Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15 July 17 >

Purge server cache



























































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

The result was speedy redirect, AfD was not necessary - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wuaconda, Illinois[edit]

Simple mis-spelling entry Wauconda, Illinois already exists JT GS1US 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wauconda, Illinois as a likely typo/mispelling that is not confusing. Its creator mispelled it, and there are several results on Google[1]. —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 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 delete. — FireFox 20:18, 20 July '06

Gogan[edit]

NN/OR. Although the article has a couple of references, they're to dead pages. The word 'Gogan' googles very high, but not with this meaning (except this Wikipedia article itself). Googling 'gogan goth bogan' gets a fair number of hits but they seem to originate in Wikipedia in most cases. This article is a classic example of someone using Wikipedia to seed something NN in the internet. The concept is not even defined in the article in such a way to make it clear what differentiate a 'gogan' from 'goth' in general. mgekelly 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:WINAD--TBCTaLk?!? 07:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Cornflake pirate 07:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN WP:NEO. --Wine Guy Talk 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, I've lived in Australia all my life and have never heard this term... as per Tree Biting Conspiracy— riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a neologism, non-notable at that.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It gets good results in a search of media but as a surname not as this neologism for a goth and a bogan. The article has two sources one of which is a livejournal and another doesn't work so there are real verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn. --Roisterer 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is indeed a neologism, about four years old, and (to my knowledge) in use within a "youth subculture" in a single, smallish Australian city. (I'd guess on the order of a few thousand people have ever heard the term.) Furthermore, its use seems to be in decline. &#0151; JEREMY 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I believe the term has been superseded now by "bogoth", which is at least widely used in Melbourne within the goth "scene" that I have heard of anyway. -- Librarianofages 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local slang. - -GWO
  • Comment. I particularly like Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? -- GWO
  • Weak Keep. The term has been around and gets used on the few people that actually have the mix between a bogan and a goth. Dead Chook 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3. Tawker 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starship prefixes (Star Trek)[edit]

Vague title, and previous material divided between more specific pages. Current article itself is not a likely search term. EEMeltonIV 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect, as much as I fear possibly angering the ST minions here, the two pages in this article should contain all the info needed on the topic. Perhaps redirect to one of the two, and have italicized disambiguation explanations at the top of each. -- H·G (words/works) 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and tagged as such. It's a textbook case of speedy deletion under criterion A3, Trek or no Trek. Erik the Rude 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD 3. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:26, 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 should be listed at IfD, not AfD. DarthVader 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Python batteries included.jpg[edit]

Amateur Artwork, only used in Python programming language article where it's used as a form of humour. --FlareNUKE 01:29, 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 no consensus whatsoever. I leave you to ponder this: Indiscriminate information is not the same as indiscriminate presentation. Grandmasterka 04:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles trivia[edit]

Trivia is by definition unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Worldtraveller 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, provided that relevant trivia is moved to related articles (such as Liverpool John Lennon Airport's renaming being mentioned in both that article and John Lennon, if it already isn't). However, a large portion of the supposed trivia is hardly notable or particularly-Beatles related (i.e. the Playboy mention). Fabricationary 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep obviously. Fairly important trivia, but too much for main Beatles article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Important trivia' is a contradiction in terms. Worldtraveller 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Missiontomars2k4. Dionyseus 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator claim that it is not encyclopaedic. Lots of infomation and is good enough to stand by itself as an article. -ScotchMB 01:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because its interesting or true doesn't mean it needs a place on Wikipedia. How about we just write about the important stuff? I don't buy the argument that because they are an important rock band they deserve articles forked off the main one full of info that didn't make the cut. Recury 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what you can into The Beatles. Delete the rest - triviacruft.Mystache 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is also not a trivia game. Cruft. Zos 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless somebody can make a better argument in reference to a specific numbered section of WP:NOT (more specific than "indiscriminate collection of information" as the policy does get more specific about what it means). I can't think of a valid cut-off point for which bands deserve such a list and which don't, but The Beatles certainly make the cut. There was also a similar AfD that didn't generate much discussion (or consensus).--Chaser T 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The specific part is section two of 'not an indiscriminate collection of information' - WP:NOT 'Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics'. You can also check wikt:trivia and wikt:encyclopaedia and assess whether you think these two concepts are contradictory. In my view they absolutely are. Worldtraveller 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles are all connected with The Beatles. Sorry, but "In my view" is a POV. andreasegde 10:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you meant NPOV, that only applies to articles. We're all entitled to our own POV in discussions, and I think Worldtraveller and I just have different ones about this case.--Chaser T 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left a message for the primary editor of this page (figuring he'd see this was AfD'ed relatively quickly anyway) and he then left messages on a bunch of Beatles editors talk pages encouraging them to vote keep or delete here (the full message is in the section below this one. Depending on the knowledge of deletion policy of those who get the message, there may be some people coming here as a result. To anyone who does come, please note that AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion about an article's merits based on arguments grounded in policy and guidelines.--Chaser T 02:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because most of the relevant information is already in other Beatles articles, such as the Apple case. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
  • Delete The phrase "important trivia" is boggling my mind. Put the facts in the appropriate articles, but by no means should there be a catch-all trivia article. GassyGuy 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or (a distant second-best) Merge it into the already-long Beatles article. If the name of the article were changed from trivia it may sould more encyclopedic. The content is. Carlossuarez46 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with you there. I think the writers of the article do as well - they give the game away in the second paragraph of the intro. Worldtraveller 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See comment below about "can be", and "is". andreasegde 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without digressing into a "what is trivia" debate, I need only view a few cards from a vintage Trivial Pursuit game to see if WP provides the answers, and voilá, EVERY SINGLE bit of trivia I tested can be found here. Empirically, this ought to stay or we need a severe trimming of our content to be less trivial. So, where does that put us? Not only do we have the "trivia" pages as blatant as can be, we have "Minor characters in" lists that are basically trivia masquerading as lists, we have editors who insist that no matter how little distinguishes one school from another, they are all notable, we have articles on virtually every episode of fan-loved tv series, every pokemon monster, every voice on the Simpsons, etc. This encyclopedia not only embraces "trivia", I would venture to guess that without the trivia our article count would drop below a million. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chaser. SynergeticMaggot, are you claiming that this is OR? Cos that's what you linked to. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I love the Beatles' music, but trivia about the band simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's available everywhere. The keep votes make me moderately angry, because they show a dreadful lack of knowledge of what is trivial and what is encyclopedic and what Wikipedia isn't. Wikipedia isn't a fansite or a repository for trivia...yet. Erik the Rude 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's useful into The Beatles and other respective articles (e.g. into Absolutely Fabulous for #Absolutely Fabulous), delete the rest. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. mgekelly 07:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - if there is a major rewrite What a hodge-podge of trivia & other information, some which which deserve or have their own articles, my vote is keep because it does help to underline the social and musical importance of the Beatles, I'd be hard-pressed to vote keep for any other music group with an article like this. --Richhoncho 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note : I have changed my post back to as "I" posted it originally. I did not use caps for most of the text.--Richhoncho 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to The Beatles, with extensive chopping. This is just encouraging people to add pointless ephemera. Conciseness and determining what is actually important is a virtue. -- GWO
    • It is my experience that any little detail not mentioned in The Beatles article is at some stage added by a well meaning editor, not aware of the breadth of related pieces. As much as is possible is moved to a more relevant article, and the cruft deleted. One place for good information not otherwise having an article is "Trivia". Returning a collection of unrelated facts to the main article is going to encourage more contributions whose relevance is questionable, thus further dtracting from the clarity of the article.LessHeard vanU 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The word trivia seems to upset a lot of people. There is a Wikipedia article called trivia which deals with the subject, and has links to plenty of other pages that have trivia pages. Should the main Wikipedia trivia page also be deleted, as well as all its links? It even has a "List of trivia lists" link. andreasegde 08:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpret Andreasegde's suggestion about deleting trivia as rhetorical rather than substantive, but he makes a good point about all our other trivia lists. Is there some reason this list is less encyclopedic than, say, List of human anatomical parts named after people? It'd be helpful if we could articulate our standards here.--Chaser T 08:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that trivia is the very antithesis of what an encyclopaedia is supposed to contain. It's trifling details, when an encyclopaedia is supposed to give the most relevant and significant information. If you read the second paragraph of the article, you can see that whoever wrote it clearly agrees that it's an indiscriminate collection of information - WP:NOT specifically proscribes this very thing. Worldtraveller 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoever wrote it said, "can be", which is not a statement of fact – it’s only a possibility. andreasegde 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What would you rename it? List of facts about the Beatles? One should never need a random List of facts about... relevent info should already be in the article's topic, in this case, The Beatles. I'm all for adding the facts to appropriate articles in which they can cleanly integrate, but a page specifically for uncorrelated facts about a topic should not exist in an encyclopaedia. It deters people from finding the appropriate way to integrate the information, so that it can be used to improve an existing article on the same topic, or determining that, in the end, the information does not add value to the topic. I know that the article about The Beatles is already long, but spinoffs like these just don't sit well with me. GassyGuy 09:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this is less a trivia page and more a "things that referenced the Beatles at one time or another" which of course will never be complete. Danny Lilithborne 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” andreasegde 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This breaks the usual rules of Wiki not being an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This trivia could be added to the main Beatles article if it needs to be here at all. At best, listcruft, at worst a complete waste of bottom-less pit irrelevances. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Feedyourfeet 11:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to The Beatles miscellany, remove all the more trivial items, and edit down/rewrite everything drastically. A lot of these items appear to be lazy copy and pastes of paragraphs from other articles which could easily be turned into one or two liners. The Absolutely Fabulous section is totally ridiculous for instance, not to mention poorly written. If no rewrite or renaming occurs, then Merge the few most significant items into The Beatles and then Delete. Bwithh 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything worth keeping into The Beatles; delete the rest. Listcruft. Srose (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some good info here. No policy violation - trivia has common thread. Too long to merge. DaturaS 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's long because, as I said, it's not really a trivia page, it's a "Beatles reference" page which should be called The Beatles references. And I said, just about everything references the Beatles at one time or another. Danny Lilithborne 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nothing really worth keeping, because practically everything on the page belongs (and already is) somewhere else. Just because it's about the Beatles doesn't make it okay to retain cruft. --FuriousFreddy 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fabricationary Dpv 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, are yews lot loosin' yer ollies or wha? Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it is true that snippets were taken from other (lengthy) articles. This was meant to be just a start, so as to get it rolling. This article is approx. one month old (not forgetting the one piece that was there before.) A question: If you wanted to look up The Beatles influence, where would you look? This article was only intended to be a summary and a link to lots of other Wikipedia articles, that people would probably not delve into. Jeffrey Archer being a case in point. andreasegde 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to know about the Beatles' influence, surely you'd go to The Beatles, where relevant detail is concisely summarised. Worldtraveller 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good info on page. Treebark (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; trivia is exactly that, by definition. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the main article, and others related to it, are indicated as being larger than is normally expected for a Wikipedia entry. Many of the mentions now in "Trivia" were culled from the main article for reasons of reducing the article size, but were considered relevant/important enough to warrent keeping elsewhere. Some items have no other obvious place in The Beatles canon, but are never the less a potential search result. Suggest renaming article to "Miscellenea" to avoid connotations with the term trivia.LessHeard vanU 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Beatles are important and still interest many people. --JJay 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course that's true. This deletion discussion does not question that at all. Worldtraveller 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we should keep all valid info that relates to the Beatles. "Trivia" is hard to define, but much of the information in this article does not seem like trivia to me. --JJay 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all contents to approate articles. The issue is not of importance, uniqueness, or verifiability. The issue is if it all really belongs in one rather large list about the Beatles. Most, if not all, of this trivia could be merged into the articles about the subjects since: A) It really has much more to do with them and B) Not many people are going to find this page if they are interested in the subjects in question. The trivia is interesting, but wrapping it up all in one big pile of information under one generalized subject is ludacris. This information should stay with the subjects, and this list cut down to slimmest terms. Yanksox 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good stuff, beyond cruft. If you question something, put {{fact}} on it, but the whole thing shouldn't be deleted for it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is kept I will personally roll up my sleeves and get the scissors out. I suggest cutting it down and merging/moving it to The Beatles´influence on popular culture, which is unloved anyway. andreasegde 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In accordance with WP:BOLD I have boldly deleted some parts and added them in a "see also" listing, Free as a Bird Video has been moved to the main Free as a Bird article as a subheading "The Video" Deleted Yellow Submarine which is a major Beatle project and contained no new information. And other bits and pieces. I kept the Peter Sellars part in because if I had moved it to the Peter Sellars article it would have unbalanced that article. Still much more work to be done. Perhaps there should be a separate article for "significant" Beatle covers? --Richhoncho 10:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (after edit conflict). Richhoncho has exactly the right idea, here, and good on him for starting to work on it. I don't think we need an article called "Beatles trivia", but there is some good stuff here which should be moved or merged elswhere. There's also some bad stuff that I'd be happy to see disappear. I'd oppose a delete after only five days, though, so in that limited sense I suppose my vote is keep. I'd also approve of a covers article as a suitable merge target. AndyJones 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete in support of the editors who've tried to fix this article and have found that most of its useful content is in Wikipedia somewhere already. AndyJones 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In accordance with civility I have reverted the deletions, pending a decision following this discussion. If it is decided to delete then I nominate Richhoncho to do the work, since s/he knows where things should go. If it is decided to keep, I nominate the same User to go through the various articles and remove parts belonging to this piece. Whilst editing is allowed during a AfD, wholesale deletions kind of defeats the object of the discussion.LessHeard vanU 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Thanks AndyJones for your support, I can't understand how anybody would want to list Yellow Submarine or Free as a Bird under Beatle trivia, But anybody is allowed to contribute and edit. But to avoid a conflict war I am not going to revert LessHeard vanU's changes. However, I do still emphatically beleive my edits took the article in the right direction. --Richhoncho 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Big comment I completely agree with LessHeard vanU. The discussion is not even over yet, and you guys are sharpening your knives, and have already started using them. I find that highly reprehensible and insulting to the process of Wikipedia discussion. Yes, it does need cutting, but can you PLEASE wait until the jury comes back in to deliver their verdict BEFORE you start erecting the scaffold for the hanging? Innocent until proven guilty, I believe. andreasegde 13:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I point out the part of the wording on the Afd tag is "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion,.." My edits were in line with these and instructions and designed to save this article, and I point out again, quite clearly for those who haven't bothered to see read or understand my changes, I did not delete one piece of information from WP. Those sub-heading I deleted were the same as in the principal article, or augmented in a "see also" sub-heading. The article is too long, too unconnected, and no context between the bits of "trivia." Maybe it should be deleted. --Richhoncho 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts, Richhoncho, but if you start cutting, then it could become a free-for-all, don´t you think? (You know how messy it can get, no?) Do what you think is right, but let everybody have their say first. This is not meant to be nasty in any way at all. Have fun. andreasegde 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't cut anything!!! Furthermore your comment about not editing would have more validity if you hadn't edited MY comment further up on this AdF page. Anyway isn't WP a "free-for-all? --Richhoncho 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a cup of tea. How many sugars do you take? (I saw this futher up: "I have boldly deleted some parts and added them in a "see also") I refuse to fall out with you, so... what about that tea? (Mine´s two sugars, by the way.) Plus: I´m amazed how many people have left comments. Is this usual Richhoncho? Go on, smile, you know you want to...andreasegde 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make my with half a spoonful of sugar! As you know you have copied some other WP articles and pasted them into this article, which really isn't necessary! Does say, Portmeiron require all the information repeated here just because the Beatles were interviewed there once? Ditto Mary Hopkin, the Tom Hanks film, The Rutles and other sub-sections I moved to "see also" On the other hand you have added more info about Norman Pilcher which really belongs in the Pilcher article with a link from here. Some of the parts deserve to stay in here. The one real deletion I did make was removing "and allowed its release" (re-With a Little Help), and as anybody who knows anything about the music business knows once a song has been released the author only retains moral rights and not the right to stop the playing of, or release of cover versions. So those words are a complete fabrication. As I keep pointing out the article is too long, so a little bit of judicious editing will go a long way to saving an article which could be important. I also note you have missed some relatively important items like the Dora Bryan song, or perhaps the Ballad of Hollis Brown/Working Class Hero "coincidence." ditto Norwegian Wood. Some of these items rightfully belong in the Beatles Influence articles too, which you have also worked on. Your decision, I'd rather see this article be deleted than get into an edit war. This is why I am replying rather heavily here - I am actually trying to save this article (although it will probably need to be renamed), although you wouldn't think so from the comments I am getting!!!--Richhoncho 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that I am an incorrogible thief, but I only started it a month ago. (My... what a short life it had - laugh...)

My original idea was to have it as an index, so people would not have to trawl through whole pages of stuff to find one small reference about The Beatles. As that idea has (it seems so) well and truly had its genitalia skewered, I will sit back and think of something else to do. I still believe there should be a Beatles index - if only to connect the multitude of pages together. andreasegde 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all I was trying to do, trim it back into a useful index, please see my last edit [[2]] before it was all reverted. Not saying I finished, or that other editors couldn't do better. You will note I added a small amount of detail to the "see also" so the reader could decide if they wanted to look further in that direction. --Richhoncho 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as miscellaneous information about notable subjects is notable. Too much for main article, which is why it was created in the first place, I imagine. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the appropriate articles. Why talk about Yellow Submarine (film) or Yesterday (song) anywhere else but they own existant articles? -- Zanimum 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Notable information can be Merged into appropriate articles, but WP is not an archive of pages about trivia. Scorpiondollprincess 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of opinion. Delete according to WP:LC and WP:NOT. Furthermore, most of the information is already contained in the primary articles, or is a direct copy therefrom. My opinion is also because of WP:SIZE given that the article's supporters won't countenance slimming down (see near-edit war I was nearly involved in) and there is too much scope for further expansion. --Richhoncho 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recently found this - Category:The Beatles - and it is a complete index of The Beatles pages. I have also added it to as many pages as I had time to. Now WHY was this link not already on the pages? Did I miss something here? andreasegde 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Aguerriero. Wikipedia tends to collect stuff like this anyway. You can zap stuff like this, but it'll just grow back. I'd rather see it on its own page than have it clutter up the Beatles page. At least now it's organized and easy to read. Alcuin 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and notable trivia is an oxymoron. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we not have an acronym for "indiscriminate collection of information", such as ICI? It would make comments easier to read, and it wouldn´t sound so much like "Parrot-speak". andreasegde 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Extra comment Indiscriminate, it is not. I beg you to look up the meaning of the word. Every piece mentions The Beatles, and has something to do with them. It has a thread... andreasegde 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" not that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be ICIs. Some people interpret this as saying that Wikipedia shouldn't contain trivia or articles on non-notable subjects. But of course this is one of those rules that everyone interprets differently and I doubt everyone will come to an agreement on it here. Recury 13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the information of the page is really information about another person, object or place. The information, if notable, belongs in those articles. If the information isn't notable enough for either the main Beatles article or the (for example) Absolutely Fabulous article, then it needn't be in the encyclopedia. Stephenb (Talk) 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not tried it myself (as I have a life, I think, outside Wikipedia) but how long would it take to trawl through every page that mentions The Beatles? The object was to combine links to other articles. It should have been called "Beatles Links". Yes, I know that it copies minor portions of the original articles, but it was meant to be an index, and not an original piece of work. Imagine a new user who is interested in The Beatles, and wants to know more about them, and their influence... Go on, try it.... andreasegde 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - see talk page. Just because we can't work information into an article doesn't mean it's not noteworthy, it means it doesn't fit neatly with the flow of the article. Unfortunate title - perhaps move to miscellany--Crestville 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wp:not per nom. Ste4k 03:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Banks[edit]

Minor-league baseball player, otherwise not notable. As per multiple precedents, not enough until at least the Major League level. Calton | Talk 00:09, 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 delete. — FireFox 20:19, 20 July '06

Eric Gregory[edit]

Candidate for Congress state legislature. Other accomplishments not notable. Candidacy itself does not warrant inclusion. --DarkAudit 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Actually only for the state house. JChap (Talk) 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually makes the subject even less notable. --DarkAudit 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually has generated interest in both Troy and at Michigan State University as a college student running against the son of a current Congressman. The race has received coverage in a number of newspapers as well as Gongwer.

