maps; they are OR-ish in their current state, but thousands of people play on them so I believe they do have notability. TomTheHand 21:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tens of thousands are playing them right now while 5 or 6 are here on Wikipedia trying to tell non-players how many do visit these pages.
      • Comment - Millions of people played Green Hill Zone, the first level of Sonic the Hedgehog. We don't have an article on that (it's a redirect). Hundreds of millions of people have played Tetris; do we have an article on each individual block? Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Wow, what a vicious, brutal dismantling of that strawman. You are not a man to be crossed. TomTheHand 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning of David Bergan. I'd like to see pictures of the missing maps, too. John Bergan 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has less than 20 edits; half to this AFD, and almost all others to David Bergan's user page and subpages. No insinuations of any kind. Proto::type 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's my smarter younger brother. I can give you his phone number if you want to call and verify that he's not a sockpuppet. Kindly, David Bergan 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm betting he's a meatpuppet. John Bergan 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all per nom, because WP is not a gaming guide, because blanketing everyone who expresses opinions against this as a person with a vendetta is specious, because saying to keep because you like it is just as invalid as saying delete because you dislike it, because saying "all or nothing" and then citing a prior AfD is about as good an idea as citing a prior AfD and saying "we've been through this before so keep because it survived last time," (although in this case I guess "nothing" is acceptable to me), and because attempting to compare these maps to mathematicians or other articles of that nature doesn't actually work, as mathematicians and the like made documented, lasting contribution that somehow furthered society at large. While CS has obviously had its own cultural impact, I welcome anyone to show me how individual maps can claim the same. GassyGuy 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is an article about every episode of Season 5 of 24. Yet we are debating to delete pages that explain _the most played_ maps in computer FPS's. These maps are ones that ALL serious gamers know about/heard of. There is massive ammounts of culture, references, and history behind these maps. They make up the heart of CounterStrike, the most popular first person shooter out there. And you guys want to delete that, yet making a page for _every_ episode of 24 and Simpsons is okay? Just think about what you guys are talking about, this is a ridicoulous arguement, you might as well delete about a 3rd of Wikipedia if you delete these. You have to understand, de_dust is the most recognized computer map of all time. Any serious gamer who sees it can easily say "Counter-Strike". When they reach this kind of popularity, it _IS_ worth keeping. There are articles on wikipedia that are a lot worse and need a lot more attention than this. In no way should these be merged or deleted, it would violate the goal of wikipedia in many ways, because these maps truly do mark a serious spot in computer gaming. --Rake 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - episodes of 24 have plot, story, actors who appeared, and so on. A MAP of a level has no plot, no mythology, no backstory, nothing. It's just a map. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep To the point about the maps above, like I said, each of these maps have their own history, because they were all developed under different circumstances, are are in no way similar (well, save the Dust series). Each one can easily spark a conversation between two gamers (Who has the best advantage, best rushing route, good camping spots, good sniping spots, etc.) No, we are not making a game guide, we are simply explaining the maps that make Counter-Strike, well, counter-strike. You can't just group all of these maps together. While they are all for counterstrike, a battle fought on Dust is extremely different and has a completely different story behind it than a battle fought on Aztec, for example. Individual maps definately DO have their own cultural impact, ask any serious gamer about dust or aztek. Everyone who here is saying that this is becoming a game guide I guess is not a CounterStrike gamer, because if they were, they would know that each of these maps adds their own bit of tactics, ideas, and culture to Counter Strike. --Rake 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Since I assume this is a response to me, given the use of the phrase "cultural impact," could you please supply me with a source that details an impact of an individual map had as opposed to the game as a whole? Barring that, I am strengthening my opinion on the basis that almost all of these keep votes are saying "cruft isn't a valid argument" and giving impassioned "I play this game and I love this map, therefore keep it" speeches without addressing any of the other points, e.g., why an individual map is at all important in its own right. I'm sorry, but the fact that it's of interest to a group of gamers means it belongs in a game encyclopaedia, not a general one. Show me why it is of importance to the general population. GassyGuy 04:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per David Bergan. o/s/p 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks. Looks like good content in the wrong place. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid. Wikibooks is for material which would be appropriate for a college textbook, which this is not. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Note: though I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a transwiki or merge, I'm not voting that way so as to reduce the chance of this being closed as no consensus.) If we were writing a Counter-Strike strategy guide, this would be vital info. Since we're writing an encyclopedia, though, this is simply unnecessary. Most (all?) video games don't need an article about each individual level, stage, map, or mission. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per the original AFD. I made my comments clear there, but will reiterate my arguments here. Counter-Strike is the most popular online FPS ever, and is the number one team FPS game at professional esports tournaments (and has been for some time). I do not endorse the keeping of every single FPS map, but I think that official counter-strike maps are definitely notable, my comment at the previous vote noted that the current server and player counts for each specific map runs into the thousands at every single second of the day. Another comment I'd like to restate is that these maps are not static unlike say the maps in Quake 3. Counter-Strike has had a constant changing map roster as part of its iterative development cycle. Maps are retired due to balance/quality/popularity issues, if you want to follow the development history of counter-strike, then looking at the map articles definitely helps and this is what makes them encyclopedic. If you want to find out the history behind Counter-strike, then you're going to have to study the map list. And another point on its popularity, there are many more people out there who would want to read an article on a counter-strike map than say some computer game based webcomic like Concerned, or an esports team like Team 3D and yet I think those who are interested in Team 3D would find articles on the arenas in which their victories took place interesting. - Hahnchen 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - millions more people have played Super Mario World. Do we have an article on each level of that game? No, and nor should we. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      But, of course, "Notability is not the issue here." John Bergan 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - There's some differences to maps in Super Mario World. Some which I have picked up on in my original comment. Super Mario maps are fixed, they've not changed since the first game was boxed. Counter-Strike maps haven't, they've evolved with the game, tried new things out and are part of Counter-Strike's developmental history. I think this is something to note down due to Counter-Strike's long history, if you check out the Counter-Strike article, you'll see a release timetable chronicling the game's various releases and big changes made. It however, hasn't managed to note down the changing map cycles in the game, nor how the maps themseleves have changed as this is quite hard to research. The other point I made was about professional gaming. Recently, Complexity Gaming recently won the Summer CPL competition, and that news is covered by Gotfrag here. I think whoever is looking into competitive gaming will want to find out about the maps in which these tournaments took place, in this case de inferno and de dust2. Ask a Super Mario fan what map 4-3 is and he might not be able to tell you. Ask a none-counter-strike playing FPS fan what de_dust is, and he will know it. - Hahnchen 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We may not have articles on Mario maps but we have a bewildering array of stuff at List of Mario series characters. The characters may be seen as the most important component of the Mario games while the maps are seen as the most important component of Counter-Strike. In any case we have a large collection of articles whose only sources are video games, video game guides and fansites. Haukur 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massive übercruft. If it's so popular the fans can start their own Wiki. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per above. Naconkantari 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been amply demonstrated that these articles are not mere strategy guides to playing the levels, they contain information on the maps creators, histories, why they are notable in the development of multiplayer gaming, etc. That discounts the "Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide" argument towards deletion. The number of people playing these maps and a simple Google search proves that these are DEFINITELY notable. And "But it's cruuuuuufty" is not a valid reason to delete. There's a lot of esoteric information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," not, "the free encyclopedia that only people who are interested in everyday, common mainstream pablum can edit"