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

The result was delete. — FireFox 20:19, 20 July '06

Crowdstorm[edit]

non-notable website/web service, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Launched July 1, 2006 (2 weeks ago as of this writing), the only real mentions of the site are in blogs/forums [5]. Even these can be explained by its marketing tactics as described on this blog: [6]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I work for Crowdstorm and just briefly wanted to put our viewpoint across before you go ahead with any deletion. We've been building this company up for some time now and trying to make a difference by letting the crowd find the best products and group together to get the best deals - which is a valuable service. A wikipedia entry is not purely a marketing tactic as we believe it is of interest to people to see more about the company, what it does, and useful links about the business. In fact, we didn't even create the entry ourselves but came across it a few days ago.

In the UK, it is a very notable company (see http://mashable.com/2006/05/15/kicking-up-a-crowdstorm/) and generated a lot of interest to-date which people are searching for across the net. I'm also not sure how this policy compares to allowing things like Last.Fm, Kaboodle, Yahoo up on wikipedia. How is the Crowdstorm entry different?

You guys do a great job of keeping wikipedia clean and we appreciate the work you do. We will abide by any decision you make and just wanted some way of getting our viewpoint across, understanding your reasoning, and seeing if there is anything we can change / do to help to make it more useful to wikipedia readers?

Many thanks.

  • Delete per nom. Recury 00:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Perhaps an advert tag should be placed on the page in the interim. Fabricationary 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that - as a cleanup tag, it's generally meant to request cleanup work. As I don't think there's any hope for this article and it ought to be deleted, I think it would be just one more article in the backlog in the cleanup categories for the next 5 days... --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:28, 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. — FireFox 20:21, 20 July '06

Neeraj Kayal[edit]

Nonnotable graduate student. NawlinWiki 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedy if possible, as a non-notable bio. Fabricationary 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dionyseus 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Xrblsnggt 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails BIO NN and V. Zos 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. BIO indicates "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." The AKS Primality Test counts, doesn't it? --ColourBurst 04:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google search turns up 12000 hits when name is in quotes, and all of them, on the first page at least, relate to the same person. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
    • Comment to unsigned comment above: True, but its not been verified, which is why my vote is to delete. Once someone sources statements in the article I'll change my vote. Zos 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Whoops, forgot to sign. Is [7] good? In addition, it was reported in the NYT in 2002! This isn't the NYT source, but NYT has archived it so you need to pay to see the original article. Does that satisfy WP:V? --ColourBurst 04:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Have you read WP:V? A pdf and a an e-mail wont save this article. A bio needs to be notable, and verifiable. Zos 04:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: That's not an email, it's a copy of the NYT article documenting the breakthrough. You're welcome to go through the original NYT article if you want. In addition, the pdf is an article from a professional society (American Society of Mathematicians). --ColourBurst 04:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Well, if its not an e-mail, then I must be reading this addy wrong - http://www.mail-archive.com. Zos 05:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: It's not used as an actual source but only as a copy of the original NYT article for people to verify (but it's not sourced in the original article - only the actual NYT article is.). --ColourBurst 16:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ColourBurst & TrogdorPolitiks --Cornflake pirate 04:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being co-author of AKS test is notable. — Miles←☎ 04:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep im not sure what all the NN votes up there were about, but on the date im making this vote, the article certainly seems to establish notability all right with that AKS thing. Homestarmy 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and sourced. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely notable, and improvements since this was nominated clinch it. Ultimately the nomination was the best thing that could happen to it, as it finally got the sources it needed. -- H·G (words/works) 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Godel Prize winner. -- GWO
  • Speedy Keep as co-author of a major breakthrough in mathematics. Clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:V. --Wine Guy Talk 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per Gareth Owen and Wine GuyLesqual 12:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I wonder whether the deletion supporters have even read the article. The primality test is one of the most celebrated recent results in theoretical computer science. Pascal.Tesson 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep obviously Dlyons493 Talk 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - notable. --PresN 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above: notable in field. Suggest early closure: article currently there has been heavily edited and is not the nominated article any more. Smerdis of Tlön 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Agree with Pascal.Tesson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.169.49 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep - As Above Ed 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable, verifiable, and neutral. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as co-creator of the primality test. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 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 was no major consensus = keep. — FireFox 20:24, 20 July '06

Emil Kolb[edit]

non-notable local politician at sub-provincial (Ontario) level JChap (Talk) 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the interests of full disclosure, article frequently has conspiracycruft inserted. [User:JChap2007|JChap]] (Talk) 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I respect your right to request a vote on deletion, but I don't understand your reason for doing it and what the conspiracy cruft refers to. Please clarify your reasons and make clear...Also, since you called the vote much has been added and cited, so you should reconsider and delete your call for deletion as the initiator of this vote.WikiWoo 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no less notable than anyone else in Category:Ontario mayors. BoojiBoy 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definately notable and encyclopedic. Mystache 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per BoojiBoy. Dionyseus 03:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BoojiBoy. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Peel isn't huge, he's only the head of a council rather than a mayor and his other positions are less important. He's roughly the equivalent of a county supervisor of a medium-sized county, I would say. Hopefully, county supervisors don't have articles. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Um... he's the head of a council of a Regional Municipality, and one that has 988,000 people in it. BoojiBoy 14:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I am aware of that. Can you be more specific? -- Kjkolb 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Common now KJ Kolb... a Kolb voting to delete an article about a famous Kolb???WikiWoo 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please notable and encyclopdic too Yuckfoo 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per violation of WP:V. How old is this article? How long has it not been updated with sources? The answers to both this question do does not bode well for the survivability of this article. Captainktainer * Talk 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I believe the issue you raised was resolved by the cites and updates added. Please remove your vote for deletingWikiWoo 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think people at his level meet notability standards. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a very accomplished person. If a person like this is not noteworthy, few others are. The fact he may have been ignored by the popular press and remained low key all these years does not make him less notworthy. People should be remembered for the value of the accomplishements and not paprazzi press and scandal publicity. Good long lasting public people like this deserve recognition too.WikiWoo 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aguerriero. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Very notable and controversial public figure in Peel Region since before Peel was created. More notable than most politicians since he has been around for well over 30 years and helped shape the current landscape of Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon from his base in Caledon. Peel is huge with over One Million People and one of the top five Census Boundaries in all Canada.WikiWoo 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Assuming all of this is true, sources need to be provided. There are no sources. Captainktainer * Talk 22:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's all in the article and under Peel for population and his time involved from before Peel was created. He starts out as a farmer, becomes a councillor, then mayor and then become the Big Cheese Chair of the whole ball of wax and now for five terms in a row. A huge accomplishment for anyone. This guy's bigger than Bill Clinton, who came and went in half the time. What else is it that you need sources for? I'll see what I can do for you. WikiWoo 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considerable new info added with cites and links to other pages. This is good material. WikiWoo 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — FireFox 20:27, 20 July '06

Minsh[edit]

Non-notable. Fails WP:VAIN. No Alexa rating. --DarkAudit 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Smosh does it, why can't minsh? -User:wikii 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles should have sources beside youtube and myspace links. -ScotchMB 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. EuroSong talk 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 02:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dionyseus 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. G.He 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Huon 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G4 and A7 (previously deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather -- Samir धर्म 08:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Undertaker[edit]

Obvious vanity page ScotchMB 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. User included the message moved User:Thaundertaker to Tha Undertaker: I want everyone to view it in the comments of the first version of the page. Not sure if that warrants action beyond an afd, but certainly makes me feel better about it being gone. Mystache 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he fails WP:MUSIC and redirect to Personas of The Undertaker. There was discussion at Talk:Mark_Calaway#Requested_move about changing the name, but it ended no consensus.--Chaser T 01:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article has nothing to do with the wrestler The Undertaker, its a pseudonym for a seventeen year-old "rapper" Mystache 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed the titling, "Tha". You are correct.--Chaser T 02:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Seventeen-year-old who plans to release a mixtape. Gee, can't be more than 100,000 of those. Fan-1967 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dionyseus 02:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and fails everything. Redirect to the Undertaker, hah. Zos 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as gross violation of WP:VAIN per Mystache. Danny Lilithborne 03:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And because I'm tired of "alternate" spellings being used as pathetic attempts at hipness. Postdlf 05:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete vanity and fails WP:MUSIC. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, obviously. -- H·G (words/works) 07:59, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frensync[edit]

fails WP:WEB Rklawton 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom., fails notability. --Porqin 02:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Dionyseus 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not remove AfD tags from articles - even if you think it should be speeded Rklawton 02:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so as I wrote that, the article got speedied. We may need to keep this discussion open if the original editor contests the speedy (he/she/it removed the original SD tag). Rklawton 02:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't remove the AfD tag, I simply tagged it with a speedy delete notice. What I think happened is that the original editor removed the afd tag and I placed the speedy tag without noticing that he had removed the AfD tag. Dionyseus 03:04, 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 delete. — FireFox 20:28, 20 July '06

The New Clean[edit]

Article has no incoming/outgoing wikilinks, cites no sources, and returns no relevant Google results about the "movement". Might be vanity, advertisement, or original research; as HumbleGod points out, the phrase is likely a protologism. — Miles←☎ 03:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:NEO, 63 unique Ghits on '"The New Clean" indie,' few (if any) of which refer to this topic. -- H·G (words/works) 03:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article states: a clean, polished sound that references bands such as Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac and other clean pop masters of the '70s. Over thirty years and not one citation! Zos 04:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Satori Son 05:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & HG — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. G.He 00:22, 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 merge/redirect to Independent Green Party of Virginia. --Ezeu 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Parker[edit]

Independent Green Party candidate running for Senate in Virginia. Article notes that the candidate does not expect to win. Nominating for AfD as NN political candidate. -- H·G (words/works) 03:19, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Berglund[edit]

OK, one part in one film but doesn't make a mention in any of the reviews I have found. Fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 03:20, 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 speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-19 04:26Z

KMBS FM[edit]

L.G. has created KMBS FM, now with the same content I saw at KBIT FM (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBIT FM), and at KWLD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KWLD). Those two articles were created with a different username, but have very much the same content; I think those other names are sock puppets with User:L.G. and User:68.8.29.40.

68.8.29.40 has made literally hundreds of edits to List of urban-format radio stations in the United States. 68.101.241.195 might be inovlved in that, too. The edits were to add (or change, or rename, or otherwise diddle) with KWLD or KBIT FM or KBMS FM's listing in the San Diego market in that list topic.

Anyway: KBMS FM is now blank. Blank topics should be deleted. The previous versions of the topic show that we're talkinga bout the non-existant 92.3 FM radio station in the San Diego/TJ market again. The FCC says there's no such station [8] in FM; the station with the same call letters in AM is in Louisiana.Mikeblas 03:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom/blank page. Also, if you are having trouble with supposed socks, try an admin board. Zos 04:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commnet. I thought of using the admin board, but it specifically says "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour". -- Mikeblas 19:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD3. David Mestel(Talk) 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom and per blankitudity of the page. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as blank page. I think the author's realized we're not buying the 'unlicensed pirate station' story anymore. --DarkAudit 12:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per nom. Please also see my nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KFYT FM from this same user. This seems to be pretty epidemic for this user and their IP socks. Oddly, they have introduced stubs for actual radio stations too...but continue to diddle-edit long after the stub is established with very trivial changes per edit. But this gets away from the article at hand and more to the creator. ju66l3r 20:18, 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 was keep as nomination withdrawn -- Samir धर्म 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Matter What They Say[edit]

The information in this article is repeated in Lil' Kim JD[don't talk|email] 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and also because no pages link to it. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
  • Redirect to either Lil' Kim or The Notorious K.I.M.. Zos 04:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but I did minor expansion and minor copyedit. I can attempt to expand it further if it looks like it's now on the right track. GassyGuy 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After GassyGuy's edits, I really don't think this differs that much from existing album articles. Heck, little kim is certainly notable. Alphachimp talk 05:29, 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 gone in a flash... Grandmasterka 04:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace and Aqua[edit]

also listing Ace & Aqua, Not a notable forthcoming flash animation -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:32, 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 that when even the forum contributors want it gone, you know it's gotta be a deleet. Grandmasterka 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instant music[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 article for a non-notable WP:WEB forum/site. Alexa traffic rank (pirouzu.net): 1,179,445. 480 registered users. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular at said forum. This article's biased, inaccurate, and generally just a poor attempt at humor. Please delete it as soon as possible.--Joyeuse 03:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I came to this article on RC patrol. After reverting the vandalism to this article, I realized that the version I reverted to wasn't much better. This article is frivolously vulgar, nearly incoherent, and only tenuously distinguished from utter nonsense. John254 04:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 04:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see this article ever becoming useful or relevant. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 05:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete classic forum article fails WP:WEB and even includes the traditional attack on members' sexuality. Classic. Alphachimp talk 05:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John254. I don't really see a need for the AfdAnon template here - we haven't seen any meatpuppets, and everyone (including the contributors to the forum) seems to agree that it should be deleted. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After surviving the Eon8 AFD, I just don't risk it when nominating forums these days. = ) --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and spank their little bums! SilkTork 13:42, 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 was delete. Cool idea, though. Grandmasterka 05:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipoll[edit]

99 Ghits here. I am inherently sympathetic to any Wiki but this doesn't seem a particularly notable one unless other editors have further evidence.` BlueValour 03:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not assert notability. I also checked out the user list; very few users. Kalani [talk] 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is in the Meta list of proposed projects. I don't know if that counts for anything. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
  • Delete. Its one sentence! Zos 04:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it's a wiki, it sure isn't asserting any notability. Alphachimp talk 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Kalani. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I enjoyed filling in all the polls, but with only a handful of votes cast in them, the site will have to gain notability outside Wikipedia before it can be reported here. Stephen B Streater 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability assertion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boogle[edit]

Short stub without any information to support its notability. --Xrblsnggt 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article is entirely lacking in context. Even if context was established, I suspect that this article would only be cruft. Alphachimp talk 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea what this is about, so I clicked on the first link in the article, Raoh. I have no idea what that is about, either. If any of these are notable, they have some serious context issues that need to be addressed. GassyGuy 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp above. --Satori Son 05:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp and nom - non-notable. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bordering on WP:Nonsense. --Wine Guy Talk 09:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a character from Fist of the North Star, but with very little context. --DarkAudit 15:17, 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. Grandmasterka 05:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Florida Manatees[edit]

Non-notable soccer team. Google gives few results, and their playing record isn't too large. Kalani [talk] 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alphachimp talk 05:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this particular article were to be deleted, I would think many of the articles about teams in Category:United States soccer clubs (defunct) would need to be on the chopping block as well. This category, however, seems to be a rather important part of the history of soccer in the U.S. There were many professional teams that only played a couple of seasons because various leagues folded. In this sense, any professional soccer team in the U.S. asserts it's notability simply by having existed in the first place. --Wine Guy Talk 09:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above. --Wine Guy Talk 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep on the basis that the article further ascertains notability and makes it clear that the manatees are a now-defunct professional soccer team. Also, a bit about their league and a link to the Wikipedia article would be necessary as well. Per Wine Guy, the team is important in terms of the evolution of the sport in the US hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis they were once professional. Jcuk 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fg2 03:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wine Guy. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DC 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ste4k 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curry fetish[edit]

This page refers to a non-notable and slanderous neologism ("a Non-Indian person that has a preference for Indian women") that may be a racist expression amongst Indian Youth. Article is probably better suited for www.urbandictionary.com. Author removed my prod tag, I'm listing the article here. Alphachimp talk 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, unless notability (and probably non-offensive intent) can be proven. BigHaz 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per possible WP:NEO. Zos 04:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete racist neologisms made up by bored high school kids. Danny Lilithborne 07:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, possibly coloured by personal feelings... but mainly per all the above. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 10:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete racist slang is bad, crap racist slang is worse. --Howard Train 10:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologoism. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Offensive and not notable. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but encourage the editor to contribute further, as this was his first contribution -- Lost 11:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Lost. The editor had genuine intention of contributing to the project and he should be encouraged. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd agree with the consensus that it should probably be deleted as a not-yet-notable neologism, and lack of encyclopedic material in the article (it's just a slang dicdef), but manifestly the fact that an article is about "racist slang" does not mean that it should be deleted, if there is encyclopedic potential. We do have articles on ethnic slurs such as nigger, spic, and kike; wop is a redirect to List of ethnic slurs, and (as a more relevant example) a hatnote dab for yellow fever pointing to Asian fetish. Were it not that Asian fetish makes reference exclusively to East Asians, I would suggest a redirect there. --MCB 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just as non-notable. However, it is a variant on a genuine slang (and still nn) term. MLA 12:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research FancyPants 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No salting is necessary right now as it has not been recreated... I always put pages I delete on my watchlist though ;-). Grandmasterka 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genka[edit]

This is a vanity page, and not even completely factual. Roguelazer 04:55, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf breaks in Baja[edit]

Delete OR, UE, per prior mass AfD. Of the two sources, one is 404 and one is Mexbound.com, a promotion for User:Mexbound's firm. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Moe[edit]