If you don't feel that there's enough non-strategy information in the articles... find some sources and add some more information. If you have the time to nominate as an AfD and post about how this is all fancruft and ruining Wikipedia, you have time to do the research. If you don't care enough about the articles to try and improve them, I feel that you don't have the right to delete them, either. It is always easier to destroy than to create. Your choice. Tmorrisey 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Even if it is a notable game, the maps are not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, "notability is not the issue here" -- Proto. Strike this vote from the record. John Bergan 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not seeing the context that Tmorrisey sees; there's just a bunch of game-guide content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. (edit conflict) As someone who has spent hundreds of hours in those maps, I can tell you firsthand that they do not merit inclusion into Wikipedia. They are just cruft. Alphachimp talk 00:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Wikibooks can only take game guides that are college textbooks. Please specify, with a reliable source, exactly which of these is a college textbook for what course, where... GRBerry 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and transwiki Hasn't this been to AfD before? Whispering 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep cruft is described as being of interest only to a small fanbase but as can be seen from checking the steam status page, there are 115,600 people playing CounterStrike and CounterStrike Source this very second and that figure is only a fraction of the total number of players (due to different timezones and each player only playing for a few hours) which is probably in the region of 1.2 million. so the cruft argument is null. CounterStrike is a cultural computer online phenomena and as such deserves to be noted in Wikipedia along with descriptions of the maps that it is played on. calling these map descriptions game guides is misguided and wrong. yes there will be information that may appear to be like a guide but it is just part of the description of the map not a walkthrough of "how to complete this level" as that would be impossible to do for a game like CounterStrike. a guide for CounterStrike would basically read "don't get shot, shoot all the enemy". IMHO it would be tragic for an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia to delete the entries for such a ground breaking and immensely popular online phenomena as CounterStrike based on the "per nom" votes of people who have no insite into it. some of these maps are so popular that they have even been converted to be used in other online games (de_dust and aztec, among others, have both been converted to be used in Day of Defeat) and this must surely be a sign that CounterStrike maps are worthy of recognition. thankyou for your time --81.79.138.151 02:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)prone ranger[reply]
  • Relist, individually, and remind the nominator that this didn't work last time and isn't going to work now, less than a month later. Nifboy 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    De dust was nominated on 19 May. This AFD was opened on 10 July. That is not less than a month. It is, however, just less than 2 months. Proto::type 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a straw man. Though the link is to the AfD of de_dust, "last time" really means the de_chateau AfD, which was, as Nifboy said, less than a month ago. Somethin' like June 29. That's like two WEEKS ago! Give it up! All this work and we'll probably have to start over with a new discussion at the beginning of August, just so Proto can try to get more red links on his talk page or whatever it is. Doesn't the Constitution prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime? And Counter-Strike maps are being tried three times in two months! They're innocent already! The jury said so. Twice. This is outrageous. Seriously, deleters, quit wasting everyone's time, stopping our fun, and censoring worthwhile information. John Bergan 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOT is policy, consensus, whether current or in prior AFDs can not override policy. Recent discussion, on the mailing list if I recall correctly, has also established that game guides are not suitable content for Wikibooks unless they are actually used as college textbooks. My impression of the main articles was that they also contained unhealthy dose of violation of WP:V by vailing to cite reliable sources. If such sources exist, it might be possible to write a decent article on Counter-Strike map types, but anyone doing so needs to be careful to abide by WP:FORGET and start by forgetting everything they know from playing the game. GRBerry 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - game guides not being used as textbooks, so they can't be on Wikibooks? Then why are there cookbooks on there? Surely we don't expect them to be used as college textbooks. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen and David Bergan. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some interesting issues here regarding notability and verifiability. Is it reasonable to use a computer game as a source about the computer game itself? Or is that original research? Does a computer game qualify as a published source? I'm not really sure. I often write articles about books and then I tend to devote a large section to summarizing the contents of the book. Is summarizing the content of a book original research? Hardly. Should summarizing the content of a computer game be treated differently? Hmm, well, a computer game is in some ways less accessible than a book. For one thing you need to have a certain type of computer in order to play. But on the other hand we accept any book as a source no matter how inaccessible it is. In Gosforth cross I used a relatively obscure 1913 book written in Icelandic as a source. No-one seems to have a problem with that, but it is undoubtedly less accessible to the general Wikipedia user than Counter-Strike is.
  • As for notability I'm sure there are many more people interested in Counter-Strike maps than in Acta sanctorum in Selio which I wrote a few days ago. Before I wrote that article its title had exactly one English language Google hit. No-one ever wants to delete my articles on medieval literature, no matter how "crufty" they get. The Google comparison isn't entirely fair, though, because "Acta sanctorum in Selio" gets two English language Google Books hits (both of them good reliable sources) where "Counter-Strike maps" get none.
  • Is there precedent for using computer games as a source? I think there is. If you look at the Bulbasaur featured article you'll come upon sentences like this: "In the next game, Pokémon Yellow, Bulbasaur, Charmander and Squirtle are not available at the beginning, as all three have already been taken by other trainers; instead, the player starts with a Pikachu. A Bulbasaur becomes available later in the game, as a gift from an non-player character in Cerulean City..." My guess would be that this information comes simply from the game itself - which is, indeed, cited as a source in the references section.
  • Taking all the above into consideration and assuming—perhaps generously—that Mark made the right call in promoting Bulbasaur, I think a decent case can be made for the notability and verifiability of Counter-Strike maps. Haukur 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing I didn't think of when I wrote this is that it's much harder to give a citation to a specific part of a computer game than to that of a book or even a film. You can cite the page numbers of a book, the time period of a film (in the specific DVD version of it your citing) but you can't really cite information such as specific factoids about a map in Counter-Strike in an elegant way. You'll have to say something like: "Load the map and start the game, if you start in the typical counter-terrorist spawning location then go forward for about 20 seconds, then turn left, jump over the boxes, go inside the window, go down the stairs and out again, through the street and turn right. There you can observe the facts which this citation refers to." This does make citing computer games more difficult in an important way than citing even very obscure books. The fact remains that there are articles out there—even featured articles—which do cite computer games. But since stare decisis doesn't apply to Wikipedia we're free to reach another conclusion here than the one reached at Bulbasaur. We could even try to tighten up WP:NOR to discourage citation of computer games. Haukur 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is a side-issue. Failing WP:NOT is the chief problem with these articles). I don't see anyone as having addressed this, instead there's a lot of arm-waving about how lots of people play them. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder if the places of Morrowind sequence of articles can be seen as precedent for keeping these articles too. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - not the same thing, as a location has fictional history, plot, backstory, characters, etc. A map for a FPS shoot em up does not. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I beg to differ. FPS maps have both fictional and real histories, nearly always have a plot and backstory (the CS maps certainly do), and surely have characters (or, more precisely, roles). They are also irrelevant to my point, which is that game "maps" having articles of their own is precedented. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg to rediffer. The Morrowind places are RPG locations, not FPS maps, not maps. There is a difference. Personally, I would delete them, too, but that's not the issue. They are different. The same difference exists in the movies. We don't have an article on the factory where they all shot one other in Reservoir Dogs, but we do have one on Mordor. One has backstory, mythology, plot. The other is just a location where something took place. Proto///type 13:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad Faith Nom and Strong Keep The articles are not written as streategy guides but more of descriptions of locations in a very popular game series. Surfing is not so much a how-to as it is a explanation of a technique. Surfing can be compared to an article about the act of fishing; they're not how-tos but explanations. Sure they can be cruft-prone, but as can a lot of articles. ANd i highly refute the argument that RPG locations are any more or less notable than FPS Maps. IN a generic sense they're same thing; virtual spaces for a video game. Just because rpg's tend to have more backstory doesnt mean an FPS map is any less notable. CS maps are pretty notable as they are really not that many popular ones. They're just a few that everyone plays over and over gaain. And given the large user base i'd say that makes them pretty encyclopedic. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep David Bergan hit the nail on the head above, but I'll reiterate.
Come on, we've already had two AfD nominations... this is getting ridiculous. Let us examine the nomination:
1. It is stated as cruft. This one is simple enough: "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." (From WP:Cruft)
2. The nomination also contains flat-out lies. There are no "how-to" elements of these articles. These articles are not game guides, nor do they read anything like them. I am adamantly opposed to having strategies and the like in Wikipedia, and I actively remove anything that could be considered strategy guide material.
The nominator (who is an admin) has had at least one other person complain about him nominating pages as "game guides" without merit User_talk:Proto#Complaint, and acts in quite an uncivil manner, with his insults to others' work (referring to some of these articles as "bastard children" and "terrifying," and statements like "a concerted effort by the Counter-Strike article contributors to keep their nice cruft."
This is utter stupidity; we shoudln't have to go through this every month. If you're not happy with how Wikipedia works, go somewhere else. --Varco 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Varco and others - Proto has been extremely civil in my opinion (everyone has actually considering the feelings on both sides), especially considering the aggressiveness of the opposition. Rather than insulting editors, it is usually best to simply make your arguments about the articles, rather than about editors of different opinions. Proto (and all of the other editors here of course) are voicing what they believe to best for Wikipedia, so enough with this "bad faith nom" stuff. Wickethewok 03:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my tone comes across as aggressive. But you have to understand that as a contributor to these articles, it is extremely frustrating to have to go through the AfD process every other week. As for ad hominem, just calling a spade a spade. You can find proto's personal crusade on his own user page, and that is precisely the thing that clouds one's objectivity. He probably didn't even read all of the articles he put up for AfD here. David Bergan 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I had to wade through them all while tagging them for deletion. Your continual rudeness and accusations of bad faith are extremely unhelpful. Proto::type 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wading through them" in order to slap a tag on the top of them does not constitute reading them. --Varco 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even see how you could start to claim he's being civil. I did make my arguments about the articles, but they seem to go ignored becuase I called Proto on his belittlement of our work. --Varco 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Would those who voted in this AFD be OK with a compromise such as a single article with the most notable/popular maps listed? To me at least, this seems like a possible solution, as long as the article is well-written and sourced with secondary, reliable sources. If this clutters up the AFD page too much, feel free to move it to the talk page. Wickethewok 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't - I don't like the set up as it is, but at least it gives enough room for each map's notability to be explained and some details for each map. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the simple reason that that one page would be way too huge. It would be like trying to compress all the paintings of the Louvre into one article. You just don't do it because you should have a pic of each one. David Bergan 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, I don't think this is the Lourve exactly. And you certainly don't need all these details and pictures for every single map as we have it now. Well, it seems there most likely won't be a compromise then due to this quick opposition to a possible solution.... Wickethewok 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are a bunch of game guide articles about maps on a game as important as The Louvre, or the Colosseum? As you have asserted boith of these facts. Proto::type 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You, Proto, conceded notability. That doesn't mean that cs_office is as important to the history of the world as The Last Supper, but in the eyes of Wikipedia they are both article-worthy. I use analogies like the coliseum and the louvre because just about everyone knows about them and they can grasp the analogy immediately. My point wasn't "if these maps go, then so does every piece of art." My point was only that there is a reason why we should use separate articles, because there would be too much content if we filled up one page. David Bergan 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I 'concede notability' again? Let me be perfectly clear: Notability is not the issue here, but that does not mean I believe these maps are notable. Proto::type 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "I concede notability" synonymous with "notability is not the issue here"? If so, the answer to your question is the sentence it precedes. Regardless, notability is not the issue here. Game-guidity is, which brings me to my point: if I wanted to make a game guide, how would I gather the necessary information? I would look to an encyclopedia to garner this research. A COMPLETE encyclopedia, I should say. And that, I believe, is what Wikipedia strives to be. We needn't fill Wikipedia with every imaginable bit of information in the universe, but we should be able to recognize that these map articles are encyclopedic, not game-guidic. They are game guide enablers, not game guides themselves. John Bergan 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I guess cs_office compares to the Mona Lisa then? Heheh I like that argument - "don't delete because counter strike maps are almost the same as the Venus de Milo and Winged Victory of Samothrace". Wickethewok 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I commented before on a previous AFD why a merge would not be suitable as well as some comments made at Talk:Counter-Strike maps. The reason why a list of Counter-Strike maps would not work in the same way as Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved works is because of Counter-Strike's history. Halo comes out with a map, and it's static, unchanged from the first version. Counter-Strike is different, it's incremental delivery means that the maps have all evolved over time, their developmental history is important. For example, I know that de inferno would not have become one of the most balanced tournament maps had a new corridor been introduced in parallel to the main street. (I can't source this right now, which is why I haven't added it to the article). I also know it has gone through various rebuilds and retextures. 3 different versions have been released and are played simultaneously online, one for Counter-Strike, Counter-Strike: Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source. To cover all this would lead to an amalgamated article being incredibly incredibly long and hard to navigate or keep track of. To cop that off, Counter-Strike has had many more maps in its map cycle than both Halo and List of maps in Battlefield 2 - Hahnchen 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahnchen, are you saying the fact that an unstable map used in a computer game had an extra corridor added is not gamecruft? Proto::type 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd probably consider the entire Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved gamecruft as it tells you of the features found in a map. The corridor addition might sound cruft, but the addition of an extra route is why it's used in professional competitions. If you want to follow the development history of Counter-Strike, you have to look at the development of the maps. These maps are being played simultaneously across 3 different games, the changes in between these versions are worth noting down. - Hahnchen 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind, I am not a fan of Counter-Strike. That being said, I say Keep the main article Counter-Strike maps and its redirects, but speedy delete the individual map articles. Counter-Strike is big enough as a gaming culture phenomenon that an article about the maps is okay, but writing articles on individual maps is WAY over the top. --Kitch 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin - may be relevant, may not be relevant. Note David Bergan's spamming of talk pages to recruit keep voters: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Proto::type 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, am glad that David let me know that there was an AfD debate. I was on vacation, and I would not have noticed unless I found the message notification on the top of an article I was reading. Again, Proto, here you are being uncivil by not notifying significant contributors to the articles you are trying to delete, and then having the audacity to accuse David Bergan of spamming for doing something that you yourself were supposed to do. "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." (Source: WP:AfD) --Varco 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I found the discussion and argued for keep before he left a message on my talk page. Let's let the arguments speak for themselves. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all individual maps, but Keep main article, as per Kitch ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of Counter-Strike maps and its redirect, merging and redirecting from the articles on particular maps, and from Custom Counter-Strike maps, as most of the map articles appear to take a very similar form, and the two map lists are somewhat redundant. Keep the article on "surfing"; it's certainly odd, but appears to be a recognized phenomenon. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To ChipperGuy - Note that while Proto and other edits don't have issues with notability, others do. Just because Proto says that notability is not an issue for him, doesn't mean that everyone who thinks that the maps are not notable should have their opinions discounted. Also, please consider placing your comments at the end of a discussion, rather than addressing them on a point-by-point basis throughout the article. It makes it easier for editors to read and helps provide an understanding of the flow of discussion without having to check timestamps for everything. Just my couple o' cents. Wickethewok 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to clarify, the fact I didn't mention notability in the AFD nomination does not mean that I consider the maps to be particularly notable. Proto::type 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be irregular to accuse a man of one crime, and then when he gets to court, the jury decides to make up another crime for him and send him to jail on that. The original nomination summary never mentioned notability, the nominator himself said it's not the issue, and when pressed for a third and final time (on the talk page) he again said that the only issue was the WP:NOT violation on grounds of it being a game-guide.
But even IF notability is an issue for voters, it can be debunked simply by a google search or a reckoning of the players on the Counter-Strike servers that host the maps. It's like the street analogy bikeable brought up. Millions driving the street assures us that the information is relevant to the lives of millions of people. So if someone were to make an article detailing the street's history and uniqueness decorate it with a top-down map and a few pics of what it looks like, it is obviously notable. Same here, except we have players instead of drivers. Kindly, David Bergan 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wickethewok. I'll try to make most of my posts at the bottom from now on. And I agree that whether a person believes that the map pages are notable is not a reason to discount his or her vote. However, if poor notability is the ONLY accompanying reason for a vote, then it should be counted the same as a vote with no reasoning given. "Delete, these maps are not notable" should be treated the same way as "Delete, I hate fun" or "Delete." Why? Because Proto has argued that "notability is not the issue here." John Bergan 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a copy of http://www.counter-strike.net - wikipedia is not a mirror - ActiveSelective 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That statement is incorrect. Although that link now points to the Steam store, the articles have nothing in common with counter-strike.net bar their subject matter. - Hahnchen 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Closing Administrator - If you think there consensus to delete, then could you redirect the articles to the main Counter-Strike maps article instead of deleting them outright. The information in their history will go toward improving the main article up to and above the standards at Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved and List of Battlefield 2 maps - Hahnchen 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per David Bergan, above. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per David Bergan. --SevereTireDamage 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamiafy = Transwiki to Encyclopedia Gamia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.42.152 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 July 2006
  • Strong keep on Counter-Strike maps] which is a description of game types. I don't see how anyone can consider this a game guide. Weak keep on the individual maps. I didn't read all of them, so they may not all merit an article, but if sufficiently popular and if sufficient encyclopedic information is available, such as history, criticisms and popularity, which was the case for the few I looked at, I'd think they should be there. Ace of Sevens 08:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on all: it is what makes Wikipedia beautiful. GatesPlusPlus 14:13, 16 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 was Keep. - Bobet 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite and fictitious large numbers[edit]

Original research, lack of verifiability, not an encyclopedic topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator suggests Delete: because:
  • Although a few of the names mentioned, "jillions," "bazillions," etc. undoubtedly have some kind of real existence, the article is not about particular names, but about a concept. As written, it reads as a personal essay and original research. It is reasonable enough as far as it goes, but it is not a distillation and synthesis of well-known, published material from reliable sources. In fact it cites no sources at all for the body of the article. Nothing suggests that "indefinite and fictitious large numbers" is a coherent concept about which there is a body of published material.
  • The list of names is questionable, mixing up familiar names like kajillion and bazillion with unfamiliar ones for which no source is given, without distinction. The list of names is an invitation to contribute original coinages, small-group in-jokes, personal locutions, and things made up in school one day. There's no attempt to separate the "real" ones (informal and jocular but widespread) and the "made-up" ones (limited to small groups of acquaintances). AHD4 does have entries for zillion, and gazillion," and perhaps others, but you wouldn't know it from this article.
  • Some of the information in the article appears to be inaccurate, which, together with lack of references, confirms an impression that there's been little research. For example, it says that "zillions" "seriously" refers to "all the possible -illions" (i.e. the collection of all number names ending in -illion). It's unsourced, I couldn't quickly find any reference that says this, and AHD4 defines "zillion" merely as: "Informal An indeterminately huge number."
I am frankly unsure whether it is is utterly impossible to write an encyclopedic article on this topic, but this one isn't, and it isn't the start of one. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does however include three good sourced examples of numbers of this kind in popular culture: the Consumer Reports children's magazine, the New Zealand auction website, and the Calvin and Hobbes example. Two of them are already included in Zillion though, and would not be lost if the article were deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would recommend a category with such a name if one doesn't already exist. --Ben Houston 14:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a step in the wrong direction, because it would require a separate article for each possible word that could be used to denote an indefinite large number. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For a project where every word gets its own article, see Wiktionary. Uncle G 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - then I vote keep on the article and suggest that one append a "cleanup" tag to it since its quality is inferior. If this is the best solution -- a centralized article on ficitious and indefinite numbers. It will stop the cycle of article creation and deletion and it does give a base, not a great one, but a base to build upon. --Ben Houston 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For prior discussion on this subject, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squillion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazillion. Uncle G 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note when reading the prior discussions that this article was the one at Zillion until it was moved to this title on 2006-05-30. Uncle G 14:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to Zillion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom argues cogently and pursuasively. With regards to AfD nominations, oh si sic erat omnium! Batmanand | Talk 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Numerao 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is cool! It's FICTION so what could you expect from it? A bunch of logic? I don't think so. DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.249.112 (talk • contribs) 00:53, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It's not perfect, but it is a good start. Kaldosh 09:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see myself typing "kajillion" or even "gajoogol" in the search box, but "indefinite and fictitious large numbers"? Anton Mravcek 15:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Other pages redirect to this one, such as bajillion, so this serves as a hub, since most dont deserve their own article. Many pages have wierd names that nobody would type by accident, but have redirects from the ones people would think of. Kaldosh 08:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — The topic of numerical hyperbole is somewhat interesting, at least to me, but the page clearly needs cleanup and references. — RJH (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the simple fact is this is a legitimate search, and the numbers are obviously relevant in a "non-existant" sort of way.--130.20.62.217 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above. Throw 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would rather have this and all the relevant redirects than stubs on each of these terms, as Anton Mravcek suggests. Septentrionalis 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was searching for gazillion and found this - it's good to find at least a little bit inside a maybe not perfect article than finding nothing. Maybe one could add to the article that it's not based on scientific facts but on experience/observance/etc. caliacave, 08:14 13 July 2006
    • Comment I don't know why, but I haven't seen many articles which have unsourced statements, even if they are useful. Often things get deleted because of it. Such as List of sexual slurs (A good example of a page that has edits undone without hesitation) It would be nice to find out a meaning for it, even if nobody reliable can prove it and analyse it myself.Kaldosh 06:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good start at an article. I have added some citations. The term zillion for the number names ending in illion appears to be from Conway & Guy's BOOK OF NUMBERS (ch. 1, "Millions, Billions, and other Zillions".) Spacepotato 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Encyclopedic information, should be kept separate from other numeric entries. Seems likely to be a search term. -- dcclark (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kind of marginal, but looks like an OK article. Herostratus 19:11, 16 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefront X[edit]

Non-notable game with no google hits except this article itself. Habap 14:36, 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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Rewind[edit]

not a notable website per Wikipedia:Notability (web) JHunterJ 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable; WP is not for advertising. — ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 11 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevantive[edit]

Advertisement mascarading as article with company link at botton. KarenAnn 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, spamvertising, also wins Jargon of the Day Award: "creates optimal usability and alleviates barriers to user accessibility for optimal user experience". NawlinWiki 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spamvertising - the integrate user usability ergonomically smoothly into business projects bit scores higher on my personal spamometer though. Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Brad101 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Erebus555 06:28, 13 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2016 European Football Championship[edit]

This article needs either a very heavy expention and the facts should be correct. The easiest thing is to delete this, and make a new when we have sources. kalaha 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was tempted to vote keep but really there is too little known about this tournament yet. It will happen, but until something more concrete is available then I must agree with the nomination to get rid of it until it can be recreated with sources. Keresaspa 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can be recreated when the bidding starts. Batmanand | Talk 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...It can be recreated in ten years. Michael 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too early for this page. -- Alias Flood 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an encyclopaedia. I am very interested in this topic. Palx 11:43, 11 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 was Delete. - Bobet 08:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hamilton (writer)[edit]

Can't find any source that verifies the "is the winner of several local and national awards" bit. Text comes from playscripts.com [52], where text can be submitted. User name suggest vanity, also POV edit here [53] (User Hamiltod has only this two edits) Optimale Gu 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like the play does exist [54] but needs more than that for notability. It's won an award from the International Thespian Society which is a national high school honorary society for theatre students - still not enough for notability IMHO. Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was just playing around with the link from "Cool," sorry on that one. I can verify that the play's won awards. [55]
  • Comment Thanks for providing the award info (here are the direkt links to the award institutions: Thespian Festival [56] and Manoa Project [57]). But I unfortunately still think your entry is NN as the awards are geared towards high-school productions, the awards are from 2003, it's your only play and than there is WP:VANITY. Maybe others see it different. Optimale Gu 11:39, 11 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 DELETE: rough consensus in favour of deletion, evidence of sockpuppets/new accounts voting for keep has been presented, article seems to be about a non-notable term. — Gareth Hughes 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acrosticdoublespeak[edit]

I see no evidence that this phrase is used outside of the book mentioned, which effectively makes the article an advertisement for the book. Joyous! | Talk 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the entry and the example provided in order to understand the term acrosticdoublespeak. Advertising a book because it's name suits the need for an effective description is helpful and humourous. To me, the casual brower, the advertising element is a non-issue, and in fact does spark intrigue as a person interested in looking into this clever form of humour. However, I am unaware of Wikipedia's policy on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.68.50.33 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and I say this with no double speak - OR madeup word. TerriersFan 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the entry for acrosticdoublespeak should remain. It appears to be a valid subgenre of humor, as evidenced by the Journal of Irreproducable Results. One could argue that any Wikipedia entry is an advertisement of some sort, but if the subject matter exists and is part of our culture then it should be listed. The whole point of Wikipedia seems to be that it is an encyclopedia that does not have to limit its entries. Acrosticdoublespeak has the requisite validity to remain. Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd2albright (talk • contribs)
Note: above user's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Mangojuicetalk 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis. Studying the style of the two comments it is clear that they are speaking with the same voice. The account from which the second comment was posted has been activated, today, for this purpose. Superficially there are 30 Google hits here but they are all recycled from Wikipedia or the book's website. I do not object to the concept of advertising but rather that this term has simply not been adopted independently which it needs to be to make it encyclopaedic. TerriersFan 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of Wikipedia is to present to the e-loving masses a broad compendium of extant knowledge. Being that knowledge is structured around ideas, the question is, "What constitutes a relevant idea?"

    At the risk of over-simplifying, I believe that three basic requirements have to be met:

    1. The idea is novel
    2. The idea represents a genuine contribution to our current thinking.
    3. the idea bears the potential for future germination.
  • Acrosticdoublespeak admirably fulfills these 3 criteria, a fact which, alone, should merit its inclusion in Wikipedia.

    However, the nasty truth be told, it is not always easy to judge an idea in an independent manner. For this purpose, we sometimes feel that secondary confirmation or validation is required.

    While Acrosticdoublespeak admittedly does not shine in this regard, it certainly does pass,. The book was excerpted in The Journal of Irreproducible Results; furthermore, it served as the foundation for a 3-credit class in Penn State University.

    For those reviewers who somehow feel that inclusion of Acrosticdoublespeak is an affront to the very dignity of Wikipedia, please allow me to end this comment with two very simple questions, "Can you name a more innovative form of satire that has come forth in the last 30 years ?" and "Exactly how many leading universities have to utilize a text and how many of the world's oldest and most prestigious journals of scientific satire have to excerpt a work before it is acceptable to Wikipedia?" Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoncey dm (talk • contribs)

    • Note: above represent's Skoncey dm's only contribution to Wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your three basic requirements are almost the diametric opposite of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please read the policy. If you wish to contribute to a project that has your three basic requirements, you should look elsewhere than Wikipedia. It is not the place for what you wish to do. Uncle G 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the so-called Analysis Just because I created an account on the same day that I submitted a comment should not belie the fact that I am a consistent user of Wikipedia. I imagine that many people create accounts on the very day that they have something to post, rather than when they first begin using Wikipedia. I believe that terriersFan's implications are unwarranted. Perhaps rather than looking into the people who post comments, TerrierFan should look into the person who created acrosticdoublespeak. As one who posts articles on scientific matters, TerrierFan might be interested to know that the creator of this form of humor has written several articles for the journal Nature and has been cited in academic literature many hundreds of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd2albright (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 14:55, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Website[edit]

Blatant advertising, no meaningful information, also barely coherent. Chrisd87 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons stated above.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Do not allow for organic expansion (sorry, I had to say it). Fan-1967 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 15:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This is informative. I can delete the hyperlink to Organic Website if need be....? User:2spk 16:54, 11 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 under CSD A7. --Pilotguy (roger that) 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Performance[edit]

Was listed for speedy A1, however tag was removed (once by page creator, once by an anon), therefore procedural nomination. Chrisd87 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete NN. Also, it is basically an external link to an IMDB page of an early 20th century movie that has received 9 votes. Dionyseus 15:16, 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 nomination was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadetions[edit]

Supposed to be a special breed of dog that lives on roads and requires zero maintaince. No hits on Google. Hoax? KarenAnn 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, so tagged. NawlinWiki 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per NawlinWiki. Dionyseus 16:14, 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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Babineau[edit]

With all due respect for the dead, being killed in Iraq in the course of duty is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Certainly being killed in War World II (a more notable war) is not notable enough for inclusion, I don't see why Iraq should be different. Jon513 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in agreement that the "average" death of a soldier is not notable enough - the circumstances surrounding his death are noticable. There is speculation this ambush was act of revenge of a war crime by US soldiers. We need to remember this incident and remember those involved. SPFLD413 11:44, 10 July 2006 (EST)
  • KEEP for now lets wait for more evidence to appear in court from the investigation to see if in time he will be notable because he was only killed out of revenge or it was just a random killing because he was a U.S. soldier then he should be merged with his two other soldiers that were kidnapped and tortured and killed.--Bnguyen 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if it does happen and does prove to be notable, then an article can be created on the whole incident. "Might become notable sometime in the future" is not a criteria to keep an article.--Konstable 06:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation about possible motives isn't ground for keeping. Dlyons493 Talk 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tens of millions of soldiers have been killed in the last century. This person was one of them. --Xyzzyplugh 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge this page whould be kept merged with the other two comrades. he gave his life the same way they did. he was acutually killed to get to them.
  • Delete As tragic as this is, as tragic as this war is, or any war, the soldier is not notable enough. Imagine listing all soldiers who died in WWII. 13 million from the Soviet Union alone. I understand from the comments above that there is something which could turn out to be notable around the killings, only in that case would I support a merge - however I am in doubt whether it would still be notable, and I doubt that the current court investigation is notable. Things like these tend to happen in wars all the time and there have been A LOT of wars (I haven't heard of this particular case before actually).--Konstable 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a place to honor the dead, but it should be a place to honor the honorable. Soldiers die to fight for us, so please keep this article.--Summonmaster13 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fan-1967 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT MEMORIAL--CORRECT, but this KILLING was a REVENGE KILLING so that is why it is NOTABLE

David would not had been killed, if his former member of his platoon Steven Dale Green did not murder the Iraqi family and murder their daughter.

--Bnguyen 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is extremely common for terrorists to claim that their attacks are revenge for a recent event. These claims are almost always false. Many times attacks that took weeks to plan are claimed to be in reaction to event that happened only a few days earilier. Jon513 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well JON513 Please NOTE:=

They were all assigned to the same platoon as Steven Dale Green. The facts from the article explains the truth and not your personal thoughts "These claims are almost always false". Please do some research.

--15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

do you mean the part of the article that says "U.S. investigators had said there was no evidence linking the deaths of the three Soldiers last month to the alleged rape-slaying."? Jon513 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Memorials aren't the wiki's purpose. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; or Redirect to a suitable list, if one exists (if it does not then maybe interested parties could start a unified list article with brief info, if notable)? --Mais oui! 16:34, 16 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 was Keep. - Bobet 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Theory EP[edit]

Merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground as were 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 Avi 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hybrid Theory EP was not exclusively an LPU album. -SayCheese 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as stated above by SayCheese. Jay 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see SayCheese's reason) -Falcon37 0:19, 16 July 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect (merge requests shouldn't be on afd in the first place). - Bobet 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LP Underground 5.0 EP[edit]

Merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground as were 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 Avi 15:30, 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 was delete all as not notable (no articles attempt to demonstrate notability). Alphachimp talk 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre sub-stubs[edit]

These articles are all sub-stubs that were added in mass quantities by User:Modernmillie. User:Redvers was tagging them for wikification and I was wikifying them. As I went along I prodded a bunch that aren't close to asserting notability. Those prods were removed today. This is an example of the kind of article I'm talking about: Embassy Theatre is a medium-sized venue in Skegness, England. That's it. And most of her stubs were the same content

The Queens Theatre in Barnstaple, England is a medium-sized theatre presenting a varied programme of music, comedy, and theatre.

With just the name, location, external link, and seating size (when given) changed. Sometimes the "varied programme" also might have included pantomime or ballet. But other than that, it was the same thing. So I'm nominating these as being sub-stubs and not anywhere close to WP:Stub standards of giving other editors a solid foundation for continuing the articles. I know this is an odd reason to delete, but I think the mass creation of sub-stubs with no notability asserted for the theatre is inappropriate.

These two are not by the same creator, but were deprodded by the same user and fit the sub-stub mold:

Metros232 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with proviso Another of this User:Modernmillie's articles was up for speedy, Theatre Royal, Bath, but because of the history attached to it I did a little research, filled it out a bit (not that a lot more loving care isn't needed!) and it survived. So, knowing at least one of the above is nn, it should go, but I wouldn't know if nn applies to all the nominations. --Richhoncho 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. These almost meet WP:CSD A1 (no context). I agree with Richhoncho's proviso; however none of these seem to be on nearly the same level as Theatre Royal. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Dundee Theatre. It will have more historical information as soon as I can get my hands on some.--68.13.170.193 17:59, 12 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 was Speedy Delete as a blatant copyright infringement, created today, of a copyrighted web page ("Copyright © 2003. All Rights Reserved."). The only additions beyond the infringing text were an infobox and some lists, made by the same editor who infringed copyright. The question of whether the WP:MUSIC/SONG criteria are satisfied can be addressed in the future if someone decides to write an article that does not infringe copyright. Uncle G 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're Not Alone (atb)[edit]

Article on song isn't impartial and reads like a copy/paste from a press release. Concluding statements fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, does #1 on a German club chart merit an article on Wikipedia? Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (songs) in my opinion. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:32, 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 nomination was KEEP — Gareth Hughes 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Richardson[edit]

Artist does not appear to be notable; Google turns up fewer than 10 unique hits on "'gerard richardson' naval artist" and article author has history of vanity entries/edits. HumbleGod 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


All right now. What do "Whos Who In American Art", The Smithsonian Library" and these notable collections have in common? The Kennedy Presidential Library, Lyndon Johnson Ranch, Hearst Corporation, US Naval Museum, etc. They believe that Gerard Richardson is a quite notable artist. If this artist can appear in Whos Who in American Art and can not appear in Wikipedia, then you might reconsider your editorial opinions on artists.

In addition, I resent the arrogant and insulting statement by HumbleGod, whatever juvenile handle that might be, from saying that I have a history of vanity articles. I proposed the artist James Williams into Wikipedia because he is a superb and recognized contemporary artist. That is why he was commissioned to illustrate a book that I wrote. In addition, it is duly noted that someone has eliminated the awards from the original James Williams aricle that I had written about him. How interesting. Hard to document, when the documentation is deleted...