Non-notable doujin (which is a nice way of saying unlicensed fanfic, most of the time) game. Google has nothing relevant, Whatlinkshere doesn't seem to indicate that it's important in any way, and there are no sources besides the game's official site (which is in Japanese). This was prodded, but the prod was removed without comment, which isn't helpful at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, 110 unique Ghits[9], which may owe more to the related concept of Moé. *shudder* Doesn't strike me as notable per proposed WP:SOFTWARE, and doesn't appear to satisfy any generic notability tests, either. -- H·G (words/works) 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; isn't the reason that there is nothing relevant on Google or other pages all the more of an indication that it is beneficial for such an article to exist? Many people use Wikipedia as well as Google for searching sources. It is particularly the fact that there was minimal information on the net that struck the idea that creating such a page might be helpful to people seeking information on the game. HOWEVER! If it is precisely the lack of information on the page that has led to the suggestion of deletion, please say so, and remedies can be made. If there are other reasons, please also say so; because, it is still quite confusing as to why submitting information on a game (not a detailed guide, but just one to introduce it) that doesn't have a lot of information on the rest of the net is a reason for deletion. If there exists an article on a subject that would be otherwise hard to find on Google, it might be better to keep it. Thank you. --FrostShaman 09:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no indication that there are any reliable sources that have ever commented on this game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are clear indications that this game is special in its own way. For one matter, as a Doujin game, it features not 1 on 1 combat, but 2 on 2, making it a more diverse form of multipler gameplay. Secondly, the terrain of the stages varies. In other words, there are raised platforms and whatnot, resembling those found in games such as the SSB series. Both of these factors are elements that many Doujin Fighting Games lack, making this one of the few that feature both. The definition of importance or the presence of reliable sources doesn't seem concrete, since, as mentioned, this game is in fact notable for bringing the elements of 4 players and a variant terrain into a Doujin game, and does the main site not count as a "reliable" site? Therefore, I still argue that this page should be kept. Thank you once again for your comments. --FrostShaman
        • The main site is a primary source. There are no secondary sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under the page Verifiability, it is not mentioned that any second source are needed so long as there is a site from which information is drawn from. It just so happens that the site is in Japanese, and, in accordance with deletion policies, sites of foreign languages or sites with verifiability problems are not absolute reasons for deletion/deletion may not be needed. It is because the game has little publicity that there are few sites pertaining to the information, and the very source of this information is the main site. So, unless it is doubted whether the main site provides information that contradicts what is written in this page, there should be no reason to doubt this verifiability. If anything else, I think the page should be keep, and, at the least, modified to a stub. --Caskyl
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 12:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not to have notability in any areas I can think of. --Charlesknight 13:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, the Notability section lists out specific points of notability, as it is true that few Fighing games, let alone Doujin games, have combinations of all these aspects. --Caskyl
  • Delete - Wikipedia articles are not created b/c they might be beneficial to the subject of the article. Also, it is not enough that subject is special in any way. Also, Wikipedia does not list every Doujin game there is. Shinhan 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it mentioned anywhere that Wikipedia should list out and talk about all Doujin games. It only seems to be hinted that this page is potentially helpful to those who seek information on the game, and, if I recall correctly, articles on Wikipedia should not be bound by restraints as long as it doesn't violate any rules or regulations. And here, it doesn't seem like any of the regulations are seriously violated. --Caskyl
      • I wish it were not so, but notability guidelines are here to stay, and this game is definitelly not notable. Find some other way to promote your game and come back here once you get enough media attention to merit a wikipedia article. Shinhan 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article may be useful to someone, harmless, and not violate rules "seriously" but it's still nn. Tychocat 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to some features not enjoyed by many more "notable" fighting games (i.e. the Soul Calibur series), it also features a number of characters from popular Japanese products which most certainly *are notable. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. 24.161.191.234 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This anons edits are only to this AFD. Shinhan 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, it seems to be unlicensed fanwork based on those characters, and there's so much of that that a line has to be drawn. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, however, one must take into account the bizarrely unique methodology that goes around in the world of doujinshi. It's a veritable phenomenon, which I assume stems from the fact that Japanese copyright laws either (A) allow for such things vs. more contemporary Western laws, or (B) nobody bothers to enforce them if they do. Just because we do not understand it, or do not think it is useful, doesn't mean it's worth chucking out a window. Furthermore, you have to admit, it's a well-written article; that in and of itself is with at least a small margin of error on the side of "keep" in the Wikipedia of today. 24.161.191.234 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ack, sorry for not putting this in above. Anyway, for those of us who are not satisfied with what we find on Google, mayhaps it is worth a search in the game's native Japanese? I went ahead and did it for you, have a look. 24.161.191.234 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hate to delete things people spend a lot of time on, but can't make a case for keep. Spent 20 mins google searching and couldn't even turn up a blog or forum post. - Wickning1 14:53, 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 was kept no consensus - defaults to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video game events and occurrences, Computer and video game character stereotypes, Computer and video game settings[edit]

Unverified original research; fails WP:V and WP:OR criteria. Also, the article doesn't explain exactly how many video games a theme/characteristic/setting has to be in to be considered a stereotype or cliche. Is five to ten enough or does it have to be fifty or higher?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unverifiable original research.--John Lake 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD, while actually for the article Computer and video game clichés, is relevant here as the version of the article then discussed[10] included these topics, which were apparently split off later. I don't have an opinion yet myself on this. BryanG(talk) 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, note that many of the stereotypes and cliches listed in the nominated articles apply to other forms of media, such as literature, movies, and television shows.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons discussed in the previous AfD, though these should be moved so there's some sort of consistency between the computer and video game cliché articles. Ace of Sevens 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anorak cruft doktorb wordsdeeds 10:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. These conventions are all arguably relevant to computer and video game culture, as well as genre, and it's not OR because examples are cited. --SevereTireDamage 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, The nominated articles are unverified and original reasearch since the examples included must be cited from reliable sources such as books, websites, or magazines; not from the research of the users editing the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Cleanup Reasons per Ace of Sevens and SevereTireDamage. As it stands, the article is admittedly borderline junk but it looks like it may be salvageable. An article on the recurring themes of video games seems pretty important. The charge of original research is probably true, but irrelevant. "Original research" these days usually just means a user came up with an idea he thought was his own, except that other more important people already thought of it (in short, the "original research" probably has unintended references online, so in practice, it's not original research). I'll give the creators some time to sort it out. Note that the article was made only a month ago. -- Solberg 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Keep as these are definitely not OR. Computer games are commonly used as the source for articles about computer games. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good article, but original research. Needs citations. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not Original Research since it's only mentioning well observed and established facts without forming WP:OR conclusions, opinions and WP:POV. Most (if not all) are verifiable and don't need citations since the names of the games where the cliches are observed are the sources. Pictureuploader 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep just give time to find refrences or evidence it is pubic domain..[11] --Bud0011 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ste4k 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is important and not really original research Yuckfoo 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a subpage of Wikiproject CVG until sourced. Kotepho 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lampshade (framework)[edit]

I'm questioning the notability of this article (WP:SOFTWARE, WP:CORP) and whether if it's just advertisement (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not). Using the same reasoning, I'm also nominating the related article Think Computer which is the company that makes the mentioned software package. Looking forward to your comments, Saeed Jahed 06:13, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington Refinery (Shell)[edit]

This article is about a refinery. Nobody seems to care since the page has not been edited (except for minor wikying tweaks) since its creation 8 months ago. The Shell refinery (which the article is about) is only the 10th refinery (in terms of output) in the state of California [12]. Pascal.Tesson 06:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom., or move to a more suitable list if it exists, hopefully not. (I hate lists). Rob 09:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NN.--Wine Guy Talk 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia does not have any requirements about recency of editing or ranking of refineries. Fg2 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please no real reason for deletion Yuckfoo 06:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be more precise, I think this fails WP:CORP. Obviously I am not saying that the page should be deleted because it has not been edited or because it is not a top-ranking one. I am just pointing out the indications of the limited importance of the refinery. Pascal.Tesson 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable industrial location. -- GWO
  • Delete as non-notable, but I sincerely hope that lack of edits is not an indicator of importance. If anything, it is an indicator of systemic bias. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wp:ver Ste4k 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Agenda[edit]

Article describes a non-notable piece of fan fiction. Most Google hits for "Submission Agenda" looked irrelevant. BryanG(talk) 06:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's erotic fanfiction. It's garbage. Get rid of it. Danny Lilithborne 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual pieces of fanfic are highly unlikely to meet the notablity standards of Wikipedia --SJK 09:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously NN according to Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also Danny, the content of the subject the article talks about is not important, only the matter of whether it is encyclopedic (which this certainly is not). Shinhan 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what I meant. Is there any erotic fanfiction with a page on Wikipedia? Danny Lilithborne 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Quite possibly. But this is still not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slash fiction has pretty big list of very famous slash fanfiction, and NONE of them has their own article. Shinhan 22:27, 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 was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have worn dreadlocks[edit]

Is this article fit for an encyclopedia? Doesn't it qualify as listcruft? Ethii 06:26, 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 all. Mailer Diablo 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji Adamu Bello[edit]

Abandoned by its creator. Doesn't convey any real information right now. Delete unless someone actually puts information here. --Nlu (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

For the same reason. --Nlu (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nigeria is the largest country in Africa. It is proper that WP has articles on its Government Ministers. I hope this will attract some interest. --Bduke 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that are just a mishmash ("Minister of ??" sort of things). The fact that Nigeria is the most populous (not largest) country in Africa notwithstanding, the articles would need to cover more ground than this to be keepable. BigHaz 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. DEAR SIRS, I GOT YOUR CONTACT FROM A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE THAT INFORMED ME YOU HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF TRANSACTING A

BUSINESS OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE--the massive cleanup of articles created with empty templates and left to die. Cursory checks of Google show that at least some of these guys can be verifiably confirmed as people holding these ministry positions, meaning they don't fail WP:BIO. -- H·G (words/works) 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I should phrase this better to be more clear--meets WP:BIO as political figures verifiably holding national offices. -- H·G (words/works) 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Being a minister in a large country is inherently notable. Stubbiness is not a deletion criterion. -- GWO
  • Keep per Gareth. The articles need to be fleshed out, but the subjects are notable. Cheers to HumbleGod for the good laugh. GassyGuy 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll give them some cleanup. Punkmorten 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, but the information about them isn't plentiful. But at least the ugliness is gone. Punkmorten 21:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the stubs are of notable people and with Punkmorten cleaning them up, I'm sure the notability will be verified, and who knows? Perhaps one day we'll see one of these articles on the main page hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Park3r 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Dlyons493 Talk 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. We should encourage the creation of such articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Yay for systemic bias. --ColourBurst 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stubs. Ste4k 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please help reverse systemic bias Yuckfoo 07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nn-band. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hairy Monster[edit]

Proposal for deletion removed without explanation. It's a simple case really: a band that "currently in the process of releases its self-titled debut album" fails WP:MUSIC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, at least until after the album (and thus the band) becomes notable. BigHaz 07:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how did I know that at least one major source for this article would be MySpace? 178 mostly unrelated unique Ghits, no presence on allmusic, not even an album released yet. Fails WP:MUSIC by miles. -- H·G (words/works) 07:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged it accordingly. -- Captain Disdain 09:33, 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 Delete It sort of claims importance but doesn't explain or substantiate it, and niether do the keep advocates. I'm sure it will be fine to be recreated when substantiation arises.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Galleria at Roseville[edit]

Article about a non-notable mall (precedent). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the precedent hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wine Guy Talk 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why this should be deleted. Please give me suggestions to keep it running! (EM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.187.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. If it becomes notable, then it can be added later. R.E. Freak 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six years after it first opened, it has become one of the most important shopping malls in the Sacramento region. Deleting this would only encourage the deletion of other existing mall articles and set a very bad precedent in the process. Cleanup would be more logical for this promising article...Ranma9617 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important how? Important enough to be in an encyclopedia? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It wouldn't be in an encyclopedia, but if that is the way you are thinking maybe wikipedia should be shut down because there are already websites to find regular encyclopedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.167.42 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Thank you for supporting me. Not only is this one of the most, if not the most, important malls in the Sacramento, it is also in the top 3 of the suburban malls in Westfield Group portfolio. I told them that they can give me suggestions to keep it from being deleted, i am open to ideas because I still have more stuff to put on here.
  • Delete, completely non-notable, shopping malls are everywhere. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Then you might as well go around a delete every webpage for every mall that is on wikipedia. There are probably hundreds of them. Also, there are a lot more starbucks than malls so maybe you should delete their page also. Plus, there aren't tons of malls over a million square feet in this country and there aren't many with sales of $600 a square feet and with a Tiffany & Company coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.167.42 (talk • contribs)
    • I would love to, actually, unless there is something notable about them. That is the standard we hold other subjects to - why not malls? The Starbucks argument is invalid, because there is a page for the entire corporation, not each individual location. I am fine with an article about a company that runs malls, like Westcor, but not articles for every mall. You are trying to assert notability here in this discussion, but why not in the article? --Aguerriero (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would want to make the article more "notable" but I am still sitting here talking to you guys debating whether this article will be deleted or not. I don't want to spend time adding on to the article if you are going to delete it. Also, the people who actualy shop at this mall should have somewhere to get info about it. The mall's own website is never updated and has hardly any useful information on it. There are numerous other Westfield malls that have their own websites so I don't see why this one can't. (EM)
  • Delete per nom and precedent. I don't see anything in the article to distinguish it from the recently deleted Triangle Town Center. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Logan City suburbs[edit]

WP:NOT Listcruft - we'd need tens of thousands of lists like this to cover the world. John Nagle 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, WP:NOT paper. See also List of Brisbane suburbs, List of Melbourne suburbs, List of Sydney suburbs, and many many others. --Cornflake pirate 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Given that Logan's a large area, it makes sense to have this list and isn't really putting us at risk of a slippery slope "to cover the world" as yet. BigHaz 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion, what you should be asking is if this warrants a merge into the main page for Logan City, Queensland, "the third largest city in Queensland...[and] one of the fastest growing urban areas in Australia." Un-redlink them and merge them into that page, perhaps, but this really isn't the place for discussing that. -- H·G (words/works) 07:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge in Logan City. The existence of other, similar bad articles is not a reason to keep bad articles. -- GWO
Comment, I can't speak for all of them, but the Brisbane one is certainly being gradually improved and added to. A long process, I'll grant you, but I'd imagine that this one could end up going the same way. BigHaz 09:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did not actually give a reason why this article is "bad". --Cornflake pirate 10:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BUT... while I don't think the list is encyclopaedic, I think that the creation of a category and a template would be acceptable to serve the same purposes. Each of the pages in the category Suburbs of Logan City or whatever could contain the template, which would still show which suburbs had info present and which did not. GassyGuy 09:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - why is category and a template more encyclopedic than a list? To me it sounds like more work for close to the same outcome. See also [13] and Wikipedia:Categories_vs_lists. --Cornflake pirate 10:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was giving an alternative to achieve the same purposes that I would find more acceptable. Nobody has to make one if it's too much effort, but that doesn't exactly make me think any more highly of the list, if it's not even serving a purpose that would still be worthwhile if x amount of extra effort had to be put into achieving it. GassyGuy 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On an additional note, I had never seen the categories vs. lists page before. I have to say, it's one of the least convincing essays I've read on here. Not impressed and not seeing how it supports this article. GassyGuy 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token delete, replace with category and/or listing in Logan City. Doesn't qualify as CSD:A3, although if they were external links it would. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Keep is okay too. JYolkowski // talk 14:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Logan City, Queensland. --Wine Guy Talk 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs annotation. --JJay 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly good list, of whicht there are others of its kind. Jcuk 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful list for people working on improving coverage of Logan City. Capitalistroadster 01:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Logan City, Queensland, as above. QazPlm 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As it is, a merge is definitely possible, but if annotated this could well be worth a separate article - consider, for instance Suburbs of Dunedin, for an example of what could be done with an article like this. Grutness...wha? 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought the dreadlocks list was more interesting. Cedars 09:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need to have this on a separate page. Not also that the lists of suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne cover whole metropolitan areas, not simply a local government area. JPD (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above--Nick Y. 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redcruft. Ste4k 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safeworking[edit]

Appears to be original research. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's definitely original research at the moment. But what this needs is references and a rewrite, not deletion. A quick search of Google[14] reveals that this is a widely-used term in the profession. Tag it for cleanup and rewrite. -- H·G (words/works) 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've asked the main contributor if he'd like to improve the article. [15]
  • Nothing original about it. Have references for all of it. But don't have much time to add to it at the moment. Does Nlu think I made it all up?

--Michael Johnson 09:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually really don't care. If you want to delete it go ahead, and I'll return to the subject when I have more time.--Michael Johnson 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The article looks quite interesting, so we could try a dated cleanup tag for a bit. If no one helps, we can always delete later. If the subject is notable, a new article will arrive in due course. Stephen B Streater 10:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per H·G. --Wine Guy Talk 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The overall term for procedures and systems that assist with the safe operation of trains and the protection of work sites and staff on rail infrastructure. Ste4k 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel G. Havermale[edit]

Close, but I don't think shows sufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Through and through the article, I can't find any assertion of notability, although it is not badly written. Fails WP:BIO in its current form. Alphachimp talk 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in almost every single volume of early Spokane history. He has an entire section of the city named for him. I'd say that's awfully notable. Wjhonson 17:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems locally notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpeedyStrong Keep please see Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests, although I think Havermale meets any reasonable interpretation of notability. --Wine Guy Talk 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep implies that the nomination was made in bad faith. Please revisit your wording. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. I was unaware of that implication and certainly meant no offense; thanks for the correction. I'll watch my strongs and speedys from now on. --Wine Guy Talk 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article is under-construction. So it's a bit pre-mature to AfD it :) Another historian forwarded to me today, an article on him, and I've linked it on the page, but haven't extracted all the data yet. Maybe Zoe will upgrade her weak based on the new notability data. Wjhonson 06:13, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Toshok[edit]

Apparent vanity page about non-notable programmer and hacker. The google test returns 135 unique ghits [16] (not that much for someone who has a blog). The article has been built by a sole user with very few other edits (contributions) and includes less than encyclopedic info such as the guy's piercings and his hobbies as a young AirForce recruit. Only very small claim to fame: Toshok was once raided by the FBI but cleared of any accusations. Pascal.Tesson 07:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --SJK 09:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The FBI thing barely keeps this from being speedied under CSD:A7, I suppose. -- Captain Disdain 09:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., vanity. Rob 10:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity. --Wine Guy Talk 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Since notablity is not policy, I would like to note that this really fails to assert it's importance. This one you don't need such a weak and biased argument as "notibility" —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classitis[edit]

Classitis is a companion term for the neologism Divitis (also nominated). See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Google suggests "classitis" is nowhere near as popular as its proponents seem to believe. mjb 07:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as unimportant neologisms. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 287 unique Ghits[17] indicates it's not too widely used. Slightly weaker here than with divitis, and if a few coders can back this up, I'll be more likely to buy it. -- H·G (words/works) 08:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. A mention of this sort of thing in CSS is appropriate; a separate unexpandable article stub isn't. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Pboyd04 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divitis[edit]

Divitis is a neologism that appears to have a longer history than its companion term classitis (also nominated), but seems no more deserving of an article, to me. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. mjb 07:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as unimportant neologisms. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, few unique Ghits in English[18], strikes me as a neologism. -- H·G (words/works) 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. A mention of this sort of thing in CSS is appropriate; a separate unexpandable article stub isn't. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don´t Delete" is totally cool, and helps ppl to learn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio anchors (Davao)[edit]

Listcruft. I have checked the radio stations which do have WP entries, but none of the "anchors" that I checked were on WP. I have no trouble adding Delete to this article. --Richhoncho 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified listcruft. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incidentally, the author of this article has create many, many similar lists. I am attempting to go through and prod all of them. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:24, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guy syndrome[edit]

There is no such thing as "Nice guy syndrome." It isn't listed in the DSM-IVR. The article as it is is nothing but but one man's theories on certain men's dating woes and a compare and contrast with other questionable theories about dating. The talk page and the archived talk page for this article repeatedly call for deletion. Some people are pretty outraged that this kind of article is allowed to exist on Wikipedia. It has been nominated recently for deletion and it hasn't gotten any better. It's time to pull the plug on this one. Erik the Rude 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was also nominated two months ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice guy syndrome.
It was also nominated in May 2004: Talk:Nice_guy_syndrome/Delete.