Furthermore, the fact that the article that I wrote on a basketball team that achieved a state and national win record that has survived for fifty years is not vanity, it is a sports record! The reason that I was a member of that remarkable team does not make it less true. Leave out my name if it will make you feel less strident in your "editing"

It would seem to me that editing should be concerned as to whether the subject matter of the article is worthy, accurate and educational, rather than the editor trying to insult a sincere contributor -Allen Autry

  • Keep per WP:BIO: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" (emphasis added). The Morning Mist painting meets the historical record criteria, so I'm going to say the artist is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, addressing the nominator's comments about vanity edits: one of the original editor's contributions was an article he had written himself, and another was on an artist he had commissioned for works he was writing. Both of those create the appearance of vanity because of the editor's personal stake in the work. That's why the key with that article is showing other people's citations/opinions that the artist is worthy of inclusion. That's done in this article.
I think we probably all need to step back and assume good faith in all of the participants here. Yes, some of Mr. Autry's contributions have not met notability guidelines for subjects, or at least have not backed up the articles with verifiable evidence to support the claim. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and brand all his contributions bad without considering them each on their respective merits. Likewise, remember that an article is only as good as the text created in it. If there's not enough content in the article to support the subject's importance, then normal procedure to question this is to propose deletion...but do remember that we're discussing the merits of the article and not any editor who participates in this process. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 6 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep gets mentioned in books Davenport's Art Reference: The Gold Edition and Dunbier, Lonnie Pierson The Artists Bluebook [58] Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cann[edit]

Delete non-notable biography of a local artist. Prod removed ithout comment Gwernol 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, user only created pages relating to this subject and edited a page to link to it. Not the least bit notable. HumbleGod 19:36, 4 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 15:40, 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 nomination was delete. — Jul. 11, '06 [12:40] <freak|talk>

Red pepper (newspaper style magazine)[edit]

Delete non-notable local newspaper. prod removed without comment. Gwernol 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, same reasons as provided for deletion of John Cann, the paper's editor. Not notable, author only edits pages relating to it; probably only created this page to point to the article on Cann. HumbleGod 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reference to this article should also be removed from the disambiguation page upon deletion. HumbleGod 19:37, 4 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability, no sources, and I'm skeptical of the "controversy" apparently surrounding the magazine. --djrobgordon 19:26, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krisna Best[edit]

Article was originally PROD'd but tag was removed, I'm not entirely sure it meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 18:12, 4 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Getcrunk. Dionyseus 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant publications, no sources beyond subject's own articles. --djrobgordon 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant publications. Yet another music critic. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not conform to WP:BIO. --Bhadani 14:50, 15 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 delete. I'm taking some liberties with this one, since there is no specific speedy delete criterion that I can think of, and any admin is welcome to undelete and reopen the nomination. There are no references given in the article and it appears to be based on an "erotic" story of rape, incest, slavery, torture etc. that can be found by searching Google with the title in quotes. I prefer not to link to it. The site is not that horrible, but the section that the story is in appears to be an area for the sickest stuff. I'm not saying that the author was acting in bad faith. He may have believed that it was a well known story and he pointed out the impossibility of it happening. -- Kjkolb 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Breeding of Slaves for Sexual Pleasure[edit]

Nonnotable book; author not mentioned; nothing on Amazon; six Ghits NawlinWiki 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. No assertion of notability or even publishing details. Tevildo 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find nothing that confirms that this item even exists.DrunkenSmurf 16:44, 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 nomination was keep. Nomination withdrawn. --Ezeu 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Moroccan writers[edit]

Duplicates an already existant catagory of Moroccan writers, unnecessary listcruft. Chrisd87 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are allright

This list has a long existence just like other lists of African writers. I moved it here because the list of African writers became too long. The same procedure was followed with writers from South-Africa, Senegal and Nigeria. The same discussion (no lists we have categories) was held and was decided in favour of lists.S710 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - As the creator. Please have a look at Category:Lists of writers. This category includes tens (if not hundreds) of similar cases. Please do not confuse lists w/ categories. Categories are created to regroup articles of similar nature (Moroccan authors in French language; Moroccan authors of Arabic language, etc...) while lists are created as general lists w/ no specification of sub-cats. -- Szvest 16:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and related ones are useful. Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the outcome of discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Senegalese writersS710 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begging pardons all, point taken re writers lists, withdraw nomination. Chrisd87 17:16, 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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)[edit]

I was the one who originally created this article, but upon further research, I strongly believe that I was mistaken to do so. The principal reason is that this organization, if it can even be called that, is non-notable. Apparently they have only three active members (M. Sansum, H. Baldwin, and R. Lloyd, all of London). They are not and have never been registered as a political party in the Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties, and therefore have never run candidates in elections. They do not have and have never had a street address, instead taking mail from a PO box or a member's home address. They have neither a telephone number nor an Internet presence. They do not even have a bank account in their own name (as I found out when I mail-ordered their pamphlet). There's no record of them having published anything with an ISSN or an ISBN. In short, for all practical purposes this group is simply three disgruntled ex-members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain whose main activity is to attack the SPGB through word of mouth and a photocopied A5 pamphlet. —Psychonaut 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: Obviously a group that actually existed, and brings out a publication. The exact membership figures in this posting is not verifiable. Albeit small, the split of SPGB had reprecussions on the WSM at large, including the expulsion of the Indian section of the WSM. --Soman 16:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was never a "split" in the Party; there was simply an expulsion of a few undemocratic members in 1991. As to the membership figures, it's indeed verifiable to anyone who (like me) has attended one of their "meetings". For anyone who doesn't live in London, however, it's difficult to verify that this tiny group exists at all! So perhaps we can add non-verifiable to the reasons for deletion, since you brought it up. —Psychonaut 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to hear that this grouplet disappointed your expectations. However, you yourself confirm that is is a political group that hold public meetings and that publish a periodical. As to the definition of a split, I'd say that the expulsions clearly qualifies. --Soman 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First my word isn't good enough for you, then it is. Well, let's set my word aside for the moment. I challenge anyone to find some third-party publications, apart from my own Wikipedia article, which document the existence of this group. If the group is sufficiently notable to appear in a few third-party books, newspapers, and/or encyclopedias, then I will concede that it's notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. But after having scoured Google and my local libraries for information about them and come up empty-handed, I'm convinced that there's too little evidence to meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. —Psychonaut 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the splitters. Seriously, this would be just one of an extremely large number of leftist groups in the UK and does not appear to be notable in any way. MLA 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, wikipedia is not paper. no need to delete articles on actually existing, non-prank, political groups. --Soman 16:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hi, yes there is. There are a number of reasons why something that exists might not have a wikipedia article. My recommendation of delete is based on lack of notability, this is normally behind my delete recommendations at AfD. Let's not turn this into a discussion of inclusionism vs deletionism. MLA 08:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Totally nonnotable. ---Charles 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because we have the disk space for the article doesn't mean it belongs here. The article may be verifiable, but it is not, as of now, verified. Show me some proof that this group is more than three people, and that the aforementioned "paper" is more than just a glorified zine. The burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the article. --djrobgordon 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article can be verified by reference to their magazine and articles passim. The notability is of interest to those who engage in leftwing trainspotting, groups like the ICC, CWO, and a host of other well known (in trainspotter circles) fractions, factions, grupuscles, etc. would also be excluded despite the part they play in the political ecology. I could add at least one more name to the list of active members, and they scertainly once had more, so there is historical interest --Red Deathy 08:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep. There may be many parties on the far left but their infinite varieties are highly instructive about the state of left-wing politics. The original SPGB is the longest standing far left party of all (1904). This group may not be so large now, but has previously had a significant enough following. It is covered in Paul Mercer's Directory of British Political Organisations and in Barberis, McHugh and Tyldesley's magnum opus. It used to run press adverts attacking the "Socialist Party of Clapham". The reason they are not registered with the Electoral Commission is that (1) the SPGB is and their registration would be ruled out for being confusing; (2) they haven't run any candidates in elections and don't need to. David | Talk 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to that I have added the Barberis, McHugh and Tyldesley reference to the article, and also a reference from a book written by someone of no very great account which also makes reference to them. David | Talk 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this small but easily verifiable party. Keresaspa 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But with some reservations. The family tree of British Socialism, and the scisms can sometimes be mindbending. I would certainly favour merging it in some way with the SPGB article, if both parties were willing. Mike33 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd happily accept merger (it could mean adding in a few of the otehr splinters from teh SPGB over the years)...--Red Deathy 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. Now that David has provided some third-party references to this group, I concede that they are notable enough to mention on Wikipedia. However, I still doubt that they're notable enough for their own article. Perhaps incorporation into the main SPGB article, along with the other splinter groups briefly mentioned in the Socialist Standard centenary issue, is the best option. —Psychonaut 14:13, 12 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 was merge into The Bishop's Stortford High School. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waytemore[edit]

Not notable or verifiable. —Caesura(t) 16:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it's notable, it can be covered sufficiently on the school's page. --djrobgordon 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a voluntary member of staff and a former pupil of this school (The Bishop’s Stortford High School), and this subject really does not need its own article. The information here should, therefore, be added to the School’s main article here: The Bishop's Stortford High School.

What has been written in this Waytemore article is quite nice, so it should be able to be copied over.

The only reason for having a separate article on Waytemore should be in reference to the long-gone castle to which it refers.

--Carl Stock 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per user:Carl Stock OSU80 23:32, 17 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 deleted (CSD G1) – Gurch 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzicles[edit]

Deprod by anon, had a speedy-delete tag on it for 109 minutes (check the history!) which was removed by the same anon, WP:NFT, protologism. --ais523 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Ben Houston 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. —Caesura(t) 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Dionyseus 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Retagged CSD G1 at 16:54 UTC by Dionyseus. I'm just wondering how long that speedy tag will be on there before it's eventually removed by an admin who decides to let the AfD run its course or deleted. --ais523 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zooperstars[edit]

Seems like a vanity or advertisement page. I'm not convinced it's notable outside of Houston, and I'm always suspicious of pages created by someone with the same name as the article, in this case Zooperstars. Woden325 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google seems to indicate more than one group using this name, and I can't tell if they're related. The group I have seen at Kane County Cougars (minor league baseball) games seems to be based out of Louisville. This looks totally Houston-based, and doesn't seem more notable than any local kids' show. Fan-1967 20:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this is the group to which you are referring: http://www.zooperstars.com/main.asp , and they were what I was expecting when I searched on wikipedia. I suggest that they're more notable than the group in this article.Woden325 18:24, 5 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a local television show that's been on for one season, no sources, no real claim of notability. --djrobgordon 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that the user that wrote the article also uploaded a logo for the show. Should the article be deleted, the orphaned image should probably go as well, otherwise it needs to be added to the article.--Woden325 16:01, 15 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Williams[edit]

Non-notable artist per WP:BIO, also borders on vanity since the article was written by a commissioner of his work. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Strong delete, based on local scale of awards added to article by Allen Autry (see below). 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, of four pages that the author has edited, two are up for deletion and another probably should be. Of the few Google hits on "'james f. williams' artist" almost all referred to a different person. Nothing notable, and the vanity comments seem valid here. HumbleGod 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Included in recent edit by me are awards and shows of Mr. Williams, as suggested by C.Fred-Allen Autry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allen Autry (talk • contribs) .

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, and the list of shows actually helps prove Williams isn't notable. I see no evidence he's gained any recognition outside of the state of Michigan. --djrobgordon 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As stated by djrobgordon, the awards listed do not add to any claim of notability of the artist. The pushes my opinion more toward strong delete than just a straight delete. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 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 was delete. It's either a merge or a delete, and as this stuff is already covered in the articles of the characters, it's delete. Proto::type 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.D.-Elliot Relationship in Scrubs[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic and unsourced; any encyclopedic information can be merged into the characters articles or the sitcom's article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Merge encyclopedic info as necessary as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this essay. MLA 16:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any significant information into character or show pages, then delete this. I can't recommend a redirect, as I find it unlikely anyone would search for this title. I can't imagine a story arc that deserves its own article. --djrobgordon 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost tempted to say this borders on OR. In any case, delete. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Any significant info from this article to the main articles of J.D. and Elliot. And then delete the rest. No one is really going to search for something like this so it just takes up room on the site if Wikipedia really has a limit to it's space. Ledzeppelin321295 6:17 PM EST July 10, 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 nomination was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasion architecture[edit]

Badly written promotional piece for Future Now, Inc. It is written as an advertisement. All that is lacking is Future Now, Inc. link at bottom -- but it is easily found on Google. Company does do what promotional piece says. KarenAnn 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete It's a word for word copy of their website: [59]. Dionyseus 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did someone order Spam? Wildthing61476 17:09, 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blink Intrusion Prevention System[edit]

advertisement - Ladybirdintheuk 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with EEye Digital Security Rklawton 15:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article on EEye Digital Security mentions it in passing; I don't think there's enough useful info here to warrant a merge. If more people hadn't been involved in that article, I'd almost be tempted to nominate it for deletion. HumbleGod 17:56, 4 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per HumbleGod... I don't feel this article is at all... isn't much of an advert either. - NickSentowski 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd call it Spam if there was an external link. Either way, there's no claim of notability. --djrobgordon 18:56, 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 nomination was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stylah[edit]

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) A search for the "#1 U.S. seller" mentioned in the article returns two google hits (including Wikipedia!) There's nothing in here that meets WP:MUSIC so far... If he does meet it, improve the article and cite your source. Grandmasterka 06:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Tdxiang 07:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Poisonous Poets are one of the biggest acts in British hip-hop, and suggesting them for deletion is in my opinion ludicrous. They have received HEAVY rotation on mainstream radio, toured nationally, and in UK hip-hop at least, mixtapes are the main format of distribution, as there is far less backing from major labels compared to the US scene. Check my edit history for UK rap knowledge reliability. Yeanold Viskersenn 11:59, 4 July 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, Mangojuicetalk 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doing some research on this, I can find a few links listing this artist as the newest member of this band, however I do not see mention of this band's success on any UK charts. Wildthing61476 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after doing a little research, I think I could be convinced that the group is notable. However, I see no evidence that the individual members warrent their own pages. --djrobgordon 18:55, 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 nomination was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy on screen[edit]

The article is unencyclopedic, not notable, cites no sources, is not in any category, and seems to be just an editor's list of favorite comedies that have been filmed or released on video. Marc Shepherd 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a list that could get WAY out of hand. Wildthing61476 16:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now, before someone puts more of their time into this unmaintainable list. Also, the title doesn't really describe what the article claims to list. --djrobgordon 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a parallel to the articles Shakespeare on screen and Tragedy on screen. Note that the article is not about comedy movies -- only about filmed stage plays. Rick Norwood 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You created both the tragedy and comedy articles, so in practice you could use either one to justify the existence of the other. If this is deleted, I'll probably nominate tragedy next. As for the Shakespeare article, I don't have a problem with it because it's maintainable and finite. However, all of these pages need new names. List articles should start with the words "List of," per WP naming conventions. Also, "on screen" is an idiom. I think something along the lines of "List of film and television adaptations of Shakespeare plays" would be better. But I digress. --djrobgordon 13:26, 11 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morgen[edit]

A self-help book author with one book published by a press so small their website has apparently been partially broken since May. No evidence of reaching the magic 5,000 mark per WP:BIO, no sources, no credible evidence of significance. Looks like vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 17:11, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Blackhawks[edit]

Prod was removed by author, non-notable team in a non-notable league. Wildthing61476 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. 231 Ghits. Dionyseus 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the article claims the league is semi-pro, amateur seems a more accurate term. This appears to be only a small step above a corporate softball team. --djrobgordon 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Michael 06:15, 11 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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Enragement[edit]

The page starts out: Rules of Enragement is Black's third CD. (Then there is a list of tracks.} Don't know who Black is as the wikipedia link is invalid -- was it deleted? KarenAnn 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is comedian Lewis Black's CD. Wildthing61476 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of his other albums have their own articles, including one that earned a Grammy nomination. I don't see how this will ever be more than a track list. --djrobgordon 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I cleaned it up to be more like the thousands of other individual CD pages that we have. Lewis Black is certainly notable enough, and I don't see what's wrong with having an article that is never much more than a track list. — brighterorange (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable release by a notable recording artist/comedian. Given Black's political leanings, more could be written about the album than just the tracklist. hateless 20:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per cleaned up, and it's quite notable indeed. Themindset 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep My vote might be a bit biased: I literally just saw this and went, "WHAAAAAAAA?!?!" I was listening to this CD today. Like, literally, not more than two hours ago. But anyway, the artist/comedian is absolutely notable, and for stand-up albums, his are quite popular. I'd like to see it expanded, but it's absoultely a keeper. -- Kicking222 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely in need of expansion, but it's definitely notable. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:26, 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 was Delete, unreferenced and the content is most likely original research, so merging into sexual slang wouldn't be helpful and would unbalance that article in favor of one rather obscure term. Changing to a redirect isn't feasible either since the target article doesn't mention a chucha and might just lead to needless confusion. - Bobet 09:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chucha[edit]

Nonsensical neologism the entire purpose of which seems to be to insult and denegrate teenage girls. I see nothing the least bit encyclopaedic about it. Charles 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it could very well be a real slang word, but if it is it belongs on urban dictionary, not WP. --djrobgordon 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I recall hearing this at some point in my life, and a Google search reveals that it is apparently in use in Chile. However, the best I can recommend is redirect to Sexual slang (like hoochie). - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep needs references, but the term is real. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. If no references provided or found, seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research. A lot of really broad generalizations here that I find difficult to believe have been previously published. Would support Redirect per Che Nuevara. --Satori Son 01:10, 18 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 destroyed by a giant deleteorite. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computerology[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, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. 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!