 --LambiamTalk 12:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR and the reasoning of Catamorphism, this is nothing more than "pseudoscience masquerading as a legitimate concept (the low quality of the sources cited should be enough of a clue there.) Having an article on this implies that "nice guy syndrome" is an objectively recognizable concept like "cancer" or "schizophrenia". It's not. The idea that such a "syndrome" exists is a hypothesis floated in a few popular books, and we shouldn't legitimize it; at best, it could be mentioned in an article on folk psychological theories or on the sociology of heterosexual relationships in the US." --Hetar 07:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar. -- H·G (words/works) 07:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hella OR. Danny Lilithborne 09:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar. --SJK 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete almost completely unsourced and similarly almost all original research and outright speculation. I've been trying to tag all the unsourced material. If we went through and removed it we'd be left with maybe two sentences in the article. Despite OR, NPOV, and citation needed tags, the article remains unimproved and should be removed. Gwernol 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOR and fails to assert any verification in medical or psychiatry journals (only source is from a US university that is not defining any legitimacy as a medical condition) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per all the above. Sure, this phenomenon happens. So do plenty of other phenomena in the dating world, such as reluctance to date single parents, or anger at friends for setting up a bad blind date, or high school sweethearts reuniting after twenty years. All those things happen, and none of them warrants a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, as much as I'm sure - no, actually, I know - that sometimes a woman will turn down a man with some permutation of "You're a really nice guy and all, but...", there's no way of knowing whether or not that is really the reason for her rejection. Being turned down / turning someone down is a sensitive and emotionally charged situation, and what people say may not be the best indicator of how they actually feel. Isn't it quite possible that the woman in question is trying to be "nice" and feels more comfortable telling her suitor that he's "too nice," rather than, "I think you're immature," or "You're okay, I guess, but I hate all your friends" or "I just don't find you the least bit attractive"? Basically, you're left with a lot of speculation and anecdotal evidence, as Gwernol pointed out, and none of that adds up to much of an article. - Tapir Terrific 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for the fourth time. This article violates at least three core Wikipedia policies, and has violated them for years. My last three deletion votes sum up my view on this article, and it has only deteriorated in each successive deletion attempt. --Quintin3265 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic folk-psychology cruft. All folk-psychology topics should be AfDed. —optikos 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic folk-psychology cruft. -- GWO
  • Delete However, I disagree strongly with the nom; there is such a thing as the "Nice guy syndrome", whether it's documented or not. Until we can build an article from sources, delete the article we do have. There's too much original research in the present one to save it. Vadder 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the keep votes from the original AFD were weak, and the article has not been improved. My original comments still stand. Catamorphism 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • opion I am a taiwanese, and in Taiwan ,Nice guy syndrome(好人文化) is a popular word in internet culture , TV shows, and even the speaking among Taiwanese adolescents.If wikipedia is the resourse of the knoeledge of humam being, I suggest that the Nice guy syndrome should be recorded.--Alltonight 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but disagree with nom per Vadder. A "nice guy" article should be written from scratch that describes the archetype of "nice guys" in popular culture. That article can briefly mention Glover's book and claims of a "nice guy syndrome." Nice guy syndrome should eventually redirect to that page. --SecondSight 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article needs definite clean up, but should not be deleted. Where I live, Southern California, it is a common phrase used to describe nice, or love-shy males who can never find a relationship. The fact that this is not a clinically defined term is irrelevant as it is prevalent in popular culture. Again, this article should be cleaned up, not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkfp2004 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SELFHTML[edit]

Obviously spam. French and German versions should go, too. mjb 07:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:WEB, and no reliable sources. French and German versions will need to be proposed for deletion on their own Wikipedias. --Hetar 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar --SJK 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar (it's always per Hetar ;) ) RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 20:23, 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 wtf delete!. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck recipe[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of online in-jokes. -- Samir धर्म 07:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that WP is not intended to be used for arbitrary in-jokes, but once they have gained a certain notoriety is it not valid material for an article. I again reference the O RLY article, which started as a small in-joke, but gained popularity and became an internet phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Low-Key (talk • contribs)

  • Comment If this joke makes it to the huge level of popularity that the O RLY jokes have, then I expect we'll see it back here. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we can't predict that this joke will explode anytime soon. Maybe we can BJify this at best. -- H·G (words/works) 07:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. WP is not a place for listing bad Internet jokes. -- H·G (words/works) 07:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, obviously, since I placed the original AfD tag. RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Definitely fits WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakart (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 July 2006
  • Delete per nom, and I hope this doesn't become notable. Not even remotely amusing. GassyGuy 09:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching Google for "What the fuck", "recipe" and "spaghetti" gets about 15K hits, but after looking through the first hundred or so, I saw nothing that had anything to do with this stuff. Searching for "what the fuck recipe" gets zero hits. I was gonna go with that, but then I thought, "well, hell, those aren't terribly unusal words, I guess I might be missing some kind of a secret significant phenomenon here." So I added "pepper" to the first set of search words, what with "shitload pepper" being one of the key ingredients here, just to see if it'd show up at all. I got a little less than 700 hits. After quickly checking out the first hundred or so I still didn't have a hit. For an internet joke, that's downright pathetic. I'd say the primary problem with this article is not that it's an internet joke, it's that I can't even confirm that it exists in the first place. -- Captain Disdain 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP:BJAODN. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and dont move to BJAODN, its not even funny. Shinhan 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [scoffs] Go somewhere else for this kind of stuff. This is NOT the place for your bull. EXTREME DELETE. Mattderojas 20:45, 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 speedy delete. Coffee 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Fox (diver)[edit]

Nonnotable, vanity page. OCNative 08:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humba Wumba[edit]

nn Fancruft. Dakart 08:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samari[edit]

I am fairly convinced this is a hoax, no relevant Ghits. OTOH It could be an Iranian word and therefore may not show up in an english approximation. I did check the other words and nothing showed except for WP entries. --Richhoncho 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Samari is a kind of brown bear that can be found in jungles in Mazandaran, Iran." Excuse, jungles of Iran? I smell a hoax, unless you want to believe that the article's creator (who clearly isn't a native speaker of English) doesn't know the difference between forest and jungle. Personally, I'm not feeling that charitable. -- Captain Disdain 15:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:NOR.--Wine Guy Talk 23:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Knuth[edit]

Not notable. Writing a book on liturgy, or a magazine column, doesn't make one notable unless the book/column is particularly important/significant/well-known -- and I've seen no indication that her writings are. And having a notable spouse does not make one notable either. SJK 08:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BigHaz 09:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kalani [talk] 09:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the future everybody will be on WP - for 15 minutes! --Richhoncho 10:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think that's probably half done already, Richhoncho. Srose (talk) 15:53, 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 speedy delete (CSD A1) – Gurch 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Songbird ov Summer Place[edit]

Author claims that the page is under construction, and that they are the only person who should edit the page. They have put the page in a catagory that doesn't exist, along with adding a strange un-needed title. Google throws up two very low traffic web pages that are under construction, and link to one another. The page contains no information at all, and appears to be used experimentally, or as information about upcoming pages on Wikipedia, it is hard to understand. Whatever this thing is, it is non-notable. Didn't put this up for speedy simply because I have never seen a page like this before. I say delete, but it is hard to tell... J Milburn 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looking at the creator's userpage makes me think it could well be a userpage mistakenly turned into an article (either that or the plot's even thicker, since they're both the same). There've been two edits - one anonymous and one by the creator - removing the AfD notice. Both have been reverted and the editors warned. BigHaz 10:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my initial feeling now seems more justified. The user seems to be experimenting with the Wiki, so I've suggested that he/she/they read the Welcome page. BigHaz 10:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per J Milburn. --Howard Train 10:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A3 (no content other than rephrasing the title and an external link). --Metropolitan90 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A1 or A3, no content or context. --Kinu t/c 17:52, 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 speedy delete. Coffee 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall To Hell[edit]

nn game mod, back after previous deletetion Howard Train 10:28, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Brockman Esq b1626[edit]

Non-notable; Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the ISNOT page and there is no mention of "wikipedia is not a genealogical database". There is however an entry of "Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule-making". Is this an excorcise in rulemaking? Sandwich Eater 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is the section Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. As I said elsewhere, there's been repeated precdent for deletion on grounds of Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Tearlach 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it!This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and WP:BIO. These people are not notable or of any sort of wide public or media interest. The sources are obscure genealogical compilations. --MCB 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I originated the article and I have had a lot of inquiries and communications about it. I think it is of reasonable interest to enough people to leave it in. Brockmanah 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing in the article indicating why the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete besides the awful title, it fails WP:BIO. Danny Lilithborne 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is properly sourced and notability is completely arbitrary. Titles of nobility seem to be a criteria applied to notability and I don't agree with that. Trying to apply all these rules to wikipedia is going to hurt wikipedia, not help it.66.30.202.173 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.30.202.173
Sockpuppet' - unless it's coincidence that this IP address editor and Brockmanah both sign with Regards, ABrockman [19] [20] Tearlach 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tearlach it is a coincidence. I think it would be helpful if you could actually address the argument. Other commenters are willing to admit that titles of nobility confer notability, but landed gentry in the UK might be a bit too far. 66.30.202.173 01:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Perhaps a single article on the Manor could be written, but if the most interesting things about it are that it was used by the military during WWII (what wasn't used by the military in England during WWII??) and is currently a B&B, then I doubt that would be worthwhile either. Postdlf 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best a single article on the manor as per Postdlf. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Brockman Esq[edit]

Non-notable: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the ISNOT page and there is no mention of "wikipedia is not a genealogical database". There is however an entry of "Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule-making". Is this an excorcise in rulemaking? Sandwich Eater 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is the section Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. As I said elsewhere, there's been repeated precdent for deletion on grounds of Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Tearlach 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it!This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and WP:BIO. These people are not notable or of any sort of wide public or media interest. The sources are obscure genealogical compilations. --MCB 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I originated the article and I have had a lot of inquiries and communications about it. I think it is of reasonable interest to enough people to leave it in. Brockmanah 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing in the article indicating why the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Suggest that similar results should also obtain for James Brockman Esq b1626; if nothing else the name should be standardised. Generally, holders of noble titles are notable per se without regard to individual accomplishments, but I'm not sure that this should extend to the entire landed gentry of England. Am open to argument one way or another. Some of the Brockmans in the series were in fact apparently worthy subjects in themselves. Smerdis of Tlön 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other Brockman article. Danny Lilithborne 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThese are properly sourced, who cares whether the subjects have titles of nobility if that seems to be the criteria wikipedia is going by these days.66.30.202.173 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.30.202.173
Sockpuppet - unless it's coincidence that this IP address editor and Brockmanah both sign with Regards, ABrockman [21] [22] Tearlach 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a coincidence. Could you address the argument Tearlach, or at least admit that titles of nobility constitute notability on wikipedia as Ihcoyc notes? Perhaps that's the truth of it - a title of nobility is notable. Landed gentry are a step too far. 66.30.202.173

keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Postdlf 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best a single article on the manor as per Postdlf under the first of these four AFD's. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No fame or achievement, not notable.

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Brockman Esq.[edit]

NN genealogical entry: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the ISNOT page and there is no mention of "wikipedia is not a genealogical database". There is however an entry of "Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule-making". Is this an excorcise in rulemaking? Sandwich Eater 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is the section Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. As I said elsewhere, there's been repeated precedent for deletion on grounds of Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Tearlach 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it!This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and WP:BIO. These people are not notable or of any sort of wide public or media interest. The sources are obscure genealogical compilations. --MCB 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I originated the article and I have had a lot of inquiries and communications about it. I think it is of reasonable interest to enough people to leave it in. Brockmanah 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing in the article indicating why the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other Brockman article. Also note username of author. Danny Lilithborne 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is properly sourced and notability is completely arbitrary. Titles of nobility seem to be a criteria applied to notability and I don't agree with that. Trying to apply all these rules to wikipedia is going to hurt wikipedia, not help it.66.30.202.173 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.30.202.173
Sockpuppet' - unless it's coincidence that this IP address editor and Brockmanah both sign with Regards, ABrockman [23] [24] Tearlach 00:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tearlach it is a coincidence. I think it would be helpful if you could actually address the argument. Other commenters are willing to admit that titles of nobility confer notability, but landed gentry in the UK might be a bit too far. 66.30.202.173 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Genealogycruft. --Wine Guy Talk 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best a single article on the manor as per Postdlf under the first of these four AFD's. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, if you look up James Brockman a singer/songwriter most people have never heard of pops up. James Brockman esq. actually had a bit of noteriety. He served as a Sheriff of Kent and was a reasonably successful business man and that sort of thing. These guys were famous enough that there are "Brockman Papers" in the British museum.
Note 2 - I understand that a lot of people don't want a genealogical strand in wikipedia but I think these articles may not be the articles your looking for (while doing my best obe wan kenobe impression).Sandwich Eater 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Drake-Brockman[edit]

Contested prod. NN: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the ISNOT page and there is no mention of "wikipedia is not a genealogical database". There is however an entry of "Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule-making". Is this an excorcise in rulemaking? Sandwich Eater 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is the section Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. As I said elsewhere, there's been repeated precdent for deletion on grounds of Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Tearlach 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it!This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and WP:BIO. These people are not notable or of any sort of wide public or media interest. The sources are obscure genealogical compilations. --MCB 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I originated the article and I have had a lot of inquiries and communications about it. I think it is of reasonable interest to enough people to leave it in. Brockmanah 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing in the article indicating why the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Kill it before the entire ownership of the estate gets created. The succession box at the bottom of the page is frightening. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other Brockman article and note username of author. Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is properly sourced and notability is completely arbitrary. Titles of nobility seem to be a criteria applied to notability and I don't agree with that. Trying to apply all these rules to wikipedia is going to hurt wikipedia, not help it.66.30.202.173 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.30.202.173
Sockpuppet' - unless it's coincidence that this IP address editor and Brockmanah both sign with Regards, ABrockman [25] [26] Tearlach 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tearlach it is a coincidence. I think it would be helpful if you could actually address the argument. Other commenters are willing to admit that titles of nobility confer notability, but landed gentry in the UK might be a bit too far. 66.30.202.173 01:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Landed gentry is too far, tho perhaps a single article on each landed estate might be acceptable. Peers in the UK were automatically notable becuase they were in Parliament. With the reforms of the House of Lords, I wouldn't say that is the case for 21st century peers tho. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best a single article on the manor as per Postdlf under the first of these four AFD's. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G5. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Xiangzhi Molded Pulp Company[edit]

Spam for a non-notable corporation. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spam: Xiangzhi has a strong history of meeting customer requirements by ensuring on-time deliveries of both tooling and product. Hmmmmm....NPOV? Alphachimp talk 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect. This article is one that has been constantly reposted by the Moldedpulp spammer and deleted under different names many times. I've tagged it for speedy recreated. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:07, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Force Aliança[edit]

The article is about an alliance of players in the MMORPG Dark Throne and is not notable.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable alliance. Predictably, it only gets 19 Ghits for its own name. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable gamecruft. Alphachimp talk 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps some exceptional player groups in MMORPGs have some degree of significance. I see no indication that this is such a group. -- Captain Disdain 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable clan. --Zoz (t) 19:22, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharry Edwards[edit]

I'm sorry about the length of the nomination, but I felt it was necessary so that participants are not fooled by appearances. There are many problems with this article, which is about a person who claims to be able to heal and diagnose people through sound (a problem in itself). First, it was written by the subject's lawyer, AKA "The Vitamin Lawyer" and AKA "High Priest, who pretended to be just a fan on the talk page. He has been disciplined (PDF) for practicing law without authorization in Ohio on her behalf. She has needed a lawyer on many occasions because she is frequently involved in lawsuits. Her bank seized all of her funds in 2004. She claimed that it was because someone took a loan out posing as her. However, I found nothing about it from a reliable source. She claimed that they asked her for the funds for seven years, but the bank refused to provide a copy of some documents (there is nothing about whether she used legal means to answer the charges or force them to give here a copy (if they truly didn't) until after they took the money). The method that they allegedly used to obtain the money sounds scummy, but the bank did win in court, which makes me think her claim of someone else using her identity might be false. Given the frequency of injustices in court systems, this is not certain, however.

Second, while she may have done some legitimate work, or at least some less insane work, she makes many outlandish claims. Here is a quote from an ad for a VHS tape of hers, "Sharry Edwards' uniquely healing voice is quantified at a University as a collection of frequencies with measurable qualities. Now science merges with ancient wisdom through the work of Sharry Edwards. Using her unusual capacities for hearing and toning, Sharry has pioneered an amazing technology that transfers her abilities to anyone who wants to work with sound and the healing arts." Note that the "University" is not given a name. Here is more stuff from a different advertisement, "Sharry created combinations of Frequency Equivalents that dissolve the protective coating around a pathogen so the white blood cells can destroy it." "She is researching to see if the right frequencies, played by select radio stations (even at inaudible levels) may be protective from the effects of biochemical warfare."

She did win the O. Spurgeon English Humanitarian Award. However, it seems to be an extremely obscure award and might even be a scam itself. "Spurgeon English Humanitarian Award" ("O" is omitted to increase the results) only gets 19 unique Google results. Also, it is supposedly for humanitarian work, not bioacoustics, and I was unable to find any humanitarian work that she had performed. John Forbes Nash also received the award, but it is unclear what humanitarian work he has ever done, either. In addition, almost all of the other recipients are involved in new age and alternative medicine, not humanitarian work, including Oscar G. Rasmussen, who is mentioned on Quackwatch for being involved in "Commercial hair analysis... a bogus test used for prescribing dietary supplements." Betty Ford might be the only one who qualifies as a humanitarian of any kind. I suspect that she and Nash may have been given the award to make it seem credible and/or important.