This neologism has Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day written all over it. Speedy deletion request was removed by 70.71.0.218. Article was created by Computerology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (what a surprise). But on a more serious note, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Until a reputable dictionary or the general public accepts this blatant abuse of the medical -ology suffix (as ironically noted in this article), then I don't see why Wikipedia should entertain this horrid term either. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  (Computer Science student) 17:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: My mistake, -ology isn't quite so "medical" after all. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an increasingly commonly used term, most people actually beleive that it is an actual description of the computer field, and aren't aware that there is no official "Doctorate in Computerology". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerology (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 July 2006.
  • Delete, nonnotable protologism. Two excerpts from the article are all you need:

(1) "Computerology is not an official word listed in most authoritive dictionaries or encyclopedias."; (2) "Will Computerology ever become an official word or school course? Only time will tell in this regard." NawlinWiki 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if not something made up in school, then an obscure slang term. --djrobgordon 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this term may not be in use in Wikipedia: because it's getting deleted! - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (What's up with the AfdAnons template at the top, though? Did the nominator feel that this nomination was especially likely to be subjected to ballot stuffing or sock puppetry? Seems a little premature.) —Caesura(t) 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe neologisms are the number two cause of sock and meat infestations on AfD (number 1 being non-notable web forums and sites, number 3 being new, unsigned bands). The nominator has made an assumption that this discussion will follow its predecessors down that bankrupt route. That's not a bad assumption, per se, and is harmless enough to leave in place all things considered. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I couldn't resist the urge to post this AFD to the University of New South Wales Revues mailing list which shares a large population of computing and medical students so that everyone there could have a laugh. It's just a precaution against any potential meat-puppetry from them. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Cool, makes sense. Thanks for answering. (To Redvers as well.) —Caesura(t) 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Nick Y. 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --NMChico24 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a wiki is a fluid document, one must note these other wiki "-ology" articles which have passed scrutiny:

- Mixology the study or skill of preparing mixed drinks. - Sovietology the study of communist Soviet Union - Kremlinology also the study of the Soviet Union - Japanology the study of Japan - Islamology the study of Islam - Garbology the study of refuse and trash

None of which are listed in major definitive dictionaries or encyclopediae; why should this particular article be singled out for deletion?

Ask a layman what Computerology might be supposed to mean; and it will match the definition in this article. I in fact did, several times and every time they came back with the definition of the science of computers; so I beleive it should remain.

The author does not attempt to classify this entry as an actual word, and makes reference to the fact it is not included in dictionaries nor an official curriculae, although it may be referenced as found in actual use, and then makes reference of those places, even disqualifying it as a term officiated by post-secondary institutions in the statement: "This is an increasingly commonly used term, most people actually beleive that it is an actual description of the computer field, and aren't aware that there is no official "Doctorate in Computerology".

Whilst research on the author shows that they themselves use the term as part of their own company name same author also makes references to all other companies (that I could find) that also make use of same name. One must remember that this is a wiki, and will be updated from time to time by authors beyond the current author's control.

Also quite evident is that while the article is somewhat critical of "elitism" in particular programs the flurry of activity in this particular delete request is also due to mailing list distribution to the same post-secondary culture to which it labels as the original reason for such term not gaining use in post-secondary institutions.

I have often noted that -ology is for some reason reserved for medical and biomedical sciences, although it is not restricted. I must also note that technologist is a legitimate word; and in effect this is based on the same root and latin suffix.

I find it somewhat distasteful that the post-secondary community of the University of New South Wales would take up the fight with such vigor at an article which points out potential elitism in their ranks; and such responses vindicate the author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.0.218 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment: Your accusation of a conspiracy by the UNSW community against you is also unfounded. All but two of the editors who have voted to delete your article so far identify themselves on their userpages as Americans. (UNSW is in Australia). Academic elitism has nothing to do with this -- editors are citing from the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. You have not yet demonstrated how your article complies with those guidelines. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:56, 11 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Males[edit]

NN book, self-published, no Amazon sales rank. Here the article's author claims to be the book author. The article itself reads like an essay about men's rights. Delete --Huon 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research, book nonnotable NawlinWiki 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete last part makes it an ad. -- Gogo Dodo 18:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and Spam. --djrobgordon 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Zoz (t) 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously, "the other side of the coin is so seldom addressed that fairness dictates Wikipedia allows a presentation"? We already have an article on men's rights. This in no way falls under systemic bias. --ColourBurst 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously, Wikipedia objectors to an article regarding this book comprise a nest of feminists. Ce est le guerre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog Easy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 July 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Monoux College Fantasy Football League[edit]

This was listed as PROD by me, prod2 was added, article's creator removed both and added minor edits. The only external link doesn't work, it's not notable by any standard (can fantasy football league entries be notable?), the "Monoux Corporation" mentioned doesn't exist. Article started by the chairman of this league. No confirmation of it's existence in the article or Ghits. To cap it all there's disparagement of the IT head at Sir George Monoux College -which does exist. --Richhoncho 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textThe Monoux Corporation does exist, it is the body which controls the college itselfBold text It does exist, however the website was recently downed by a free webspace company which has appeard to gone bust. It exists if you contact the head of the Student union of the College. This unsigned comment was aded by 20:27, 11 July 2006 Atifkazi (Talk | contribs).

  • Delete nonnotable club NawlinWiki 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DrunkenSmurf 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be hard pressed to name any notable fantasy league. --djrobgordon 18:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly Speedy Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. I'm not sure it's an attack article on the balance against the IT head, but it's definitely a non-notable league. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, its a real fantasy league which was a real activity in the college. This unsigned comment was aded by 20:27, 11 July 2006 Atifkazi (Talk | contribs).

Comment The only contributor to the article has removed the AdF and made the unsigned comments above. --Richhoncho 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Hmm. I've found Monoux Fish & Kebab Limited which just happens to be in Walthamstow [60] , the same place as the college. LOL. --Richhoncho 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Atifkazi - This League is legit, and was a significant league which lasted almost 2 years since sept 2004 to july 2006, it correctly displays the events of the league as I was the chairman of the league. The website does not work as it seems the free webhost went bust in october or november of last year. It would be quite poor of wikipedians to delete this article without looking at the facts properly, and undermining an extra curricula activity of a college, and to allow future generations to look at previous activities taken place in the college. The company you are talking about, is based 2 minutes away from the college, but i dont know what it has to do with the legitamacy of the league.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTwist Ventures[edit]

More technobabble spamvertising. NawlinWiki 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. --djrobgordon 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mmmm Spammy. Wildthing61476 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a DoubleTwist no claims of notability suggested in article or can be found other than a few blog posts about some guy going to work there. DrunkenSmurf 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because they recruited DVD-Jon, does not make them notable. NTK 05:02, 11 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Resources[edit]

Seems like a write up (probably straight out of the book itself) of a non-notable book - Rothwell, J. Dan. In the Company of Others: An Introduction to Communication, according to source at bottom of page. Amazon.com says: "A survey text designed to provide an overview of the field of human communication, In the Company of Others covers the major communication issues discussed in an introduction to communication course." No significant hits on Google for author. KarenAnn 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either a definition of an nn-neologism, or a summary of an nn-textbook. Either way, it doesn't belong here. --djrobgordon 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 18:38, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split Bean Coffee[edit]

Non-notable company. A preliminary attempt to determine notability was conducted through a straw poll (found here) because I didn't know if it was kosher to start an AfD when I myself wasn't sure how I'd vote at that time (it seems like a nomination is a de facto "delete" vote, and possibly a bad faith nomination otherwise, so while I may be wrong I wanted to play it safe). No one who participated in the straw poll thought the company was notable, so it's now becoming an AfD to decide the ultimate fate of the article. --Icarus (Hi!) 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although it would only take another significant source or so to sway me. As of now, though, it doesn't meet WP:CORP. --djrobgordon 18:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-notability is not a reason for deletion, and there is nothing wrong with the article. It is short and factual.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment technically, one of those is an essay and the other is proposed policy. I strongly support them, however, because without them WP:VAIN becomes meaningless. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Chris Capoccia is correct. Non-notability is not a criterion for deletion except in certain circumstances, and it is quite irritating that people keep using it as such. — Reinyday, 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In all circumstances, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with a minimum threshhold of significance below which articles are not included. You may disagree about where that threshhold is or whether a certain article meets it, but nevertheless others have given that threshhold the name "notability", and it is a valid criterion for deletion. —Centrx→talk • 06:21, 12 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATWI80D[edit]

Unencyclopedic, not noteworthy enough to have an article of its own. There's thousands of series on NG. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim of notability. I suspect this was written by the creator of the movie. --djrobgordon 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I never heard of this until now. Seems like a borderline vanity piece "promoting" this. Wildthing61476 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DrunkenSmurf 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertation of notability, but does not fall under CSD A7 that I can tell, otherwise I'd suggest speedying. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete, i created this article and i have nothing to do with the author. Besides, ATWI80D is a relatively popular flash series and it deserves this article. -WuSchel
  • Delete Nn notable, unencyclopedic and per Wildthing61476 seems promotional.--John Lake 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy, lacks information + false information continues to be placed on the page. No choice other than deletion.--NLivitu 01:48, 12 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago[edit]

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC (no label, no national tours, only assertion is an article accessable only by paid subscription). Delete. --InShaneee 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can confirm that they have a CD (not sure what "label" means in these modern times of self-published artists), and that the article referred to in the Chicago Tribune did appear in the print version of the paper (I saw it the day it came out). They also perform regularly in the Chicago area. Notability is sometimes a judgement call, but given these facts, and that they are one of the few representatives of A Capella Jewish pop, I think them notable enough to not delete. --kfogel 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shircago is a professional group of a capella musicians with great voices (I'm a speech pathologist with specialty in voice and disorders). Shircago has existed for several years and has recently begun distribution of their CD at a reputable retail store, Tower records. Those who work for Wikipedia obviously have not bought the CD nor realize that Shircago is one of the few worthy young American Jewish pop artists. The type of music they play has been dying, similar to the Shadow Play in China. It is important for the Jewish people to keep that music alive. And Shircago obviously has the right qualifications given that the Jewish Community of Chicago knows the name of the group, and members look forward to attending their concerts - most recently at the Jewish Folk Festival in Chicago. Wikipedia would be making a mistake by deleting this reputable group from their Encyclopedia. Please do NOT DELETE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini-K (talk • contribs)


It isn't a MySpace page. The band has existed for 10 years and is known to audiences in Chicagoland and beyond. The group is a representative of an important up-and-coming expression of religious music in a genre that is accessible to all ages, so the proper course of action is to not delete. --Wolverine94 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Wolverine 94, 4:38pm CDT, 11 Jul 06[reply]

I would be more convinced that this isn't a MySpace page if that huge picture wasn't emblazoned across the top of the article. The picture doesn't add anything of encyclopedic value and probably is why this is even an issue. Delete the picture, save the text. (University of Chicago Alum who has actually seen the group in concert)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.121.167 (talk • contribs)

Why would photographs be inappropriate here, yet appropriate on (say) Barbara Bush's entry? Do the latter add something of "encylopedic value" while the former somehow do not? I think the photo is quite appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, InShaneee 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my eyes notable. A word for everyone else: "when in doubt, KEEP". -- Librarianofages 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As inclusionists always remind us, notability is not officially a criterion for deletion, so I'm not sure why you're using it as an argument to keep... — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails wikipedia criteria for musical notability: WP:Music. Maybe the author could look at the criteria and scrounge up some verifiable tidbit that meets the requirements. (You only need one). --Xrblsnggt 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no evidence, in the article or otherwise, that this band meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standards for notability. If WP:MUSIC is reached by changes to the article prior to closure, please consider my 'vote' then changed to keep. — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hey kids! When in doubt, remember WP:V/if not already/submit to AFD/something something-ee!! Bwithh 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: does have 1,050 Google hits and one article in the Chicago Tribune, but still fails WP:MUSIC. Bwitth: perhaps a career as a poet is not the way to go... --David.Mestel 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<:_( Bwithh 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC and as apparent vanity. WilyD 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there may be a bit of vanity in the motivation does not automatically disquality this entry. I think the attention this group gets in the Chicagoland area and beyond puts it above your typical small band. They have been featured in one of the largest U.S. newspapers for being part of a newer movement of more ethno-religious-popular music (I read the Chicago Tribune article with interest). I think stumbling on entries like these is what keeps Wikipedia so interesting (although again, would not like to see every 'boy band' included). Since there is more than a little doubt and debate, I would certainly keep this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.56.21 (talk • contribs)
Please see WP:Vanity and review that the article fails WP:Music. If there's a an obvious rule of thumb one can apply , it's that articles about bands written by the members invariably turn out to fail WP:Music, WP:Vanity, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information et al. Please also see Wikipedia is not a democracy and recognise that there are no real rationals advanced here for keeping the article, thus there is no doubt it needs to be deleted. Please do not construe my above comments to indicate that band members cannot work on their bands' page (I myself have edited an article about a co-worker of mine) but just that as an empiricist, I am forced to conclude when a band starts an article about themselves, it turns out the band is unencyclopaedic, the objections of David Hume not withstanding. WilyD 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, but if someone can find another article on them besides the Tribune one, then I'd change it to keep. --PresN 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per David.Mestel. -Tapir Terrific 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, just not notable. "Semi-professional" and "being distributed at Tower Records" translates into "four people's weekend side-project, who are pretty good singers, and who talked the assistant manager at Tower Records into putting a stack of CD's by the register". --Aguerriero (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The world has millions of bands; since nobody has the time or inclination to write articles on all of them, we must necessarily be either selective or biased in our coverage. I hate bias, so I'll choose "selective", and since this band does not meet the arbitrary selection criteria on which we have achieved a broad consensus, I must therefore vote to delete it. (Note how notability does not enter my argument!) — Haeleth Talk 19:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My interpretation of the articles I found was that this was a band made up of students at the University of Chicago - hence the frequent changes of members, number of members and style. I wish them luck, but elsewhere. --Richhoncho 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The group is not comprised of any students at the University of Chicago and has featured the same membership for four years. There was also an article about the group in the September 2002 edition of the JUF News, and the group was mentioned in another Tribune article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine94 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nollie (fragrance)[edit]