The article claims she was published by the Acoustical Society of America, but the link given as proof makes it seem like she was just presenting a paper at a meeting or conference. Also, who knows what requirements there were, if any? Finally, the abstract makes less crazy claims than her other work, although they are still improbable, "The emerging Mathematical Model being assembled through Human Bioacoustic research likely has the potential to allow Vocal Profiling to be used to predict and monitor health issues from the very first cries of a newborn through the frequency foundations of disease and aging." Some problems may be detectable by voice analysis in the future (throat cancer?), but there are many, many problems that would not affect the quality of a person's voice at all. Also, I would think that it would be especially hard when dealing with newborns, as claimed, since there would be no previous voice sample for comparison.

You might be saying, "Okay, she is involved in some questionable stuff, but maybe she's notable for it." In my opinion, she is not. Also, I think that people have to be exceptionally well known to qualify for an article for being frauds. Her name in quotes gets 710 search results on Google, but only about 240 of them are unique (this is pushing the limits of Google's unique search result reliability, but the ratio of total pages to unique is credible). Of the unique hits, some are the websites that she owns or that her lawyer and his wife own, and many others are directory and advertisement type pages for new age medicine. I did not get any results on Google News, but that happens with a lot of notable people as well as non-notable ones. For all of these reasons, I think that the article should be deleted. Kjkolb 10:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. If she becomes more notable in the future (e.g. by being significantly covered in the media, for good reasons or bad), re-adding her could be considered. --SJK 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity - she doesn't appear very notable, and the involvement of the editor with the subject makes this a bigtime breach of the Wikipedia:Autobiography guidelines. Tearlach 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not because of the vanity/fruitcake aspect of the article but as failing WP:BIO. Cannot find multiple reputable reviews of her and the best sources are her articles in places like Nexus magazine - Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'm most emphatically not a fan of pseudoscientific woo-woo crap like this, but it's fortunate that in this instance, that's not even an issue, thanks to WP:BIO. -- Captain Disdain 15:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:BIO, WP:VSCA. --MCB 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per (the lengthy) nom. Em-jay-es 17:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per excellent nom Bwithh 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you had me at "Hello". Artw 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LOL, Artw. Well-written nomination, Kjkolb. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with infinite light. Danny Lilithborne 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep per WP:BIO#10. She and her organisation have been covered in the following newspaper stories:
    • Betty Booker (1997-03-10). "Tuning to Frequencies for Healing". Richmond Times - Dispatch.
    • John Hughes (1993-04-26). "Sound of Success". Sun Sentinel.
    Note: the texts of both articles are extremely kooky, in my opinion. I am categorically not endorsing any claims, scientific or otherwise, that she has made. One of her books has been cited in the following professional magazine article.
    • B. M. Thompson (1999-03/04). "The emerging field of sound training". IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine. 18 (2): 89–96. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) The entirety of her mention in this magazine article, which is an overview of the work of some unrelated person, is "Sharry Edwards [27], who has the ability to hear in extraordinary ranges of sound, created a method to identify the missing sounds in a person's voice and a machine to generate that vibratory sound in order to bring systemic balance to that person." (page 95)
    In the long chance that this article is kept, it needs to be rewritten with verifiable information from reliable sources. This means that it has to be reduced to a stub, because there isn't that much reliable info about her out there. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The criteria for actual scientists are set pretty high. The criteria for crackpot pseudo-scientists shoud be higher still. Wikipedia is not a list of everyone ever mentioned in the press. Reliable sources are necessary, but they ain't sufficient. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hayward[edit]

I'm at an impasse here. I'd tag this for speedy, but for the fact that they're supposed to star as an extra in a major motion picture. Now, what gets my goat is how one can 'star' as an extra. To quote the wikipedia itself is that an extra is one "who has no role or purpose other than to appear in the background (for example, in an audience or busy street scene)." One cannot be a star when their role is to appear in the background. If we take this out, we're left with little. I doubt we can verify they've been an extra anywhere, as extras are rarely credited. Take your pick, WP:BIO, the fact that wikipedia is not an indescriminant collection of information, and the lack of ability to verify their claims all pointing toward this article for deletion. Kevin_b_er 11:04, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LargeImageHost[edit]

not a notable website; limited third-party coverage; alexa rank of 1,451,322; fails WP:WEB zzuuzz (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the site is still currently under construction. -- RHaworth 13:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply not worth an article. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising --Xrblsnggt 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable advertising under construction (163 google hits!) Shinhan 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not an advertising service.--Crossmr 15:38, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Flame[edit]

not a notable website; alexa rank of 682,281; fails WP:WEB -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. My site is growing very quickly, and with a Pagerank of 3, we'll soon be much larger. Please leave this. Would it help if I updated it w/ a list of our many backlinks? "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." Backlinks should be sufficient to meet the criteria, correct?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FPSDavid (talk • contribs) 2006-07-16 07:48:03 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. "growing very quickly" and "we'll soon be much larger" does not equal notability. At best, it could equal future notability, albeit that is unlikely. And millions of websites have lots of links to them, or have a pagerank of 3.... --SJK 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yea but I have many higher PR backlinks, which equals alot of traffic, which means growing and higher PR soon. --FPSDavid 11:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing all aspects of WP:WEB. spamvertising is not what wikipedia is for --Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peripitus. FPSDavid: In the future, a reasonable test for notability is if someone OTHER THAN YOU independantly thinks that your site is worth listing in an encyclopedia. Whoring for traffic = article won't last long, and you likely won't get all that much from wikipedia in the first place. -- [User: Lesqual|Lesqual] 13:40, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCC Mall[edit]

This article reads too much like spam. Furthermore, I have seen this article in two more places: here and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today, which further arouses my suspicions. MER-C 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, provided it is significantly cut and rewritten in a NPOV way. Fabricationary 14:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stub. It looks notable, but yes, it's written like an advertisement. Should be slashed down to the bare facts; then relevant and well-sourced material can be re-added over time. Kickaha Ota 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per comments above. --Rehcsif 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article is too adverty, but It's been tagged, and I removed some of the worst promotional material from the introduction. Also tagged with {{advert}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Capital Foundation[edit]

  • Nominate - This article makes no assertion of why it is notable or proof that it even exists Рэдхот 12:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The Social capital article provides a website - Social Capital Foundation - and its events and seminars crop up on a good many academic listings (see Google). Tearlach 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Tearlach. Appears to be a real organization with a serious journal. Article author User:TSCF (associated with the subject organization) is semi-active in editing Belgium-related articles but hasn't been on for a while. While a vanity article, this isn't egregious self-promotion. My suggestion is to leave a note for TSCF asking for the article to be expanded. Phr (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand • I added "See also" and "External links" sections and Category:Community building. The general topic "social capital" is notable and this .org is exemplary, and will be listed at Community foundations and elsewhere if kept. See WP:CBTF • CQ 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Ken Dyers and Kenja Communications merged to Kenja Communication. --Ezeu 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dyers and Kenja Communications[edit]

This is not a biography (and if it aims to be a biography, a look at WP:LIVING is recommended). This is not even an encyclopedic article, 50% of its content is For a detailed history of Cornelia Rau, and some information on the Kenja Communication group, go to the following site to view an article by Robert Manne, Senior Professor at La Trobe University, and correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age.. Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. --Pjacobi 12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some sex offenders are notable for their high publicity cases, leading to this being more than a simple registry. Ansell 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-Fails both WP:BIO and WP:CORP as neither the person or the company is notable. --Wine Guy Talk 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware of the implications of the particular controversy being referenced in the article. It was a major Australian scandal and as such reaches notability for me. Why exactly did this not in your view meet the "guidelines" you referenced? Ansell 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a well known cult in Australia especially given the claims about Cornelia Rau who was in the news recently. The sexual claim also had extensive coverage. It could possibly form two articles. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Him & his group are notable in Australia, both for the Cornelia Rau angle & the sexual abuse allegations. (Or should I say, as notable as many other fringe cult groups accused of crimes.) --SJK 09:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Merge -- given that we have a Kenja Communication article, I would merge this article to Kenja Communications. (Thanks to Pjacobi for pointing it out.) --SJK 09:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the keep voters: articles nominated for deletion are not write-protected in any way. If you are able to make this miserable entry into something encyclopedic, please by any means, do so! --Pjacobi 10:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version without prejudice for a new article. If kept, rename to Ken Dyers and/or Kenja Communications. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Kenja Communications in my opinion, as Ken Dyers is notable only within the company context, and the whole company is notable for the incident. Possibly have a redirect for Ken Dyers to the company article in view of this. Ansell 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. POV, Salacious, sourced-but-unproven gossip. -- GWO
  • Note: Just found Kenja Communication. --Pjacobi 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have now merged the content of this page into Kenja Communication, which I cleaned up. I took the AFD notice with it, not wanting to preempt the outcome of the AFD... --SJK 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your merging fits my opinion in this discussion. It also seems to fit some others so far so you are not out of your depth in being bold in this case. Ansell 10:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is after SJK's merge - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's merged. The organization in question seems to be getting some national press; passes WP:ORG as proposed. --Satori Son 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep now as it is merged by sjk Yuckfoo 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse[edit]

Too redundant, the canon info should be on the Canon page, and the very basic background should be duplicated on the Buffy and Angel pages - the topics discussed have much more detailed pages of their own already. -- Lesqual 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep the Buffyverse and cannon pages are separate articles with separate purposes. No proper reason for deletion has been given. Gwernol 13:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Half of the article is discussing issues with the canon, what to include, what not to include. The other half is dealing with very basic background plot facts, which are duplicated by necessity on the Buffy page. Smerge the top two sections into canon where they belong + the choice is to either wipe out the Supernatural section or expand it. I favor the former option, because it's already duplicated in the series pages + detailed pages listed at the bottom.-- [[User: Lesqual|Lesqual]] 14:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, not convinced it's a speedy candidate. Obviously thought of independent of the two, and is a viable search term. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I'm not quite sure on what grounds this has been nominated for deletion? Do people even look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy anymore? Yes the information on Buffyverse canon is summarised in the article Buffyverse. There is some overlap of information all over wikipeda, but we don't just say that makes information here and there redundant and start deleting it.

The articles Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are about two TV series. This article, Buffyverse, is about a fictional universe which includes dozens of novels, hundreds of comics, as well as TV series, and potentially other films in the future. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel the TV series are only a part of the Buffyverse. Therefore if anything the articles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are actually subpages to this page, Buffyverse.

Furthermore Lesqual has failed to mention the whole section on terminology. How are people who know little about the Buffyverse to know what the difference between 'Buffyverse' and 'Whedonverse' is for example; Including information on terminology revolving around this issue would really be inappropiate in any other article.

Finally I'd like to point out the Buffyverse has it's own wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse (there are over 50 members), and its own category. How can we have a wikiproject on a topic and delete the main topic of which that wikiproject revoles? IMO this is clearly an article that is needed. I'd agree with Lesqual that at present this article is not up to the standard it should be: for example he mentions that the Supernatural section does not have enough detail. But the whole point of Wikipedia is to gradually improve articles. -- Paxomen 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The article could use some clean-up but the basic principle is sound. See Star Wars for example. Eluchil404 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable and major sub-genre of TV fantasy. As Paxomen correctly states, the individual TV series articles are in fact sub-articles of this, just as the various Star Trek TV series articles are sub-articles of the main Star Trek franchise article. 23skidoo 16:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because many topics covered here have other pages doesn't mean the overview is inappropriate. --Jwwalker 17:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per all the keeps above. Article could do with a lot of work though. Artw 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I've tagged it with Rewrite. It really is that horrible. Artw 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, canon of a well-known television series, its spinoff and multiple novels. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and rewrite per Artw. Danny Lilithborne 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and the above. - Majin Gojira 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I didn't even like the show that much and I think it deserves this page. --mboverload@ 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn straight it deserves its own page, just thought that the canon sections would be more appropriate in the canon page, and the other info in a less-redundant fashion - for the benefit of the TV series articles has to be repeated. I didn't recognise that there was ingrained hierarchy involved, other than the template. If SOP is to simply improve + wikify the main page, then consider this Withdrawn.Lesqual 05:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to MeatballWiki. --Ezeu 11:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunir Shah[edit]

Doesn't seem encyclopedic, I think this may be a case of biased coverage. Claims to fame are co-founding MeatballWiki, and starting the use of barnstars as wiki awards - a use not considered notable enough to mention in the barnstar article. the wub "?!" 13:22, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment Jon[edit]

Delete Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Completely unsourced so unverifiable. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. A web forum with 112 members without even its own web server is hardly notable. Fabricationary 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. (Also, uh, not that I want to put down people who apparently mean well, but are pre-college level research papers really that significant and valuable that there's a real need to archive them for future generations?) -- Captain Disdain 15:25, 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chaney[edit]

It is a cute story and he was the subject of some media attension, but there is no need for a whole article on a guy who had 15 minites of fame. This should be merged into Windows Live ID which deals with Passport.net Jon513 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable bio. Fabricationary 13:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me take the liberty to vote for User:Jor70 the creator of the page who left this message on the talk page of the article
why should be deleted ? There are historical facts

(by Jon513 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Merge per above. -- Captain Disdain 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's done quite enough to be notable. Wikipedia should record people who were intensely famous for a short time, for the historical record.--Runcorn 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He paid 35 bucks on behalf of Microsoft one time. Sure, it got him his fifteen minutes, but saying that it made him intensely famous seems like a pretty serious exaggeration... -- Captain Disdain 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got him a lot of tabloid space in Britain.--Runcorn 19:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not notability. Please. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • link to a slashdot article that chronicles the incident http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/25/114201 (the forum is trying to figure out why hotmail is down. After a while the find that Microsoft didn't pay the fee. Near the bottom the page Michael says that he pays it! a little bit after that it is reported that it is fixed). and another slashdot article that mentions him http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/16/1321225 quoting him saying that paying the fee was "a Slashdot thing". Jon513 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrific!, this should be added to article! Jor70 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hotmail; he is not independently noteworthy. Do not keep separately unless further notability can be demonstrated. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:39, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipty[edit]

I feel kinda sorry bringing this here, but I can't find a reason to speedy it. It is an ad for a social networking website (fails WP:WEB). Jon513 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising --Xrblsnggt 14:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB per nom. Alphachimp talk 14:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The site doesn't even exist yet. All they've got at their home page is a looping animation endlessly repeating a catchphrase one word at a time: "There are a lot of voices out there and everyone is talking. What are you saying? hipty.com" This is the sum total of all content available on this site. Nuke from orbit. Fan-1967 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the infinite isn't possible at hipty com. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. G.He 00:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blenz[edit]

Notable? Looks like advertising --Xrblsnggt 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's an international franchise with over 38 locations across 3 countries. Methinks it merits the article. I don't think it reads like spam. Alphachimp talk 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable international company. It may not be the biggest company in the world but it has franchises in several countries and the one in Dubai airport alone makes it very notable. I deliberately didn't write it as advertising, though if someone still thinks this is the case then by all means try and de-advertise it. Ben W Bell talk 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No less notable in Canada than Second Cup or Starbucks. Agent 86 06:29, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperwarp 6D[edit]

This is non-notable POV bunk. Accords with no known scientific results, no references provided other than the author's website, not published, 608 Google hits. Need I say anything more other than:

  • Delete Byrgenwulf 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV, probable OR and vanity. Pseudophysics cruft. Anville 14:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, WP:SOAP and WP:V among others. On the upside, it is quite well written. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR. -- SCZenz 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn pseudophysics, one person's theory. --Pjacobi 11:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please delete as vanity, original research, and nn pseudoscience 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsb (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patient J[edit]

Non-notable fan film. CovenantD 14:52, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Venter[edit]

Relisted due to disruption of previous AFD Will (message me!) 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter. Thank you, Sceptre! gidonb 20:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unworthy of an article here. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete does not meet the standard of WP:PORN BIO. Eluchil404 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter. This article pass WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (she've performed in about 100 films). She is more notable from most of porn actress who have a Wikipedia article. 659,000 Google results [27] and 2,480 Google Image results [28]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haham hanuka (talk • contribs)
  • Very Weak Keep and Expand. In its current stub form, the article makes little effort to assert her notability. However, according to afdb, she has performed in a little over 70 films, which almost qualifies WP:PORN BIO. Is there anything notable about her that has been missed? -Seidenstud 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete she clearly does not meet the treshold. There are heavy weighting reasons why the treshold was not set low. See discussion on the relevant talk page. gidonb 17:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete So she's a porno actor in Hungary. That appears to be the only information on her, and she fails WP:PORN BIO's criterion of 100 movies at IAFD. She only has 84 titles, five of which are listed as compilations. Ryulong 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NO! I can add much more info about her!!! I'm just waiting for the AfD to be over. --Haham hanuka 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhh...wouldn't it make sense to add it now so that maybe this article would have a better chance at survival? Metros232 20:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where does "almost" allow us to bypass a guideline? Neither imdb nor afdb lists 100 films, nor does the article explain how failing that threshhold, she is notable enough for an article about her to be kept. Should somebody come up with a notability criterion, then I would reassess my discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haham hanuka has been trying to push the AfD to go in his direction by advertising it at user talk pages: Jackys cy's and Seidenstud's, specifically. Ryulong 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As I stated in my previous AfD this actress does NOT meet WP:PORN BIO Wildthing61476 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an additional note, there is a link in the author talk page from an admin that has previously deleted the article for non-notability. This would fall under a CSD for recreation of a deleted article. Wildthing61476 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This has been deleted on four different occassions, see the block log here [29]. All of them were speedy deletions though and speedy deletes recreated don't qualify as reposts. I saw let this AfD decide this article's fate once and for all. Metros232 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she is notable and in over 80 films Yuckfoo 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yeah, but the WP:PORN BIO criteria says that the actor/actress should have at least 100. Ryulong 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No, it does not. See my comment below or join the discussion at WP:PORN BIO. RFerreira 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another european porn star. -- GWO
  • Delete - nn porn star. --WinHunter (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the accepted WP:PORN BIO criteria for inclusion is "Performer has been in around or over 100 movies" (emphasis mine). After combining the list of titles from IAFD, IMDB, and AFDB and removing duplicates you end up with approximately 90 unique films. This is an article about a career adult entertainer, not a vanity page on a teenaged girl who just figured out how to make money with her webcam. Seeing as she has appeared in around one hundred movies (ten shy) and is known within a specific niche, I see no valid reason why this article cannot be included. RFerreira 21:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Myles Long 00:11, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Nichtmargen[edit]