Blatant advert, contains no other content  Tivedshambo (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as advertising. --InShaneee 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Advertising" isn't a speedy delete criterion. If you want a speedy delete, please give one of the CSD criteria as a reason. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:49, 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 nomination was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Ward[edit]

Actually a band, not a person; see their MySpace page [61], which is the only Ghit I found; would have speedied but article (falsely) claims notability. NawlinWiki 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • max ward is a person the band was named after him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergi o (talk • contribs) (the article author) NawlinWiki 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, he's a person -- but the band (and the person) are not notable. See WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless the notability claims can be verified. They seem unlikely. — brighterorange (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but Max Ward is an extremely influential and notable presence in music. I will add further comment on this AfD once I have edited the article to reflect that. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources, Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable), Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media, and Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. I have wrote a bit about the individual for this article, but left plenty of room for expansion. Anybody can expand an article, and it's a much more constructive measure than putting something up for deletion just because you don't know about it. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable. 17000 hits, and i've heard of him before. Themindset 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be fair, those aren't all THIS Max. Searching "Max Ward" + "625" or "band" or "music", depending on the search, only yields 500-1000 hits. Still, enough of them fit the criteria above for notability and reliability. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think this may be one case where his label is notable, some of the bands he has played with are notable but individually he is not. That would not stop him from being mentioned in many other places. I don't think he needs his own page. A section on him in 625 thrashcore records might be most appropriate being the founder and all.--Nick Y. 20:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a member of more than a few notable bands, and a notable promoter and record label owner, I find him very notable for his own profile (comparable, perhaps, to Ian MacKaye?). PT (s-s-s-s) 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to believe that comparision however, I don't. Minor Threat and Fugazi are much more notable and influential bands. He has worked with many more very notable musicians. Not to mention that he is credited with starting the fairly influential straight-edge movement. And has been writing performing, touring for over 25 years. Really no comparasion.--Nick Y. 23:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable alright. Needs a cleanup tho. Spearhead 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PT's clean-up. — Reinyday, 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This appears to be a different Max Ward than the one that I was looking for when I clicked on the link from the article about Wardair (I was expecting to read about the Canadian businessman who started the airline) . Perhaps this needs disambiguation? --Curtis 15:20, 14 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 was the page was returned to AVL (Engineering Firm) from which it had been cut and paste moved to AVL. The dab page that was originally at AVL was returned there. AFD is not a substitute for WP:RM. - Bobet 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVL (Engineering Firm)[edit]

Completeing malformed nomination.--Isotope23 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The real wiki is at AVL and there is another copy of this at AVL (Anstalt für Verbrennungskraftmaschinen List) Xe8 3061 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)moved nominator's comments from talk page here.--Isotope23 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, this seems a misguided attempt to take the existing article at AVL (Engineering Firm), replicate it to the article space at AVL and displace the disambiguous page that was at AVL to AVL (disambiguation). WP:AGF this was a well intentioned action by Xe8 3061, but one done without discussion. Besides, even if consensus was to keep this page at the AVL namespace, AVL (Engineering Firm) should be a redirect to AVL and not be deleted. Personally I don't see any reason to keep AVL (Engineering Firm)'s move to AVL though.--Isotope23 19:29, 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 was Reverted to a redirect, they're cheap. - Bobet 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVL (Anstalt für Verbrennungskraftmaschinen List)[edit]

Completing malformed nom.--Isotope23 19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DOuble for AVl (enginnering firm) also AVL is real site Xe8 3061 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) I moved the nominator's comments from the talk page here--Isotope23 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment,I'm not sure exactly what happened here, but it appears Xe8 3061 moved this page then wants it deleted? Could be construed as a speedy delete per author request. The information is already at AVL/AVL (Engineering Firm) (see other AfD). I'd say redirect but it seems there is little chance this term would ever be used in a search.--Isotope23 19:22, 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modele[edit]

Internet tv series yet to be released; WP:NOT a crystal ball, nonnotable yet NawlinWiki 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modele is an Internet series schedule for release in Fall 2006. http://envisagecinema.net/ In this website it can seen that is real and is verifiable. Also in websites like myspace that include a film account blogs like this [62] explain that this show is currently in production as also explains a little bit of the plot. It also states that the poster and official website will be up soon which will be also another good reference and source for more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josejnr (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. You may be able to verify that it will exist. No way to tell whether it will be notable. Fan-1967 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fan-1967--Nick Y. 20:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia does not cover subjects that have yet to achieve notability let alone those that don't even yet exist. Wikipedia, as the nom said, is not a crystal ball. Gwernol 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hear the evidence everyone says and it first looked unarguable, but then I looked at the source code of the article because the AFD box had grown a tumor or siamese twin with another box attached to it and then I noticed below the tumor and a few spaces was {{future television series}} and then in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_television_series there's a lot of shows. Well, it appears this kind of thing gets kept so I'm hoping this is all reason enough for everyone to change their votes to keep. Let me just point out and I looked in that category and I picked a random show in there and *it had no source at all*! The article here for deletion at least has a source of proof. If this one should go, then most of the shows in this category should be AFD'd, especially the ones without references. DyslexicEditor 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying keep because there's other bad articles out there? --InShaneee 01:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes in the name of fairness. DyslexicEditor 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia isn't about 'fair'. It's about getting things done, like removing all bad ariticles, regardless of what order. --InShaneee 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what InShanee says, notice what is clearly written on the Category:Upcoming_television_series page: "Please include a link to the official website of the show or a page on the website of the television station. Absent these, a link to an IMDB profile is acceptable. Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Information should be verifiable. When using this template consider carefully if the article should be in a encyclopedia or not." Given that none of this applies to Modele, it really isn't much of a defense. Gwernol 03:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hi, why is it that this one is bad and the others in this category that don't even have references are good? Or are they bad? I'm just curous. I don't care about if the article stays, just wondering of policy. DyslexicEditor 01:26, 12 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TomaHawk Vision[edit]

Looks like this page is made by someone at the TomaHawk division itself. Note the user seems to be not registered anymore. Also note the 'we' in the sentence "TomaHawk Vision's work may appear basic, to the untrained eye, but a lot of time and effort goes into each and every file that we produce." Gnorn 16:23, 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 nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential computer and video games[edit]

A list of video game trivia. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and open an RfC about Nintendude's article creation habits. --InShaneee 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Habap 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are you serious? - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into trivia sections of relevant games if not already there. -- Gogo Dodo 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is it just me or does it seem the liscruft is getting worse? Maybe people are just being more vigilant about rooting it out.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author, Nintendude, creates one of these at least once a week. --InShaneee 21:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to its trivialness and unencyclopedicness. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I thought Nintendude had quit making these lists, I guess not. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The description says "not suitable for an encyclopedia". If the page was completed, it would be a long page, since there's thousands of games in the past, present, and the future! --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Video games have a much higher probability of referring to themselves than other kinds of fiction; the list would include such a high percentage of games as to be unwieldy. —Psychonaut 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought self-references were rare if you exclude the title screen. --Nintendude userpage | message 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 11 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DATCO[edit]

nonnotable company; 48 Ghits for (DATCO hot glue); including link to company's official site for reference. NawlinWiki 19:51, 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mataal[edit]

Deprodded. This article is a dictionary definition. As Lambiam points out, the additional text doesn't make it an encyclopedia article, just a glorified dicdef. The fact that tone (and of course context) carry additional information is a universal of spoken language; noting that here does not add to the article. What's more, the fact that the creator's single-purpose account is the same name makes us both suspicious, though neither of us has evidence to suggest the definition is incorrect. In any case, it does fail WP:V, which provides a nice way out of guessing at the creator's motives.--Chaser T 20:47, 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 nomination was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DHP[edit]

unsourced and possible a hoax hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:59, 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn darts[edit]

WP:NN and un-encyclopedic NickSentowski 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree with NN. I believe they were a popular fad at one point and the issue of them being banned was quite notable at the time. They are notable for how dangerous they were. Many people remeber them fondly.[63] There are even modern t-shirts referring to the banned toys [64]--Nick Y. 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep highly notable game/sport. Article needs a little work, to be sure. WilyD 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I remember playing these before they were banned nothing like a game of trying to poke a eye out. What's with all the bad faith nominations today? Whispering 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, speedy if nominator thinks twice and removes nomination. Just because you don't know a topic doesn't mean it should be deleted. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (if possible). I clearly recall the controversy they caused and their banning; this was extensively discussed in the mass media at the time. Though the fad may be over, those interested in the history of sports and games will find this article useful. —Psychonaut 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable for the fad and the banning. I remember my parents having a set back in the 70s. --DarkAudit 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep obviously. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given above. But folks, assume good faith - there are adults now who were infants when they were banned, and wouldn't remember this bit of history. GRBerry 03:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as exceptionally well known. — Reinyday, 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, they were notable and so was the controversy and removal from the market as dangerous toys. I remember them.--John Lake 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I wondered about the legal status of yard darts (AKA lawn darts) and came immediately to the Wikipedia. I was glad to find this article. Sure, it needs some work, but it certainly should not be deleted. --Skidoo 20:58, 14 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amuse Bouche[edit]

Added as part of an marketing campaign, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharaoh Moans and other contributions of this user. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indeed, this user is nothing but a promoter. SubSeven 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteNot an easy one. The wine appears to have some mentions and article is sourced (although only 101 unique google hits with this search [65]). However, I don't know how much a google search is helpful for wine notability. The tip toward delete comes from WP:VAIN/Auto/Spam. This editor is definitely self-interested as noted in nom; see this diff.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possible redirect to Tapas although it's not quite the sameAmuse bouche. Angus McLellan (Talk) :22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Original author states here (and other places) that she is hired by companies to get their products on Wikipedia and in the first versions of the article, it was an ad. Nevertheless, User:Idp has do some fine work improving the quality of the article, adding the reviews and generally de-POVizing the text. In the end, however, the wine is not notable enough for inclusion. In order to be included the subject should be the subject of multiple articles in media. The article asserts three mentions, reviews in The Wine Advocate, The Wine Spectator, and The Washington Post. The issue is whether being the subject of a review should count as being the subject of an article. If it were to count, Wikipedia would have a lot of articles on wines as the first two publications review hundreds, even thousands of wines a year. So a review of a wine in one of these publications cannot count as the wine being the subject of an article for purposes of notability. The Washington Post publishes fewer reviews and has a broader circulation, but even if this review were to count as being the subject of an article, this would not satisfy the multiple articles requirement. JChap (Talk) 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is offensive and outrageous. We have enough to contend with--now we have people being paid to do nothing but spam, and probably in more and more sophisticated (i.e. sneaky) ways. I think this type of activity may be legally actionable if taken to certain heights, some area or tort law could apply such as intentional interference with business. I am changing my vote given the insidious basis for the edits and suggest that User:Kimcray be permanently banned as acting with the ultimate in bad faith, with goals that are fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia and as a precedent that should be set at the earliest possible time. I do not suggest this lightly but with sober reflection--Fuhghettaboutit 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I agree with you about this being offensive and outrageous, I do not think she is all that sneaky or sophisticated. She mentioned on the new user help page that this is what she was doing. Hell, the article didn't even mention the Robert Parker review in The Wine Advocate until Idp added it. How incompetent do you have to be to try to promote a wine and not mention a postive review from Parker? Ultimately, though, I do not believe that the conduct of an editor is dispositive on whether an article should be kept. JChap (Talk) 00:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying that she was sneaky, quite the opposite; a person who admits the activity she did is about as far from sneaky as it gets. I was suggesting (admittedly without perfect clarity) that once we have not isolated incidents but a cottage industry of people being paid to do this, it will become ever more sophisticated. While I agree that intent behind edits should not often be used as a basis for deletion, you'll note, for instance, that WP:AUTO is applicable regardless of how NPOV seeming a self-written article is. In this case, the nature of the edits so taints the material that I would vote to delete it if it was sourced to the teeth. File this under ignore all rules if you must.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. At the very least, though, you should bring this activity up for discussion at WP:AN/I. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete more people using Wikipedia. Now they got dollar signs in their eyes. Danny Lilithborne 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Amuse bouche. --Calton | Talk 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill, what a pernicious idea. And the article is still a blatant ad. The only way to clean it up to Wikjipedia's quality standards would be to remove the advertising bits, and that operation would leave it about six words long. "Tastemaker"? "Complexity and finesse"? "Unbridled intensity and power"? Gaaah. After the work users are said to have put in to NPOV this, the bland promospeak and the drainingly uninteresting information is stillas ill-conceived as the user's scheme for putting ads on Wikipedia. Don't clean it up, just delete it. And I also agree about permablocking a user who's only here for such a misuse of the project. Bishonen | talk 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The quotes were all from third party wine reviewers, all of whom do serious reviews that are frequently noncomplimentary when wines deserve it. A 92 is high and these phrases are often used to describe wines that score like this. So it's not like this is a case of compiling "I loved it; it was much better than Cats" type promotional blurbs. If something sucks, we can describe it accurately without it being an attack page. If something's good, as this wine seems to be, we can describe that accurately as well without the article being an ad. JChap (Talk) 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found several other articles similar in nature and context that have not been flagged for deletion. See Beaulieu Vineyard, Château Haut-Brion, Clos Du Val Winery, Kendall-Jackson, Penfolds Grange, Ridge Vineyards, Yellow tail (wine) among many more. Although it is apparent that the original autor's intent is to advertise, she should be treated fairly, and if deleted, the other articles above should be discussed for deletion as well. I also agree that User:Idp"has do some fine work improving the quality of the article, adding the reviews and generally de-POVizing the text".--Zirka110:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) User's only edits, surprise, surprise.[reply]
  • ...similar in nature and context... Only in the sense that, say, the Rolling Stones aare "similar in nature and context" to a high-schooler's garage band, or Thomas Keller is "similar in nature and context" to a line cook at Nation's Burgers in Vallejo. The equivalency ploy you're attempting -- besides being so old it has whiskers on it -- doesn't even pass the giggle test. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia: amazing how you found your way to this page, all loaded for bear, so very quickly, hmm? --Calton | Talk 10:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Whilst my instinct when previously editing the article (and I thank those who have commented kindly on my edits) was that Amuse Bouche had the potential to be considered notable, I'm now a little more reticent about the article. User:Zirka1 refers to a number of articles concerning wine producers, but the one which strikes me as most comparable is Penfolds Grange, an Australian producer also dubbed a 'cult wine' - however, whilst the Grange line is responsible for a number of decades worth of notable vintages, the praise for Amuse Bouche (however illustrious, and obviously, Parker is the ultimate in this field) centres on a single, very recent vintage. As Fuhgettaboutit said, google searches are probably lacking as barometers for notability of wine. I'd view a more accurate barometer as being a clear record of consistent mention in both the mainstream press and the wine press. Though the 2003 vintage of Amuse Bouche garnered some serious praise from some very influential sources, the lack of a more extensive track record means that, discarding the blatant advertisements of User:Kimcray, the only admissible material in the article is the brief but intense praise for one vintage. That's just not enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. Idp 21:02, 13 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 Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teleportation in Islam[edit]