Not notable. Speedy delete. Me677 14:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and WP:SPAM. This reads like an ad. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It can't really be speedied, because the article does assert notability, what with claiming that Nichtmargen that he's established the international recognized something or other and so forth. However, with about 11 unique Google hits, only a couple of which are something other than Wikipedia mirrors and none of which give us any indication of notability, deleting the article is an entirely reasonable thing to do. (I also notice that the article's creator typed "resume" as his edit summary, which does kind of indicate that we're taking a trip deep into the land of vanity, here...) -- Captain Disdain 15:16, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrontPageMag.com[edit]

Propaganvertizing --Xrblsnggt 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Redirect to David Horowitz. FrontPageMag could be a better article if one removed the gratuitious list of contributors and added some balance, rather that its current content free state. --Ben Houston 15:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep. I've removed the non-notables from the list of contributors, per above. Even so, may of the remnants are just syndicated columnists who hardly count as contributors. Nonetheless, the website appears barely notable. -Will Beback 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article makes a claim to notability, but where is the evidence for it? There's a CNN article - which is about one of the principal financial backers. Rational Review is, if anything, more questionable in terms of notability. The People for the American Way got upset about its umbrella organization, not about FrontPageMag.com. It looks like a collection of ads and a place to republish popular columns from elsewhere, which makes me question its status as a genuine, notable publication. I'm willing to change my opinion, of course, given reason to do so. Alexa rank is 13,600, but notability is nothing without verifiability. Captainktainer * Talk 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. I'm barely convinced, but I am convinced. The links posted in this AfD prove borderline notability. Good job, all.Captainktainer * Talk 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking around to see if there are some sources I found these two, which we can't use:
      FrontPageMag.com is notorious for its racism...[30] from Bill White (neo-Nazi)!
      In an interview with leading neo-con propaganda outlet Frontpagemag.com..[31] from a Lyndon LaRouche source.
    • I'll add legitimate sources that I find to the article, but these do indicate some notability. -Will Beback 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's another:
      In fact, the bourgeois revolution has been joined by such prominent neocon institutions as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, Frontpagemag.com...[32] Lew Rockwell
    • It's too minor a mention to include, but it further establishes the notability of the subject. -Will Beback 19:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a well-known (albeit controversial) online conservative journal, which has over a one million Google entries, even when excluding every iteration of its domain name (FrontPageMag, FrontPageMagazine, FrontPageOnline). The online journal, and its editor David Horowitz, is widely quoted within certain circles (even in Investors Business Daily[33]), and widely ridiculed in others, which makes it far-and-away notable. The article needs to be cleaned up, expanded with criticism and sourcing, but stub-status is no reason for a deletion.--LeflymanTalk 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Leflyman, and because I know at least one person (myself) who came looking for an article on this very topic, and I can't possibly be the only one. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also note that there are over 50 discrete articles on wikipedia linking to the page in question, with further supports usefullness, if not notability per se. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - default to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Species[edit]

This article doesn't seem to have any purpose, since it's basicly just a long list of names of mythological creatures that share some traits with vampires in east european folklore. And we already have a category that lists various types of vampire-like creatures, namely Category:Vampires, making this page redundant. No cited sources are available either. M.O (u) (t) 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article explains about vampires and gives additional information compared to a category. Also, no purpose or lack of sources alone are no reason for deletion. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already covered in a more encyclopedia manner on the vampire page. Artw 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is superfluous to the vampire article that we have. -- Alias Flood 01:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both of the pages cited as proof this one is redundant only have a handful of species listed and nothing about that species country of origin, which is why I created this one in the first place. I stated on the talk page that it was far from complete. Besides there are other lists of mythic creatures that do nothing but list the creatures names. If you delete this one then you must delete those as well. Vila 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More to the point a section listing names of vampires in the main vampire page seemes to be nothing more than a study of the word vampire.
  • Keep-Article has relevant information not included in the main vampire article. This serves is a good starting point, in list format, for people who want to explore the Vampire myth in other cultures. Merging all this into the main article would be make that article too cumbersome. I also say give the editor more time with prodding tag. The article is only a few days old and nothing in it merits a quick death. Agne27 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article were to be straightened up a bit, I would gladly withdraw this nomination. But at the moment I see a number of problems with it. First of all, it shouldn't be named "Vampire species", since there is no such thing as different "species" of vampires, such classifications and distinctions exists only in fiction. Vampires exists only in european folklore (or to be more specific, east european folklore), and nowhere else. Pontianaks, Succubus, Chupacabras or Ghouls, aren't vampires. They descend from different beliefs and legends than vampires. A Pontianak is a Pontianak, and a Succubus is a Succubus. Second, this article feels quite ambigious, since it is said to concern vampires in folklore, but at the same time is listed as a horror-related stub. And without boundaries between fiction and folklore, it is bound to become crufty with information gathered from fictional as well as folkloristic and mythological sources - There are many differences between vampires in folklore, and vampires in fiction. That is why there are two separate articles about vampires in those contexts. I don't see a problem with an article concerning fictional "vampire species", though, we can allow a lot more cruftiness (that is how fiction is created and evolves further) when dealing with fiction, than when writing about folklore and mythology. But in folklore, there is no such thing as different species of vampires. /M.O (u) (t) 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said on the talk page, I know the article needs work. For some reason you think the page should be canned simply because I choose a name for it that some one googling Vampire Species would be able to find. If I had titled it Blood Drinking Creatures of World Wide Folklore and Mythology, I highly doubt many people would be able to find it. I also have noticed that the main Vampire page is part of the WikiHorror project. Vila 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Eversman[edit]

Mr. Eversman ran for the US House in 2004 and lost 67% to 33%. He doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, especially WP:C&E. He's a published author but his book ranks over amillion on Amazon and is published by AuthorHouse, a printing on demand, self-publisher. His only claim to fame is that he ran, and lost, for office. Metros232 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO Eluchil404 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sheesh! Yet more minorpoliticiancruft! Delete 'em all and let G*d sort 'em out! Eddie.willers 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidacy does not make one notable. These accomplishments are even less so. --DarkAudit 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say he's a notable candidate, rumor has it he'll run again. Pluse he's a published author, and is writing a screenplay. Also a major figure in politics and economic development in his state. Anyone from Georgia would say he's notable. Strong keep.--Fredtorrey 9:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Book is self-published, with an Amazon sales rank of 1,128,288 and dropping. --DarkAudit 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some editing / rewrite to this article that will hopefully clear up some confusion as to the nature of this man's "claim to fame" if you will. It's not perfect, but I think it's better than the original. Sorry if I'm new to this whole process.. I am just started to become more active on Wikipedia and really want to be a good Wikipedian and contribute all that I can. I'm sorta new to editing.. but I understand the principles and ideas behind Wikipedia and I can see both sides of the argument here, but I really think that the accomplishments of Eversman are worthy enough of a small mention on Wikipedia. I see less notables all the time. Thanks.--Fredtorrey 23:41, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AsphaltJungle.com[edit]

Ad for company failing WP:CORP (Alexa rank 4,568,671). —Caesura(t) 15:57, 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 delete. Fails to assert notability with verifiable sources. --Ezeu 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsters In Love[edit]

non-notable film by a non-notable director and non-notable film company. Self publised on the internet. Crossmr 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Independant film. OSU80 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contains assertion of notability: "The film is reguarded by many as the worlds first internet movie." That's pretty significant. Bryan 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By who? Thats not an assertion of notability unless they can actually cite it. Anyone can make up a random claim.--Crossmr 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The assertion of notability is enough to save the article from being a speedy delete, but the term "Internet movie" isn't defined well enough for us to be able to assess the claim. --Metropolitan90 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that the "world's first internet movie" was some kind of porn. Dina 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd bet money on that one, Dina. Fan-1967 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The world's first internet movie released on 25th March 2006? Highly doubtful. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete there should be a speedy criterion for an article which asserts notability with a verifiable lie. Danny Lilithborne 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a verifiable source showing it to be a lie? By all means, add it. Bryan 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the worlds first internet feature film. Name another film where all communications were done online, by people who were not qualified, had no experiance and had no budget. The experiance was gained not through college, not through University but through the internet. Its composers, special effects artists, editors, cameraman and even actors were all obtained online. Its production log was updated weekly with video, music, acting and editing, giving back to the people and the sites who helped create the film. Upon the films release it was hosted exclusively online and for free, once again giving back what had been taken. The film would not be possible if it were not for the internet. Cheap low-budge or not, a feature on this size (over 100 individuals and websites contributed to the 75 minute film) has never been completed before. If you can prove otherwise then I shall retract my claim. --Joe 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this user's edits are to the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its on the person who wants the material kept to prove their claim, not for someone who wants it removed to disprove it.--Crossmr 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not demonstrated - there are many videos on YouTube. BlueValour 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Strong Keep"(who are these creeps?) Yeh, a strenuous KEEP. The article could be re-written by someone with a better grasp of English, but I say it's a keeper. I have just read an article and interview at the BBC website as well as a lot of other positive response online. The film is an internet first and many agree. The amateur use of Green Screen technology has no doubt influenced scores of other amateur film makers to put their ideas on to tape. This does not appear to be an advertisement or anything tricky. Voters should research this more thoroughly. Notability demonstrated with full valour. keep 'er!!--JeffDeHart 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This said by someone who's only edits are to their user page and this. AfD is not a vote.--Crossmr 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck! What a smug nasty little person!! Crossmr? Why do you come back here and say unnecessary stuff like that? Did yo momma teach you nothing? Bitter little person! This film is widely known. Don't be upset because you didn't research this properly... or is it because someone had a different opinon than you? Aww.. poor lil guy! JeffDeHart 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I assume you are speaking to both of us. I'm very sorry for the personal attack. As Crossmr pointed out, I am a new user. So when she/he personally attacked me and my comment, I retaliated. I get the feeling that Crossmr takes pleasure in doing these deletions. I hope that you reprimand Crossmr as she/he is obviously a well experienced wikipedia person. I am just getting started. I was actually very shocked to have my comments rubbished by a bitter person like that. Next time I retaliate against a personal attack from someone such as Crossmr, I will try not to roast them as badly as I did in my comments. Thanks again. JeffDeHart 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. He's speaking to you. People who sign up and only participate in AfDs regularly have their opinion called into question. Its a good indicater that sock puppetry may be going on. --Crossmr 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just looked this up as we were learning about it in my Film course at The University of Kent. We were actually encouraged to download it. I knew that it would be on Wikipedia, but to be deleted? I was weary about leaving a KEEP comment because if you look up, you will see that everytime someone leaves a KEEP comment there is a follow up that tries to trash the POSITIVE people. What is with that? Some very hateful, upset people on Wikipedia. It's hard to fathom. This is a great film. Everyone in my class is well aware of it. The film is not racist, political, hateful or mean, yet there are such mean comments and spiteful sentiments above. It's very odd. Bad vibes boys! cheer up! This article is a keeper! This film has sold more copies of Adobe Premiere than Adobe could ever hope to! Only notable independent film makers make it on to the BBC website. Good film. Good company. Seem like nice guys... and yes, they've made themselves famous! KEEP! A fervent keep or a strenuos keep! haha. P.S. If someone is going to follow up my comment with a snide remark, then I'm going to have to assume that this is not a genuine delete but probably someone with some score to settle against someone that had something to do with this film. The comments on this page are pretty rude. Hard to understand. JustinChimento 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)- user's first contrbution signed in an identical style to JeffDeHart BlueValour 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Hi Justin, you seem to be new here. So, first, please don't attack people personally here (trashing the positive people). It's one of the wikipedia policies. Second, please read the guidelines on WP:AFD to figure out what constitutes an article that can be kept on Wikipedia. Third, it could be the best film in the world, but if we can't verify it (see WP:V) then we can't keep it, as anybody could write the same thing about their film. That being said, the BBC source seems to have merit. [34] is the article, so I'm going to say Keep as well, with a note saying that it should be cleaned up (notably, "first internet movie" - that's a clearly false statement). --ColourBurst 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while that one source may have merit, notability requires it be published by multiple non-trivial sources, in addition there has been nothing to support the claim that this is the world's first internet film. --Crossmr 20:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi COLOURBURST! Thanks for your constructive criticism. I honestly do not want to hurt anyones feelings are day anything nasty, but I had a read of the page before I left my comment and it is shocking how the NOs seem to love deleting! Yeh... the internet's first movie? Not so sure about that one either. There are some grammar problems in the article, but the movie is well known and that's pretty good considering it's been released this year. Perhaps it WAS the first FULL-LENGTH internet film... I have no idea. My KEEP was because I have personally learned/heard about the film in Uni and the BBC have picked it up and they seemed to wnat to further the film's success so good on em! Also, the film is FREE so I can't see this article being a SELLING tool... although drug dealers always give the first one free too! oops bad joke! Look... these guys did some breakthrough stuff and I felt that the comments on this page really were too far gone. Some spiteful people. That's all. I expected to see the words KEEP or DELETE and then the reason, but you get a bunch of bitter nonsense. Is Crossmr real admin? Seems like a kid.

hey... I am new here... thanks for the advice... I have no plans to be blocked or kicked off or whatever happens to trouble makers! Thank you,--JustinChimento 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable independent film. A few minor reviews do not establish notability - there simply aren't enough significant sources in existance for this to merit an article. --Hetar 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wait, if this was deleted before (I'm reading the talk page), it qualifies as a speedy candidate (and I'd have to retract my keep.) Where's the old delete nomination? --ColourBurst 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user added a lot of information around this. Notably the director and the company involved (Which appears to be the director and a few individuals). The directors page was removed before and then recreated, I believe the companies as well (I know the directors for sure, I have a hard time remembering which stuff gets recreated on my watch list, and this was around a week ago). I believe this was the first time this one was created, it was put up for speedy but an admin decided to err on the side of caution since it made a vague claim to notability (which the author has yet to support even though he said he would). The piece was proded, prod was removed, and now we're here.--Crossmr 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ha.. ok Gotcha.. Crossmr IS admin and has just threatened me with suspension/blocking or whatever because I said I thought he was a kid? Who knows.

I can't see any PERSONAL ATTACKS within my comments and believe that the warning has no merit or platform, but I will refrain from making any statements about Crossmr again. Obviously you cannot rebute a personal attack made by admin. seems unfair, but ok. I'll play along. Sorry to anyone offended.

Colourburst, this page has been deleted before? how can you see that? Is it the same nominator? can't wikipedia prevent repeats? deleted articles from coming back? 6 month block on a deleted article's title or anything?

This film is known amongst the film community everywhere. Kent Uni is not the only course using it as a reference.

You only have to type it into Google to see that there are more than 'a few' reviews, articles and references.

--JustinChimento 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I'm not an admin, I have no idea where you got that impression. Any user can leave appropriate warning templates on another users talk page. Articles are only protected from recreation in the case of frequent recreation. I.e. its deleted, and recreated shortly there after, deleted and recreated again. Usually after 2 quick recreates its protected from recreation for awhile. Regarding personal attacks, the general attitude of your first comment was uncivil and aggressive and clear on who it was directed at.--Crossmr 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok Crossmr... I am REALLY new. I get THAT impression because I refreshed the page and I had a YELLOW warning label from YOU. As a newbie it looks pretty official. Sometimes in emails and chat rooms the wrong message comes across. It's different than being face to face with someone. Sorry for any misunderstandings that I may have initiated. Thanks for the info.--JustinChimento 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The yellow warning label is just telling you that you have a new message. Anytime anyone makes a change to your talk page that pops up to let you know. --Crossmr 21:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuditionSEA[edit]

Originally prodded as Non-notable game 17 Google hits. Untagged without comment.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Asiasoft itself is notable for distribution of (among others) Maple Story, that doesn't necessarily confer notability to AuditionSEA. I count 211 or so google hits though. Anyways, if it's a hit like Maple Story then it'll get its own article. --ColourBurst 17:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y? (webcomic)[edit]

Contested CSD, no opinion. Ral315 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reason for contest was "[It's a comic] ...with a substantial presence on the web." The comic is impossible to search for (since the title has a question mark in it which frustrates google), but search for "yquestionmark" reveals only 612 hits. That's not a "substantial presence." --ColourBurst 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 77 Ghits for "C. Burbridge" Y. 79 for C.Burbridge Y. Yet another NN webcomic looking to advertise on Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 18:45, 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 why the hell was this pointless procedural nomination kept open this long KEEP. — Jul. 21, '06 [17:40] <freak|talk>

Kat Shoob[edit]

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob over concerns regarding notability. This deletion was endorsed at DRV, but a new and different recreation was written in the meantime. An editor attempted to AfD this recreation, but did not properly complete the listing. I am doing so in order to clarify whether Ms. Shoob belongs. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, per first nom. OSU80 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a substantially similar recreation, and is not speediable. I'd have to wiki-wifflebat any admin who speedied it -- this issue has been unresolved for two weeks now (thanks to a flaw in the listing), and needs to be properly resolved. Xoloz 17:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable in my opinion, more so than some of her fellow presenters who have articles. It was re-created and this nomination appears to be too similar to the last one. King rich 01:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presenter on several nationally televised shows. --DarkAudit 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presenter on several nationally televised shows, at least one of which is on the second biggest terrestrial, free-to-air, UK channel (ITV). -- GWO
  • Keep It may be the worst show on terrestrial TV but presenting nearly every night on The Mint (game show) makes her notable. Keresaspa 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first deletion months back was understandable as I created the article before understanding the rules, the second was not. She is on ITV1 along with other presenters who all have Wiki pages. There is no reason to single out this article when there are still pages for presenters from the same show as her who are less notable. If I never created her article all those months ago, no-one would mind a jot if her article appeared now. --Mr.bonus 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When first deleted, Kat Shoob gave no Google hits, she now has over 1000, her own unofficial website and is presenting on ITV1. There is no doubt of her notablility.--Bobmills 13:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely keep. There is no argument for deleting this page. More notable than many other people who have articles.--Lughguy 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no arguement. I spent a lot of time on this article with some great additions from Mr.Bonus. It was deleted last time because she wasn't notable. Now she is as she has a job presenting the Mint. I have no idea why one person has said speedy delete as they don't even live in the UK so wouldn't know about the majority of UK presenters.SenorKristobbal 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what happened the 2nd time (out of 3). People who aren't even in this country trying to add their two-penneth. I think some people just like being a part of a deletion. --Mr.bonus 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I struck out my vote, and yes I was voting speedy based on the results from the last vote. I think you should both try to remember WP:CIVIL. I have a right to vote just like everyone else, regardless of my reasoning. A simple mistake that next time could properly be solved on my userpage talk where it belongs and not on an AFD project page. Thanks! OSU80 22:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided that the result is keep, let's end here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cola4 (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. --Ezeu 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Yeager[edit]

Artist doesn't meet criteria for WP:MUS. It's also in complete violation of WP:CITE. I vote to delete. OSU80 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Futhermore user:Mograbber has admitted that this is an authobiography of himself. OSU80 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The original incarnation of this article was a copyvio but it appears this version is not. I did a fair amount of Google checking and this looks like non-copyvio text. I'm not sure BY passes the WP:MUS criteria, but from the Google searches it does appear that he passes general notability and verifiability criteria. If the copyvio has really been solved, then I think there'd be enough interest in the article to make it worth keeping. I do agree it needs to cite sources --- but that can be fixed Brian 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Changing my vote to delete based on author's comment below that clearly indicates that this is an autobiography. I'll add the relevant policy links to his talk page so that he can find an appropriate way to get an article about himself published here ... Brian 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah I did a google search too, but all I got back were self-created pages, nothing of noteability, so I thought I'd list it...maybe I should have researched further... OSU80 17:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true there are a lot of self-promo sites, but there's also these [35], [36], [37] It's enough for me. But don't worry about it, that's what AfD is for, to combine our research and views of the matter. Brian 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Comment FYI...Your second link [38] doesn't much look like the same Billy Yeager from your first link [39]. OSU80 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right - I was giving the second the benefit of the doubt based on an assertion on one of the sites that BY was a professor of music --- going back and looking at the pictures makes me think I need my glasses changed :-) I already changed my keep to delete - based on it being an autobiography - now I'm convinced of the lack of verifiable notability as well ... Brian 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Question? On my page, yes I have many links on my own pages abou t myself, I re-wrote this as tastefully and truthfully as I could, can this be put up or edited without deletion please? I have not promoted, spammed, just kept it straight. There are certain things here THAT ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, for instance my playing giutar with Inner Circle for 2 years 1985-1987 I was never given credit That IS WHY i left the band> most people however know I did, I could really care less since I wasn't treated fairly by the band, so I just mention it because it was a well known diversified band that I did play with and recorded on their albums. What needs changed please? AND IF you take a look at Bruce Hornsbys' site ( association on my site) you will see there are links and many artist put their linkjs, I am reluctant to do this seems everytime I may do something I am up for deletion, warm me please what I should do Thank you Billy Yeager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mograbber (talk • contribs)

"ATTENTION PLEASE" i CLICKED into the above Film Festivals, they are not posted here at wiki I noticed does this mean I cannot list them on my bio? Should, I , or someone else put some basic info up about the film festivals? Will someone please address myself to let me know what I can do to fix this? Instead of addressimg me between yourselves as if I don't exsist. I am reading alot of rules and info, adhereing to them I agree with them, this is my bio, all true, not hawking products, not spamming, just who I am and what I have done. This is a great place AND I DO NOT INTEND TO BE COMING BACK AND RE-EDITING MY INFO TO PROMOTE MY SITE ALTHOUGH I NOTICE THERE IS A PLACE FOR LINKS ON THAT. Just want to get it up and be done with it, it will help me for press articles that need some basic information on myself which they always get wrong. Things such as Bunny is my mother, she is not she is my aunt, dates on my films, how exactly my contact with Bruce came about and what exactly happened this is all basic info. Seriously, look at some other artist sites out here, it is quit silly, Billy Bob about his mental disorders??? Help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.78.44 (talk • contribs)

MoGrabber link http://www.grainypictures.com/splitscreen2/contents13.html Link is irrelevant to this discussion. OSU80 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Is there still a discussuion? What if I just put Billy Yeager was bron in Miami Florida September 6th 1957. He is a filmmaker and a musician and we will leave it at that. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mograbber (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • No, that would not work either - it would be deleted as non-notable biography ... and even if verifiable notability was established, it is still *autobiography* - I already posted the links to Wikipedia policy about biography and autobiography on your talk page. Have you read them yet? Brian 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete - nice try but notability not proven. BlueValour 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of biggest selling female rap albums[edit]

The information on the article is highly speculative, there are no sources for any of the informatiom, and no other articles link to it. JD[don't talk|email] 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Any article on this subject would need to be completely redone anyway, since it looks like only three female artists were even taken into consideration for the list. Verification of entries for such a list ought to be based on gold and platinum-certified albums, since those are verified by independent sources. --Metropolitan90 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any article on this subject would need to be at an appropriate title. Rap albums do not have gender. Eluchil404 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and both comments above. -- NORTH talk 08:11, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OS 0 1 2[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2, given new information. Please consult both the original AfD and the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting to evaluate encyclopedic suitability, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete again. As far as I can tell, this "master meme" hasn't spread particularly far. The proposed Wikipedia requirements for Internet memes require that the meme be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the meme itself". This doesn't appear to be the case; a Google search turns up this very article in first place, a couple of the sites on which the "dialectic" is presented, a brief discussion of the subject on the randi.org forums, in which it is quickly dismissed as "meaningless blarney", two blog entries presenting it as a random link without comment, and a bunch of unrelated hits containing the words "OS 0 1 2" out of context. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn a of yet. First google hit is wikipedia, second google hit is identical information in the p2pfoundation wiki. All other hits appear to be unrelated. --Pboyd04 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* It already won two OVERTURN and KEEPS last week on wiki in a special hearing on the matter. one from a computer scientist who is qualified to vote on such things. The actual entry is not 'master meme', or meme of any nature, so I dont see how the wiki policiy on notable memes even applies based on the articles content, 'master meme' is simply a term that is used on the homepage to creatively market the project, OS 012 is not just notable for it being a meme, it is notable because it addresses online communication into a formal system, recieving peer review from the appropiate communities that it was designed for (such as the P2P foundation). The entry is about a dialectic for online discussion, noting a very similar process to what wikipedia uses on the AfD, and this process is already used by thousands of people all over the world. Right now, a paper is underway to submit the formal logical and dialectical system of OS 012 to wikipedia to improve the AfD process. Secondly, try doing another google search, as well as blog search, as OS 012, as well as O 1 2, and you will see for yourself chatter on the internet about it in blogs and discussion forums. Also, try other search engines. Thirdly, your completely misrepresenting the Randi forum; i.e. you are mistreating the information. It wasn’t even a discussion about OS 012, it was an informal discussion regarding a physicist who is taking the randi challenge, and even if it was, read it and note that the only comment on it that it received was that it was 'interesting'. There has been a off-line publication from England that wrote a story about OS 012 a few years back, in addition to another journal who is publishing something on it in a few months, again from England. There are also a few mutations of the idea on the net as provided in the bottom section of the page. It is also listed on the P2P foundation wiki by invitation. This system of logic and dialectic may increasingly become more relevant as more and more internet users communicate or resolve disputes via email or online forums The community suporting it may be small for now, as is P2P culture in general, but since the idea is spreading over the internet, a third person POV on the matter is both informative and helpful. A few google searches a day turn up on the source page of people researching OS 012 on the internet, and these can be provided as proof if anyone wishes. User:Tumbleman
  • Delete - Non-notable original research. --SJK 09:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment* SJK, since this page has already been discussed and that issue addressed, as well as overturned, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that it is original research and not-notable? I ask that you address this point. I find many wiki editors assuming things a bit too quickly, having knee jerk reactions, and many are simply unfamiliar with Open Source concepts or P2P culture. Simply , your point is not valid, and if your decision to delete was based on that, I respectfully ask that you reconsider. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and knee jerk reactions to vote things off simply is not a justification for deleting a relevant entry.User:Tumbleman
  • Delete, WIkipedia being the first Google result is a bad sign. This appears to be under some heavy campaigning. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment* Do you understand how google works? Many topics on wiki also turn up with wikipedia first, because wikipedia gets massive hits from internet users. Unfair and misleading comment User:Tumbleman
  • Delete. The Google results indicate to me that Tumbleman is running some kind of astroturfing campaign, which violates "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Specifically:
    • The "BASIC" link is on the home site
    • The JREF link is a thread created by "Bubblefish" who admits that he is the site administrator. Tumbleman has said that he is administrator of the same site.
    • The P2P foundation site provides no source except the home site
    • Most of the hits are not relevant
    • While a couple of the relevant sites mention Dr. Lyndon Storey's "The Human Union", none of them say that Storey supports or even knows of "OS 0 1 2"
To put it simply: If this has been around since Dec. 2002, where's the paper trail? This is not the first article to come to AfD containing an editor's original thoughts, backed only by his own web site and mirrors. Verifiability applied to those, and it applies to this as well. Gazpacho 06:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho. "If this has been around since Dec. 2002, where's the paper trail?" Well put. -- GWO
      • Comment* I accuse Gazpacho of mistreating information to suit his personal vendetta: he is doing a incomplete research, doesnt respond to requests or points made. on accusation of astroturfing:sorry, I dont even know what astroturfing is, and how dare you accuse me of some sort of deception? User:Tumbleman
      • Comment* on JREF Forum:True but who cares? what relevancy is that? User:Tumbleman
      • Comment* On P2P foundation:;The P2P foudation lists the SOURCE page, the only page it should list, as well as other mutations independent of the sourcepage. User:Tumbleman
      • Comment*on irrelevant hits; try OS 012 instead of 0 1 2 as I requested. User:Tumbleman
      • Comment* on Lyndon Storey; Wrong...I happen to work with Lyndon personally and he is in the process of adding the relevant links to OS 0 1 2. Besides, what relevancy is that anyway? User:Tumbleman
      • Comment On Paper trail and accusation of fraud;* Here is a link to a magazine in England that published OS 012 in thier winter 2002/spring 2003 issue. http://www.ivanfraser.com/mainpages/magazines.html You would have found this on GOOGLE if you did the proper search like I requestedUser:Tumbleman
      • Delete* You know what? I concede for now, as this process is turning into a sham. Gazpacho-you dont know what your talking about at all, and since I have already been through a process with you on another topic before, I detect hostility, and your simply being unfair, you find information, mistreat it to suit your position, and then accuse me of deception, which I vehemently resent. I called for a fair hearing on this topic, and it PASSED. This second AfD process is faulted heavily in this regard. I shall resubmit this page in the future after the proper submission to wikipedia has been made to use OS 012 to assist in the AfD. For future refrence, here are the links in the past 3 days from the site of hits from google of people searching for OS 012,some even in other countries, see for yourself.http://www.google.com/search?q=%22OS+0+1+2%22&star

http://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o http://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=OS+012&hl=en User:Tumbleman

  • I'm not accusing you of deception, just going about this the wrong way, like so many other authors of OR who try to promote it here. It's unfortunate that we have to occasionally hurt a determined editor's feelings to enforce policies, but that's life. "What relevancy"? In both cases, it's called independent sourcing. Referring me to forum posts by Bubblefish, AKA TUmbleman doesn't add anything to your own say-so. I think that would be obvious. Gazpacho 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have most certainly accused me of deception if I take the objective meaning of your words in this exchange. You dont respond to points made by myself ever, you dont retract false statements made by yourself after the fact. Secondly, when did I refer to you to that discussion forum? Never, that's a strawman. Going about this the wrong way? I requested a fair hearing on the topic already, a much stricter process than this, and this page won it's entry. Thirdly, I admit that I personally have done research on this project, but that personal research is not the source of the project, yet you continually reinforce that issue over and over.When I give examples of indepedent sourcing, they are ignored. My feelings are not hurt, I am simply frustrated by what I have determined to be an unfair hearing on the topic. What is the point of having a fair hearing and winning when the next day, those who disagree simply return it to the same place they pesonally wished the topic to be? If I am mistaken about you, Gazpacho, then you would retract many of your off comments here, and you havent. Same thing on the Human Union entry, i requested you change your vote to a re-write based on our argument, and you simply ignored my request even though your points were addressed/rebutted rationally and respectfully. Again, this process here is faulted. At least it becomes more apparent that Wikipedia use something like the framework of OS 012 to come to consensus. My point is that if people are searching for this on google, which I recieve about 10-15 unique hits a week from google searches on the topic, it makes sense to have a third party point of view on the topic, especially when the dialectic is accepted in communties that promote P2P culture. No one addresses that issue, they simply keep their blinders on and refuse rational discourse. The No Original Research policy is here to discourage quakery, and the applications inside of this dialectic, such as game theory and a formal system of logic, are not original research. User:Tumbleman
  • Delete again, or possibly merge to ternary logic. The meme is not here, yet. (Use of "0", "1", and "2", as opposed to "?", "0" or "-", and "1" or "+" is clearly a WP:NEO.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:41, 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 was delete. Clear violation of "original research" and "game guide" policies, as cited by editors below. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of inaccuracies in Zoo Tycoon[edit]

Article is list/gamecruft, original research, unsourced, and violates WP:NOT, in that Wikipedia is not a game guide hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inaccuracies? It's a game. Agent 86 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gameguide. -- GWO
  • Keep! We're not supposed to let people take games too literally. Anyways, there's inaccuracies on Ice Age 2 and Dinosaur and you guys will say "Oh it's a movie, yeah yeah, it's a movie etc etc..." GRRRRRR... 09:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • A separate article about the inaccuracies in a single movie/movie series would probably be over the top, too. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. But this article is the solution of a disagreement! That's why I don't agree it should be deleted. Dora Nichov 07:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha. I didn't notice that it was split out because people felt the main article was too long (is that a fair assessment?). However it still is entirely without references to where this information comes from, either a) the fact that these animals do other things in real life (which could be verified by linking to their Wikipedia articles, I think), or b) that they do these inaccurate things in the game (for which you'll need some outside, reliable, published source). And if you do find that source, perhaps it would be better to link to that review/blog post from the main Zoo Tycoon article when you talk about criticisms/inaccuracies there? Thanks for the explanation, though! -- nae'blis (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • All the statements in the article are what real-life animals are supposed to do (or not do) instead of not doing (or doing). The main reason it was split from the main article was that some people thought that if we focus on inaccuracies in the main article, the object of the game would be lost, since people would focus on inaccuracies instead of gameplay. The solution was to make a separate article for the inaccuracies. Explanation complete. My descision is still Keep! Dora Nichov 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a subset of the information (i.e. "the game classifies certain animals as separate species/unable to interbreed, for example Bengal tigers and Indian tigers", etc). Do not keep separately. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but the more I think about it the more I get confused. We have three options: Merge, Disagree, or Delete. But then again, you think that there's many different point of views. I think I'll go neutral for now. --Starry.dreams 13:37 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, your 'basic' options on AfD are "Keep" or "Delete". Merge, redirect, or split are all sometimes options in special cases, but the end decision comes down to whether you keep the page, or delete it from view. Merge, in particular, is tricky because it can be taken as either a "keep" or "get rid of it" if you're not clear in your explanation. "Disagree" isn't really one of the options... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks a lot. Easier to understand, but since I'm not clear on my decision yet. I will report my opinion as soon as I can. Starry.dreams 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've changed my opinion to keep, since disagree isn't an option. But it's still the same thing. If you disagree with deleting the page then it isn't deleted. Dora Nichov 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - cummon!! Clear, unambiguous, gold-plated, pukka, cast iron, classic OR. If this AfD doesn't provoke a source there aint one! BlueValour 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page. The solution to a disagreement about inaccuracies in the game does not require a long, particular list, having a general overview in the main article per nae'blis is what is appropriate. A redirect may be fine, though unnecessary, but the list itself should not be merged into the main article. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musiments[edit]

This article seems to be about a non-notable website called "Musiments". The creator of this page is called Musiments, and the only contribution s/he has ever made was creating the Musiments page. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:56, 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 redirect to List of Hungarians. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of Hungarian origin[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. We have List of Hungarians, List of Hungarian Jews and List of Hungarian Americans. How is it in any way encyclopedic to have a list of people because their grandfather, etc. was of a certain ethnicity? See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" Mad Jack 18:00, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sciencology[edit]

Apparent neologism, not found at dictionary.com, 32 Google hits. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a valid word. Dictionary.com is not extensive enough to include it. Visit your local library or consult an expert in the language. I'm behind the move to Wiktionary Lirter 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Try visiting the Lydbury Grammar Clinic.  !!!! Lirter 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No proof of notability can be found, author refuses to provide it. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U | T | C [] M | E ) 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is superjesus.com an authoritative source? --Xrblsnggt 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of this being anything but a neologism. Nothing on ISI web of science or in the online Oxford English Dictionary. Reference to Lydbury Grammer Clinic leads to this thread, with no evidence at present. Delete per WP:NEO. --TeaDrinker 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BOLLOCKS --Xrblsnggt 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Lack of entry in OED means it is either too new to be in widespread use or it exists only as something made up in school one day Eddie.willers 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artw 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't transwiki, per Eddie Willers. David | Talk 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, neologism, WP:NFT. -- The Anome 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism not in wide use. --MCB 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete before search engines start quoting this nonsense and spreading it around. All but three of the Google hits are apparent misspellings of "Scientology". One of the primary hits refers to "why it's called 'Scientology' and not 'sciencology', illustrating the status of this made-up word ... Kenosis 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious redirect to scientology. --SPUI (T - C) 16:03, 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 delete. --Ezeu 11:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl R. Hansen[edit]

I have nothing against this brave man but I believe that being on the Cook County Board of Commissioners falls quite short of WP:BIO's requirement of "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office". In fact, there are articles for every other member of the board, many of which are similarly un-notable in my book. I just want to see what others think before I submit the rest. (Of course I won't if there is a consensus to keep this one) Pascal.Tesson 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hopeless minorpoliticiancruft and for being thoroughly non-notable as per WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 19:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Richard Daley he is not. Eluchil404 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I really don't have a strong opinion on this one, but I do want to point out a few things about Cook County (the county into which Chicago falls). The county has 5.4 million people, which makes it more populous than 30 of the 50 states, it also has the 19th largest government (of any kind) in the country. The Cook County board controls a budget of $2.7 billion, and has the power to levy all sorts of taxes (which they do frequently). I could go on, but my point is that Cook County board members are arguably more influential (and notable) than the vast majority of state legislators; and there does seem to be consensus that state legislators are notable enough to merit an article. --Wine Guy Talk 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - local (city/county/muncipality/shire/parish/whatnot) politicians are in general not notable. However, when the locality is sufficiently significant (e.g. has lots of people), I would say they are notable. In this case, I would say members of a 17-member county board governing a 5.4 million person county are notable. (Whereas, the board members of a county with 50,000 would probably not be notable.) --SJK 09:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment points well taken. As I have said, I will be more than happy to accept any consensus that emerges in this debate. The counter-point I would offer to the above is that the responsibilities of a county board (even one of such considerable size) are not the same as those of small-state legislatures because the latter have legislative power. Pascal.Tesson 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly some local Chicago politicians are notable, hence my comment above. The question though is Mr. Hansen specifically and county supervisors more generally. I say delete until and unless reliable sources such as new coverage can be adduced to show that he is notable in the community. Eluchil404 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Ex-)Board president John Stroger is notable, Mr. Hansen is not --Thanatosil 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (Cook County resident)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, per my comment above. Also, as a home rule government, the board members do have significant legislative power over the 5+ million people of the county. Given the reasoning behind confering inherant notablity to state legislators in WP:BIO, I lean slightly in favor of giving a similar level of notability to Mr. Hanson and his colleagues on this particular governing body. --Wine Guy Talk 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too far down the food chain - an administrator in charge of a district of a county?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Beard[edit]