Reads like a jaw-dropping piece of original research. Pecher Talk 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is a harmful thing, Pecher. I took the tag off. It's best that you first learn what it is before slapping tags and calling it original research.--Zereshk 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afd templates should never be removed, and personal attacks, like "Ignorance is a harmful thing, Pecher", should never be made. Pecher Talk 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your putting an Afd tag on the article was illegal to begin with. It doesnt fall within any of the guidelines given by WP:DP. I repeat, first know what the article is about before slapping tags on them.--Zereshk 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per verified and real consept that i personaly are strongly familiar with. Peacher, why did you not bother to ask more sources, if that is your problem, instead of wasting wikipedia resources? --Striver 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This shouldnt be even up for vote. It's a popular philosophical idea in Islamic philosophy.--Zereshk 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, a speedy one if Pecher thinks twice and removes the nomination. Editors should attempt to know about a subject before nominating an article about it for deletion. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per above. Dionyseus 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems not to be OR, although some citations of the debates of centuries are absolutely necessary to properly demonstrate that it isn't. I would suggest that the respondents consider toning down their criticisms of Pecher, as they come dangerously close to being attacks. The nomination was made in good faith (it's not 'illegal' by any stretch of the imagination, as WP:OR is one of the foundational reasons to delete) and haranguing the editor is rude. Ziggurat 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add citations wherever possible. That it is strange to non islamic eyes does not mean it should be deleted. It meets all criteria for an article here. I think it would be excellent were the nominator to withdraw after re-reading the article. Fiddle Faddle 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but do some work on finding sources that are checkable by the majority of readers (this being the English Wikipedia). This is "tayy al-ard" (literally "folding up of the earth"). Spelling variations in the transliteration make it hard to Google, but a few sources can be found by Googling "tayy al-ard" or "tayy al-ardh" (see also Google Books [66]). It'd be worth mentioning the Sufi equivalent, "tayy al-makan" = "folding space" (I assume one of the many Arabic influences behind Herbert's Dune). Tearlach 02:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you know, it was Muslims that were first with the time-space continuem after all :P --Striver 02:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cite sources in English. 68.163.217.35 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as encyclopedic. — Reinyday, 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we speedy keep this now? --Striver 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Tai al-ardh", as the English translation is a clumsy approximation and an unknown lemma. Should be deleted if it keeps the present amount of OR. Proper sources needed per WP:RS. --tickle me 20:12, 11 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game console superlatives[edit]

Looks like Nintendudecruft; was started when he was blocked so could be a sock or an independent user. In any case, it's a list of seriously limited encyclopedic relevance. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks like an interesting list. I can help improve the article a bit. Dionyseus 22:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list cruft. Also I can see this list getting very large very fast. Whispering 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list cruft.--Nick Y. 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I can see this quickly turning into a fanboy disaster on the Most and Least sections. -- Gogo Dodo 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Gogo Dodo. It's a good idea in concept, but patently unnecessary and invites vandals. Danny Lilithborne 01:19, 11 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 was delete. A quick check indicates this information has already been put back into its parent article, Loose_Change_(video)#Criticisms. Proto::type 10:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Loose Change[edit]

  • Delete a user removed info from the Loose Change (video) article [67] and created this page as a way of avoiding criticism of the movie in the article page without even getting consensus for such a move in the talk page of the main article.--Jersey Devil 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please do not break WP:AGF, i feel a bit insulted by your "as a way of avoiding criticism". Exactly how is the critisism avoided by creating a entire articla about the ciritsism? Try reading Wikipedia:How to break up a page. When the critsism section is half the article, and still contains "Note: the "Loose Change Viewer Guide" is linked in this section because the errors it enumerates are too many to list here.", implying that the critisism should be more than half the article, then per Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, it is perfectly legitimit to break it out so. JD, stop assuming you can read my mind. --Striver 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy, i would have named the article Loos Change controversy if i wanted to soften/avoid critisism. As for no support in talk page, try reading it.--Striver 21:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article Loose Change (video) already contains all this information and is not long enough to justify splitting into a seperate article, nor is the content seperate enough to justify an article of it's own. If the content weren't already on Loose Change (video this would be an obvious merge. WilyD 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WilyD. Dionyseus 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WilyD. —Caesura(t) 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ensure info is put back into main article that this is spun off of.--MONGO 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WilyD ,while agreeing with MONGO. Looks like all the info is on the main article page; a cursory comparison before deleting this one would suffice. HumbleGod 01:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral the AfD was premature as was the article spin-off. There is likely enough criticism of Loose Change to make a sub-article preferable. Either way this AfD goes, the article will likely at some point be re-created... I would also caution discussion on what is to be done with the criticism (which was in the main article) is ongoing. - RoyBoy 800 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously when there is enough material to spin it off, it should be done. But there's no rational or precedent for pre-empticely spinning off a section, unless that section is independantly important. WilyD 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, however importance (as with notability) is a difficult thing to define. Rather it is the relative length (certainly an indirect measure of importance) which is pertinent. The criticism section in the article is quite sizable and a split is debatable... but I can only see the criticism getting larger as time goes on. - RoyBoy 800 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but what's important here is not the size of the criticism, but the size of the total article. Otherwise, you can break it up if it's a topic in it's own right, but here that easily fails the test. Apply a test like If Loose Change (video) was unworthy of an encyclopaedic article, would Criticisms of Loose Change be worthy of an article? - the answer here is clearly no, so Criticisms shouldn't get it's own article until the size needs of Loose Change demand it. Whereas even if Toronto was a very short article, one could still justify forking out CN tower because even if Toronto wasn't worthy of an article, CN Tower still would be. WilyD 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Loose Change. Premature emancipation. -- GWO
  • Merge back to Loose Change. — Reinyday, 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Loose Change. POV forks are POV, by definition. If an article's big enough to break up into sub articles it should be broken up into sub articles based on topic, not opinion. Bryan 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are incorrect. See Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, September 11, 2001 attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Striver 04:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, a opinion is a topic. --Striver 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge content back to Loose Change (video). --Aude (talk contribs) 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: when articles are too long it always happen that criticism is splitted.--Pokipsy76 10:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The debate is still going on in the talk page. I've looked at both at NIST and the FEMA report on 9/11. The article from this point includes more critism than it's about the loose change and if I can judge the talk page right, it's only gets worse without expanding on the video loose change. This is the topic of the article, right? 81.165.192.118 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree with your argument that the Loose Change article needs significant revision to bring the focus back to the film, including a long hard look at the criticisms section, I do not believe a second article to move the criticisms to does anything but muddy the waters. At present I feel Striver was not correct in being bold and splitting the articles. Thus I am leaning rather heavily towards Deletion.--Rosicrucian 00:06, 17 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck"[edit]

Seriously arbitrary list, almost totally unverifiable. Listcruft. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Would it be to much to ask to link to the three previous nominations of this article? --JJay 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this should be pretty obvious. List is clearly not arbitrary, and This article is somewhat hard to write is not a good criteria for deletion. At least one source is cited. A cleanup may be in order, however. WilyD 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous nominations of this article. Dionyseus 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm confused as to how this could possibly be unverifiable. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So where are the reliable sources for this article? (a couple of forum posts and a list made by Mr 5intheface are surely not reliable sources!) If you mean someone can watch it and count, this surely goes against No original research. Original research is material that has not been previously published by a reputable source. It includes data. I'm confused, as there seems to be a strong consensus to keep, but these issues have not been addressed on Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" as far as I can see? Mdwh 22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep, though we should sort the opinions here by the use of the word "fuck" Fiddle Faddle 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have re-read the article, and have changed my mind. A bit of table fomratting would not go amiss, though! Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but clean up. I'm one of the people pushing strongest for deletion of the list of songs containing the word Fuck in a prominent position. However, in that case we have a list that has to rely on original research. This article, on the other hand, references the Family Media Guide website, which (while perhaps not always accurate) does have the quoted statistics and sets the guidelines that this article was formed around. (Remember, WP:V says we're aiming for "verifiability, not truth.") What we need to do with this article is eliminate any word count NOT provided by FMG's research. This means the "Fuck's" column needs to go and the "FPM" column needs to be revised to reflect the FMG research. If the movie hasn't been researched by FMG, get it off the list. With this done, I think it should satisfy WP guidelines just fine. HumbleGod 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Before I forget to mention this....Having been shown this page in the other AfD, I've been cruising the talk page over the last few days. I had suggested finding another source for the other word counts that FMG did not provide, but the only steady one I could find is IMDB. The problem there is that Premium members of the site can submit trivia, where the Fuck count is located, and I wouldn't be surprised if these members were using WP as a source! Around and around it goes. Thus, the only easy solution I can find is to just stick with FMG results and ditch the rest. HumbleGod 01:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list, and delete the nominator. :) The list has survived 3 snipe attempts already. Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored, so quit trying to censor it. The nominator is obviously offended by the subject matter of the list. But so what. KEEP!. I've seen most of the movies on the list and found the comparison enlightening. The list is anything but arbitrary. How much swearing is in a movie contributes to its tone and intensity. The list is the Richter Scale for movies, and gives a rough indication of how much each movie will shake you up! Knowing the movies' level of swearing can help you pick what to watch based on what you are in the mood for. The list is innovative, informative, fun, and a perfect example of why Wikipedia stands apart from all other encyclopedias. You won't find anything like this in the Britannica. It's a keeper. Put the list on your watchlist guys, 'cuz they'll be gunning for this one again. --Trinity Skyward 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it's worth mentioning that this article has improved after every AfD nomination to date. The first nomination led from the Guinness-like "record" page to the current "list"; the second established a consensus that verifiability could be met; the third provided a good resource for so doing (FMG). And I'm hoping that this one will lead to my recommendation, the elimination of all non-verifiable (i.e. non-FMG) records in the article. In other words, even though I think this article should stay and I suspect it will, I'm glad it was nominated again. The only thing bugging me is that its biggest problems were being discussed and worked out on the article's Talk page when this was nominated. But if the AfD discussion pushes it forward, all the better. HumbleGod 06:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am not in the least bit offended by the list, but I maintain that it has no reliable sources and is thus original research, among other things. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you are in the mood for swearing, check out these 2 pages from the Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#Special collections:

  1. Sexual slang
  2. Body parts slang.

It took 'em multiple noms and some underhanded tactics to get rid of these, but now they're in Wikipedia's protected humor section. Enjoy. --Trinity Skyward 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I went ahead and changed the chart (thank goodness for sleepless nights) to remove all non-FMG content and reorder appropriately. The downside: far fewer entries. The upside: as far as I can tell, the list no longer threatens to violate WP:NOR and WP:V.
Other notes:
  • Fucks Per Minute count still relies on old data and will have to be recalculated (by someone else, I'm done with it!)
  • I removed the ranking column temporarily to make it easier to adjust the chart; however, as one user noted on the article's Talk page, it may be better this way, as it's easier to maintain and add more entries. I'll leave this decision up to others.
If anyone objects to the change, feel free to revert. But I have to say that IMO this change really helps this article's chances of meeting WP guidelines. HumbleGod 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make sure to only use counts from the Family Media Guide, or another reliable source should one come along (i.e.- allow absolutely no original research). EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous nomination and the fact that a cleanup of the article was already discussed and planned on the Talk page. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...again, sigh! Considering this article has survived several AfDs, and is of better quality and more verifiable now than it has been previously, isn't it time to give this deletion campaign a rest? --Canley 11:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - all entries not cited from reliable sources must be removed, however. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly that has been done in the last two days and was already planned prior to this AfD as you can see on the articles' talk page. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DeleteWhat is that page for?. It is better to delete it. --SkyWalker 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Fvcking Keep-per reasons stated by other users above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireSpike (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006
  • Keep - like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia. Joffeloff 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-poor taste and I would say it still needs some clean up but it doesn't merit a delete. Agne27 05:45, 15 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Landing Public School[edit]

I should know better than to list a school for deletion but what the heck. I prodded remarking that the article was not up to (even) the standard of WP:SCHOOL and the prod was removed with the remark that deletion was inapropriate given the existence of Wikiproject Schools. Since I don't think that the existence of a wikiproject has anything to do with notability or encyclopedicalness I am bringing it here. Holland Landing Public School is an elementry school with extracurricular activities. There is no claim to notability. It has two sentences of content (the thrid being esentially vacuous in my opinion) and should be deleted or merged. If every elementary school gets an article on wikipedia I'm changing my vote in Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool to Braun Station Elementray, San Antonio Eluchil404 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been thoroughly rewritten. Eluchil404 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Who didn't see that vote coming? But the school is (as most elementary schools are) highly non-notable. As an aside, the article is also quite POV. -- Kicking222 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. As well, even though the article didn't previously mention this, the school dates back to 1879, quite old for schools around there, so there's got to be lots of interesting stuff to say about the school. I made a start at the school's history. JYolkowski // talk 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. WP:SCHOOL is a rejected policy, so it doesn't apply. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That a school has been in continuous operation since 1879 is surely notable in its own right. I see pretty much NPOV and sufficient notability to say keep. It needs further work. Sure, an elementary school is not notable per se - a school is a school - but doesn't the age mean something? Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My vote stands despite the new additions to the article. The age is not notable, I easily found a school in the United States that is twice as old, it is called Collegiate and it was built in 1628. [68] Dionyseus 23:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The issues from the nomination have been addressed and the article has infinitely improved so the AfD accomplished something at least, but I'd really rather have two indica of notability before keeping an elementary school. Eluchil404 01:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasons for nomination no longer apply. Osomec 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a great article. Bravo to the school project. --JJay 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy keep based on lengthy history. Also, as Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive shows, there's clear precedent to keep all verifiable real schools. --Rob 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the school is historical erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 01:36, 13 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant undies[edit]

Dicdef (no pun intended) followed by a one-line uncited, possibly POV statement. There are probably hundreds of types of men's novelty underwear out there and I fail to see how this one merits its own encyclopedia article -Big Smooth 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was made last June! And a picture is requested. Someone please fulfill the request. Ha. chalicerae 22:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Mikeblas 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kind of useless... Nathan Beach 20:12, 13 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Gigabyte[edit]

Advertisement for said company Gnorn 21:57, 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 nomination was speedy keep no cogent rationale for deletion advanced, opinions are overwhelmingly keep. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted

  1. Conflicting and nonextent premise: The article is conflicting by title to begin with: the article treats Jews as a race, but then claims them to be Persian (which are non-semitic) as well (e.g. being origianlly Latino and AngloSaxon simultaneoulsy). It's a false notion.
  2. WP:DP: Completely idiosyncratic non-topic: The article's title should read something like Jews of Iran to correspond with the article's content. The current article addresses exactly just that, not Persians of Jewry (which is an absurd thing by definition anyway).
  3. Political platform and POV: The entire article is a politically charged and bashing piece against Iran, providing arguments and opinions without presenting any balancing counter arguments and/or evidence. An encyclopedia should not be a political platform.
  4. WP:DP: Original research: Article is largely sourced on Lewis and Littman, hence not factual. All and any opposing sources have been deleted repeatedly from article. Even Jewish sources against those presented. Zereshk 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of these reasons are grounds for deletion; they are at best grounds for modifying or renaming the article. —Psychonaut 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Wrong forum to properly address the points raised. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No compelling reason for deletion given. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. For reasons given. We need a new article in its place.--Zereshk 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Nominator disagrees with the content and the name. Debate should be about content and name, not its existence. Flying Jazz 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DP actually cites original research as a sufficient reason for deletion.--Zereshk 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites numerous sources, plus a JSTOR article search for "Jews Persia" gives me 813 hits in relevant journals, amply enough material to present a sourced balancing viewpoint. This is a content dispute that should be resolved on the Talk page, not on AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is rife with citations, any specific instance of original research should be tagged as such, but overall the article is not original research. Many of these other concerns are legitimate, but this isn't the place to bring them. WilyD 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article in my opinion. Sourced reasonably well, not original research. Name change would also be something that would have to be discussed in the talk page. No reason to delete.--Jersey Devil 23:52, 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 was delete. - brenneman {L} 05:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TECOM Inc[edit]

Article reads like an advertisement and company doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 22:15, 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 was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 10:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Technical Services[edit]

Article reads like an advertisement and company doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 22:16, 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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPERATION: REBIRTH[edit]

Website that doesn't seem particularly notable. Delete. BlueValour 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Seems to be many operations with the same name that are unrelated to this website and their goals. Most of these hits seem to be related to X-Men. Dionyseus 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom googl t 09:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB - Peripitus (Talk) 11:59, 17 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 was Keep Eluchil404 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooley Godward[edit]

Finishing abandoned nomination. No opinion for now. ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 334,000 Ghits, 47 news hits. This attorney firm is notable. Dionyseus 00:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Agne27 05:36, 15 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 delete. - brenneman {L} 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chick flicks[edit]

Who is to determine what is a "chick flick"? Xyzzyplugh 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even the wisest cannot tell. Deltabeignet 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks verifiability. —Caesura(t) 22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No need for this list. Dionyseus 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it wasn't hopelessly pov and unmaintainable, it would still be a candidate for categorization at best. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guess which policy this violates. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category Romantic Comedy Films covers these, and I doubt there's any info you can add that will make it better than the category. --ColourBurst 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Even a category would be POV, although I'd still laugh to see a movie listed as such. HumbleGod 01:51, 11 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 was Delete. Now let's see if I get slated for this. Uncle G and Dionyseus seems to imply a keep as it exists in wiktionary, but I feel this is not relevant as it is for dicdefs and WP is for articles. Apart from that there is concern about references, and also I note that Yuckfoo is an extreme inclusionist.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr[edit]

Just a list of (rather long) dictionary definitions and translations. This information would be better off (in somewhat condensed form) in Wiktionary. —Psychonaut 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • wikt:grr is currently a stub dictionary article. Uncle G 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Uncle G. Also, list is not 'rather long.' Dionyseus 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the list that's long; it's the definitions that are long. And Uncle G's contribution is not a keep vote; it's just a comment. —Psychonaut 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic; original research. — ERcheck (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, I'd really like to keep this article, although I'm not sure valid references can be found for it. It's just too funny. I only noticed it because I use Trillian which links words to Wikipedia articles. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Wikitionary. Agne27 05:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a notable onomatopoeic word Yuckfoo 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. OSU80 22:52, 17 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 delete. - brenneman {L} 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achtius[edit]

NN MMORPG character. Delete J Milburn 22:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom, speedy if possible--Nick Y. 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per above. Dionyseus 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 23:49, 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 nomination was delete. - brenneman {L} 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Wrestling Federation[edit]

I proposed this for deletion as having no verification of being notable. It appears from what this article lists and a quick google search[69], don't really show that it meets any sort of guideline. Yanksox 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just not notable, even in Maryland. Bejnar 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Also appears to be original research. Tychocat 11:19, 11 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 delete. - brenneman {L} 01:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cash and prizes[edit]

Speedy tag removed twice by creator despite warning in edit history and user talk page. Trying hard not to bite the newbies, so warned about removal +WP:3RR. Anyway this article is nonsense, should be speedied, fails notability, is WP:NFT Fiddle Faddle 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per above. Dionyseus 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does require major cleanup and addition, but should be kept due to the fact that it is an important phenomenon in our modern society. Kitia 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, scuse me? Every society had cash and prizes. But also WP:NOT a dictionary. Thsi cannot warrant an article on its own. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I admit i dont know what im doing. But fiddle faddle, whats your point by saying that every society has cash and prizes? We need this article. Captain Harr 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean that I know of no society that does not have this concept. Whether we need this article or not is one point. Whether the article has sufficient quality or not is another. The community will judge both aspects and reach a consensus. It is well worth your while strengthening the article in the interim period, and hoping that your article will prevail because it both asserts notability and is viewed as required. Fiddle Faddle 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We may need a discussion of the phenomenon, but this article is not it. The article is not encyclopedic, at best it belongs in Wiktionary. But I don't think it even belongs there. Bejnar 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can anyone in good faith vote 'keep' for something like this? It's nonsense and useless. Arkyan 00:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepe W definitly need a disucsiion. Just fix the page instead of deleteing, sicne it will be remade regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Harr (talk • contribs)
    • One person, one opinion, please. It is customary not to offer the same opinion more than once, but comments (ie no emboldened keep/delete item in the comment) may be left in order to validate a prior opinion, or to contest another's opinion. Fiddle Faddle 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But consider moving the content to a more inclusive article. --Ssbohio 03:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense attempt at a dicdef. --InShaneee 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment ~shakes head ~ Not only nonsense, this is fast turning into "escalated nonsense". References have now been given to Woolly Mammoths and Mayan Civilisation, but not regarding the points being made in the article. WP:NFT to the power of 2 I fear. WP:AGF is very strained at present, especially in view of the comment above by the creator "sicne it will be remade regardless" (sic). Fiddle Faddle 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I meant like, a cash and prizes article is a good topic to write an article on. I certainly wouldnt remake it just out of spite. Captain Harr 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is an odd one, and no mistake. We already have decent articles on competitions/contests, lotteries, game shows and such, and the subject area of this article seems too ill-defined to pin down to solid concept - are we to include, say, bounties as a "prize"? Wikipedia already has an article on prizes (itself a borderline dicdef, but that's another matter), and after all, what is a cash award but a "prize" too? (How many competitions have we seen trumpting "huge cash prizes"?). As it stands, delete, as I can't see any content worth merging with prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matticus78 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not enough info to support even a merge. --Satori Son 17:14, 11 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 del speedy A7 recreation. `'mikka (t) 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Demetrioff[edit]

Article was speedy deleted multiple times, but I have restored it at the repeated insistence of the creator. No vote.-- Fang Aili talk 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above plus NN--Nick Y. 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only 10 non-WP Google hits here. No evidence of notability. BlueValour 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN. Fails WP:Bio Dionyseus 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. He's a lobbyist. Annnnd? He's a lobbyist. --DarkAudit 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 23:36, 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 nomination was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midori Hirose (fine artist)[edit]

Vanity page by User:Midorihirose; no explanation of notability; already userfied. NawlinWiki 23:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity Bejnar 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN. 357 Ghits. [70] fails WP:Bio. I don't understand why the speedy tag was removed. Dionyseus 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and possible WP:VAIN DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete duplicate content. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It appears that the original speedy tag was removed by a user who was later banned from the deletion process and subsequently threw a fit and left the project. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:17, 11 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shemeem Burney Abbas[edit]

person is not notable, one Ph.D. thesis published and one academic speaking tour. Bejnar 23:34, 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 nomination was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken (term of speech)[edit]

  • del Dicdef. The article looks long because it puts together two totally different words: "chicken" and "chickenshit" (both dicefs) and gives ample quotations. `'mikka (t) 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is another mis-placed dictionary article containing the definition of a word and some supporting quotations showing the word in use in sentences. This article is in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The place for these and any similar quotations is beneath meaning #4 of wikt:chicken#English and meaning #1 of wikt:chickenshit#English, which are in need of quotations. Delete. Uncle G 00:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merge a sentence or two into Chicken, noting the relationship between the term and the animal's nature. But that's a generous way of handing it. HumbleGod 01:45, 11 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 was Merge and redirect. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José + 10[edit]

This is an article about one commercial spot. We are being overly enthusiastic by including this. I mean, it was a decent spot, but there are very few advertising campaigns that have made it onto WP, and the ones that did (e.g. Budweiser Frogs, Got Milk?) were decade-long cultural institutions with many iterations. This is just one spot. Delete- CrazyRougeian talk/email 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This ad was a global ad being shown in most markets, for one of the biggest events on Earth. It has spawned a "Making of" video showing how players from a previous generation were combined with current-generation players, and how all the current generation players were brought together. -- Jeff3000 00:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more accurate to describe this as a series of spots than just a single ad. It was a cute series that I enjoyed seeing between matches, and I wouldn't mind seeing it here, but I understand skepticism about its notability. Neutral for now. HumbleGod 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Adidas and trim down, most of the text is already there. -- Koffieyahoo 02:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Adidas, notable ad in the scope of the company, but it doesn't extend into or create it's own realm of independent notability. The necessary text is on Adidas and should be there on it's own for now. Yanksox 02:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per above. — RJH (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This ad was pretty famous. Wikipedia is a large one, I think it might not be big enough in the USA, but people, Wikipedia is not a USA-encyclopedia. Just because you dont watch soccer doesnt mean others dont. -Juan
    • Hush, anon, don't make assumptions! I saw every game except those on Saturdays! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It's still airing, after the World Cup, and despite being a small part; it's still a part of footballing and popular culture. - -- partipo 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC-5)
  • Keep- As for me, I don't even know what is 'Got Milk?'... Keep this ad as it funny, smart and was a world(minus us)-wide success. JeDi 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ad was shown in the U.S. as much as anywhere else. Stop making this into some sort of U.S.-centric thing! - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey man, you are not telling me what I saw and what I didn't. I don't know what is 'Got milk', and I think this article about 'Jose+10' shall be part of wikipedia. Period.JeDi 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oooh, a threat! I find threats sexy! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A Threat? You seem a little bit hysterical. Anyway, please inform us why you want to delete this article. Just to remind you some AfD policy: Good arguments for deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:OR), and "non-notable" (for example, for a person, does not meet WP:BIO). The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion. The reason "unencyclopedic" is not an argument at all but just another way of saying "should be deleted". [71].JeDi 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would be, non-notable'. That, and the article shall be deleted. Period. And I was not being hysterical. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok. This ad is notable. I didn't discovered it on TV but someone told me about it. I then downloaded it on Internet, and saw it several times on TV. I talked about it with friends, I looked on internet about the making-of, and I really enjoyed it. Like it or not, it is now part of pop culture. I understand when ask me not to make it a U.S.-centric thing, but I'm sorry, you think this ad is not notable? I guess it's because you live in a country where the World Cup and all its feria didn't make it. If now I put an AfD on Got milk, how would you react? I really don't know Got milk, and I don't care. It was not shown anywhere else, not in my country at least, but I can understand that it is "important" for you to have it on Wikipedia. [[72]]JeDi 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Adidas. ed g2s • talk 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Adidas. Wikipedia is not a list of every advert anyone found entertaining. If you really liked, start a freaking blog about it. -- GWO
  • Merge with Adidas. Ad is notable in the context of an Adidas campaign but it did not achieve enough notability on its own to merit an article for itself.Agne27 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Adidas. If you look at the adidas page you already see all the players mentioned there. Whata joke it is to keep it up when you've got everything this page features. There is no point in keeping an article like this. None! Soxrock 21:40, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_10&oldid=1081095640"