Notable? Nothing to indicate it is encyclopedic. --Xrblsnggt 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep as all google hits return Wiki mirrors. However, with verification he may meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 19:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't verify the claims. Searching Billboard for the guy doesn't get anything; I found a gospel artist listed as "Tom Beard" with no releases, no bio, and no chartings. The Dove Awards are from the Gospel Music Association, and you can easily search the awards history [40]. Searching for "Beard" gets zero hits. Searching for "Grant" (as in "Amy Grant") gets a dozen-some hits, so searching "Beard" should've worked. But it didn't, so not notable. -- Mikeblas 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the article says he got them with his band. Did you search for the band? Morgan Wick 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bio says album was nominated; the Dove site does not appear to list the noms, only winners. --SigPig 09:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't verify in fact according to allmusic.com Glad consists of "John Gates, Ed Nalle, Jim Bullard, Chris Davis and Paul Langford" so unless they are wrong... --Pboyd04 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: artistdirect lists him as the "Arranger, Producer, Keyboards, Vocals" on the Glad album Romans. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ...as well as on "The A Cappella Project", he's listed as "arranger" and "vocals". I Googled two current group members' names (since I figure we're looking for earlier members, I went with the ones with the highest hairlines), added "+beard", and got a number of hits for Glad CDs from here to Korea, who mention Tom Beard, either as vox, keyboards, or arranger. As Zoe stated above, he appears to be listed with the group for the CD "Romans". So, dude exists; other than that, IDK if he's (non-)notable or if any of the info is accurate. --SigPig 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no confirmed notability. BlueValour 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to 14th century in North American history. Canderson7 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14th century in United States history[edit]

Centuries before 1776? Sure, the history of the colonies are important. Centuries before 1607? Sure, European exploration of the US and its effect is important. Centuries before 1492? I have to draw the line. It is nearly impossible to verify anything that may have happened way back then, and the one entry that's there comes off as POV. Morgan Wick 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete"Western Europeans lack wealth and seafaring skills necessary for worldwide exploration." Says it all. --Richhoncho 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've think you've answered your own question. The U.S.A. is a political construct, not a geographical feature Bwithh 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. someone should contact the creator of this article, who has created a series of these articles. The more recent ones could be redirects to existing historical pages. I'd do it myself, but I am signing off wikipedia now. NoSeptember 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the creator of this article, I would like to respond to the rationale for deleting it. I have completely rewritten the article from a "shell/stub" into a "stub/start" to address your concerns; please read the new article. I propose to use this article (and others in backward succession) to provide a much-needed chronology of Native American and Polynesian peoples within the present political boundaries of the United States of America, including its territories. Because the 14th century apparently was one of decline due to rapid climate change and the Little Ice Age, I had difficulty finding "events" to include in this article.

Wikipedia contains many articles--including several linked to the newly rewritten 14th century in United States history--based largely upon the archaeological record and even discusses the geologic time scale quite extensively. Chronologies based on the geologic/evolutionary and archaeological record can reveal the course of development of Native American technologies. Archaeologists routinely conduct field expeditions and publish books and scientific journal articles, rendering their findings (while subject to interpretation) as verifiable as any speculative or evolution-based assertions found on Wikipedia. Because the Native Americans in the United States did create cities like Cahokia in the Midwest and the various Pueblos in the Southwest, the article is neither "useless" nor necessarily "empty" nor inherently "nonsense." Dufekin 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If "United States" is taken to mean territory currently within the United States those two articles could have content, but given the lack of European contact and paucity of writing by the relevant native peoples there simply isn't anything verifiable to put in this one. Eluchil404 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME to 14th century in North American history per the consensus over here. The article's title is inaccurate but the information is perfectly valid. Czj 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename per Czj. The issue seems to be the name. Very useful content; it serves as a central point to aggregate and display historical trends among the disparate inhabitants of the continent. Going to the articles for each tribe to glean this information takes time. Any issues of verifiability should already be addressed on the linked-to articles. Classically encyclopedic -- Britannica should be envious when this is all done. --A. B. 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and rename now that it has content. Eluchil404 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo bank[edit]

This subject of this article does not exist, as far as I know, and there is close to no useful information. No source is cited and the article hasn't been edited since it was created. Ytny 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being hopelessly stubby and ambiguous. Eddie.willers 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded and the existence of this club is verified. According to our Football in Japan article, the two clubs in Tokyo are Tokyo Verdy and F.C. Tokyo. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FC and Verdy are the two J. League (top pro league) teams in Tokyo. There is at least a third, in a separate league (Sagawa Kyubin Tokyo, in the Japan Football League), but I don't see Tokyo Bank listed in the league standings. There also is no such thing as "Tokyo Bank", as what used to be called the Bank of Tokyo is now part of a larger entity. Three BLOG japanese-ghits for Tokyo Bank and soccer; zero for Tokyo Bank and Rugby; Zero for Tokyo Bank and American Football. The counts expand slightly when the Japanese word for Bank is used instead, but the most is still less than 700. Neier 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Eddie.Willers and Neier. Perhaps speedyible per WP:CSD#A1 or A3? -- NORTH talk 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and leave a redirect to The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ. Proto::type 10:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion. - Wickning1 14:05, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandology[edit]

This article is a recreation of an article that has already been deleted three times. The term itself is a nn neologism. There are only 213 ghits. Why there should be a made-up term for the study of Iceland when there is not such a term for the study of any other country does not make sense. The "science" itself is called geography. Anything that can be said in this article is more than covered under Iceland. Agent 86 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: History of article: First created in May last year, then prodded in May this year. Was re-created in slightly reworded form, so prod contested. The re-creation was then speedied on July 13 as nonsense - which I don't think was the most appropriate. Later, it was speedied as repost. Hence this probably should not be deleted as repost, despite the nomination; let's give it its day(s) at AfD. Kimchi.sg 19:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save:The first article was deleted because of suspect of the promotional purposes. I have fixed this problem, but someone delete it automaticly without discussion.
The first article was the result of the work of some contributors (not only me) so I think that the term is needful.
Iceland is unique country. The history, environment, culture and location of this country causes that some reserchers want to group all the sciences about Iceland in the one term.
Scientists create neologism every days. They call new stars, new chemical compounds, new plants and new animals. It is normal situation. So the term "icelandology" should be listed in Wikiepdia similar to a new plants names.
The term name is build in the same way as "sinology" or other country-sciences.
Geography is the only part of the icelandology, because icelandology include also humanistic sciences. Geography is too narrow science to use in this case.
Because we are scientists and we study all problems about Iceland, we call ourselves "icelandologists". This simple name is enough good to describe what we are doing and what we are interested in.
Icelandology seems to be a perfect term for such purposes and we use it from some years in Poland (Polish: islandologia).
Occurence in Google is not a proof that new scientific word should not be included in Wikipedia. New chemical compounds are very often described only in one article, but it is not a reason to forbid publication in Wikiepdia.
Before someone decide to delete this page, please discuss it before... Deletion is fast and easy, the creation and writing of new articles is more laborious. I hope you understand our reasons. Instead of deletion you may still put any warning that this article is controversial. If you have got any questions, please feel free to add your comments. Discussion is a better solution than deleting.--Yuiul 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - next to no appearances in Google, most of them that do appear are wiki derived. I am unconvinced that sticking a "-ology" postfix on a subject automatically creates a valid term that should be included in wikipedia. Artw 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move> to icelandic studies, as perUppland. It should probably get a heavy rewrite once it gets there so that it's not quite so poland-centric. Artw 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually justplain Delete it... icelandic studies would seem to have a different meaning and I'm sure that if it is necessary as an article someone can create it without refering back to this one. Artw 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NEO. Zero hits on Google Scholar[41]. Zero hits on Google Books[42]. Zero hits on Factiva news database. A little over 200 hits on google, mostly seem to be copies of the Wikipedia article[43]. It may be a useful term, but Wikipedia is not a means to popularize freshly minted protologisms. Is there an article on the subject in the Icelandic Wikipedia? If so, that should be better referenced - if there is no article, or no well-referenced article, than that's another big negative.Bwithh 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Icelandic studies. No reason to delete just because of the title. There are in fact plenty of area study disciplines like this one. This just happens to be a too literal translation from Polish, where the discipline, as the Polish author points out, is called islandologia (20,400 Google hits). up+land 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the move idea, except that as it stands, the article would have little or no meaningful/distinct content once the Icelandology neologism/protologism is removed. The article could be "XXXX studies" of any country - an entirely generic description of the broadest possible research coverage in a country context, without any specifics. Of course there are many area/culure studies disciplines, but they have specifics. If it is moved, I would suggest stubifying the article, or totally rewriting the current content. Bwithh 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modified suggestion: Move to User:Yuiul/Icelandic studies, and let the author expand the article with more useful information on the history of Icelandic studies, where it is pursued (not limited to one particular university in Poland), which the important journals are, etc, before it can be moved back to mainspace. up+land 21:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I abstain. It seems that no constructive solution is possible. up+land 07:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start Icelandic studies article from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... There is indeed such a thing as Icelandic studies,[44] which I suppose could be article-worthy but I think that term refers primarily to studies of Iceland's mediaeval literature. Apart from that I have nothing to add to Uppland's comments. Let's just try to be nice to what seems to be a good-faith contributor. Haukur 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Creating any unnecessary term by connecting a word with -ology is senseless of course. But in the case when the term may be used instead of other many words, it is useful, advantageous and justified. The "icelandic study" refers to language study only. Icelandic is the language used in Iceland.--Yuiul 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What other research centers focus on Iceland, maybe under a different name? If it's an established research field, with journals and conferences it might be a keep, but the article mentions only one institute. ~ trialsanderrors 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article purports to discuss a field of scientific study, but this field does not exist as a unified field of study, e.g. there are no journals, no conferences, no nothing.... Stefán Ingi 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is only one center which use the term "icelandology". The Center exists only few years, but we publish many electronic articles on our webpage www.iceland.pl - this is only in Polish (the greatest site about Iceland in Poland).--Yuiul 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it merits a two-line inclusion in Geography of Iceland. The Geography of Iceland has been studied by many researchers, including the first dedicated research center on Icelandology ("islandologia") in Wroclaw, Poland.", with an external link. The case for its own article, is hard to support. ~ trialsanderrors 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - nn and qualifiy for CSD G4. Start Icelandic studies from scratch if it's notable, though this one must go. --WinHunter (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious tosh. --Nydas 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ICELANDIC STUDIES is a science about the language and literature only. Please read other comments. "ICELANDIC" is the language in Iceland.--Yuiul 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not in regular use. BlueValour 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 took a while to look through, and there are a lot of keep requests. However once comments from new, anonymous and recently reactivated user accounts are properly weighted - there is a clear consensus to delete. TigerShark 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thingbox[edit]

Spam. Artw 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alexa traffic ranking of 1,800,000-some. Doesn't seem notable in any way. -- Mikeblas 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First use of Ruby on Rails technology to create a social-networking website. Has a high rate of new signups over the last 12 months compared to sites such as OUTeverywhere.--Coffeelover 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alexa ranking is a rather arbitrary distinction - should only sites which are above a certain point be listed? What is the cut off point? Site is fairly unique amalgam of the other gay community sites already listed on Wikipedia. Having this article gives a wider picture of the current state of play in online gay community websites. Allotriophagy 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. As a member of Thingbox, I'd have to say I don't think it deserves it's own Wikipedia entry. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After carefully considering the issue, I respectfully believe that this article should be kept. -- Mosmi 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is no less useful/informative than most in the "LGBT forums" category - consider GayRomeo or Gay Youth UK, to take random examples - and is only four days old. Space is not relevant ("Wikipedia is not paper") and it's far too early to consider this for deletion. I don't understand the "spam" assertion by the nominator - it's an article about a website, just like many other articles about websites. Are they all spam? Jacob 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WEB for guidelines. Phr (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems no different from many other articles about small websites, and has some interesting technology as well. Scottishmatt 02:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Articles about small websites need to met notability too, Thingbox clearly does not. --manchesterstudent 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure a traffic ranking is the best measure for deciding whether an article is notable or not. Thingbox is a rapidly growing online community, and is already pretty well known amongst the offline gay community, whether members or not. -- Corky1979 08:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate that - but it still need to meet WP:WEB - currently it doesn't. --manchesterstudent 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, Thingbox is mentioned in the list of applicatiions that makes use of Ruby on Rails, and, as such, is deserving of an entry in Wikipedia, unless one wishes to remove its mention all together. I think to remove its entry in this list would be a mistake, because it is the first of the online communities which makes use of it. So, the entry suggesting deletion of Thingbox is inaccurate in its claim that it "[d]oesn't seem notable in any way." Second, since gaydar and OUTeverywhere both have entries, and are otherwise not distinguished amongst the online communities by anything like this first use of Ruby on Rails, I do not see why they should be treated differently by Wikipedia. If Thingbox's entry goes, I think these two sites' entries should also go. gaydar is a purely commercial site, and OUTeverywhere has a form of restricted use unless one buys a subscription, Thingbox is, at the moment, free for anyone to use, and so seems to be more in the spirit of such sites like Wikipedia. ddstretch 09:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a website using new technology that is referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia, this article has merit and should be kept. Teppic74 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That doesn't mean it meets WP:WEB ! --manchesterstudent 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thingbox has become a part of the culture of LGBT online interaction, particularly in the UK, and as long as similar website communities are documented on Wikipedia, so must Thingbox. It is one of those strange cultural phenomena which resists clarity of description under Wikipedia's strict guidelines for articles. But if a website which constitutes such a disctinctive embodiment, and contibution to, the development of online communities (in technological and cultural terms) is absent from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is not doing its job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.65.111 (talk • contribs) 07:25, July 17, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it is reasonable to document other gay community websites I see no reason why Thingbox should be any different. It is distinguishable from other websites by its open, unmoderated format, and while it is a small website it is gaining in popularity. Deleting the article now will not prevent users from resubmitting it at a later date when the site is larger and more popular. Therefore I believe it makes more sense to keep it now, rather than postpone the inevitable. (ajwazzer) tablet_eraser 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards, you are correct that readers can and should resubmit it if it becomes larger and more notable. For that reason, it's fine to delete it now and recreate if and when appropriate. Wikipedia documents topics that are already notable, not those growing towards notability. Phr (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its not reasonable because it doesn't fulfill the requirement of WP:WEB! Other gay online websites (such as gaydar, out etc) do meet these requirements but, frankly, Thingbox is far too small and has no encylopaedic notability. Gaydar is a phenomonen, OUT has notability in the national press and is much larger. --manchesterstudent 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of a specific technology is not of itself enough reason to keep this article. It is not popular enough for people to check Wikipedia to find out more about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.68.195.78 (talk • contribs) .
I don't believe any of these kinds of sites are frequently found through wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.223.157 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, nn website indulging in shocking sock puppetry. -- GWO
Would GWO like to provide the evidence that I (for example) have been engaged in trickery on here? For the record, I have not. ddstretch 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that I am not a "Sock Puppet". Do you have any evidence of sock puppetry going on GWO? -- Corky1979 11:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corky1979 (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA and has been editing for 1 week. Ddstretch (talk · contribs) has two edits prior to July 17. -- Phr (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not conclusive proof that I am a sockpuppet or that I have been engaged in trickery, which was what the allegation was, and for which proof was requested. All it means is that I have not made more than a few edits prior to commenting on this entry. The implication that I am therefore likely to be engaged in trickery does not follow. As Pericles of Athens is quoted as stating "Although only a few may initiate a policy, all may comment on it." (quoted at the beginning of the text of Karl Popper's book "The Open Society and Its Enemies"). ddstretch 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr (talk · contribs) Yup, I did create this account when I noticed that the OUTEverywhere entry needed some work, and this is all I have had time to edit so far. I will be edit more soon though :) -- Corky1979 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete and protect "First social networking site to use Ruby on Rails" is ridiculous as grounds for notability. Site as described in article fails WP:WEB. Phr (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed WP:WEB, I can see the reasoning behind why Thingbox would probably fail this test. But also, using the same reasoning, I do not see Gaydar or OUTeverywhere as passing the tests, either. It does not particularly bother me eiither way whether Thingbox is retained or not, but I do see there is an issue of fairness and being equitable in adhering to published grounds (WP:WEB). May be when a decision is made as to whether the entry on Thingbox should be retained or not, a similar decision should also be made or initiated about Gaydar and OUTeverywhere? ddstretch 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of an AfD about Gaydar or OUTeverywhere and I haven't looked at those articles. Obviously it's fine to initiate AfD's for them if it looks like they don't meet the guidelines. See WP:AFD for instructions on initiating AfD's. Phr (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that they don't meet the guidelines seems reasonable, so I've listed them for deletion. Artw 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't say there are a lot of sockpuppets per se, but many new Wikipedia accounts and several older ones who haven't edited in a while suddenly showing up to participate here. That suggests someone is campaigning on Thingbox itself for Thingbox members to press for retention. AfD campaigning of any kind is considered a no-no; see also the "Meatpuppet" discussion at WP:SOCK. Closing admin should examine the contrib history of all participants and weight accordingly. Remember "AfD is not a vote". Phr (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* PHR: you assert that 'many new ... accounts ... showing up to participate here'. This simply isn't true. I'm afraid that both you and "The Stig" have fallen into what Edward de Bono calls the "Must-Be" error. Because you have seen Puppetry before where unfamiliar accounts appear on an Articles for Deletion page, you think you see it here. That is understandable. It is not the case and can be shown not to be the case. To do as GWO has done and libel these people is also understandable, but it is vile and corrosive. That you, PHR, appear to have fallen in with this I can only account for by a moment of inattention ... and it is the vulnerability of the editing process to what amount to unintentional personal attacks such as GWO's that is so distressing.
Here are the approximate number of edits and first appearance of those whom "The Stig" has accused of being sock puppets:
NOMINATION FOR DELETION
16 JULY 2006
AnemoneProjectors
500 edits since 11 June 2006
Allotriophagy
5 edits since 26 October 2006
Coffeelover
140 edits since 6 November 2004
Mosmi
50 edits since 27 January 2005
Jacobgreenbaum
200 edits since 30 July 2002
Scottishmatt
9 edits since 5 December 2004
Corky1979
35 edits since 12 July 2006
ddstretch
100 edits since 3 February 2005
86.27.65.111
1 edit on 5 January 2006
tablet_eraser
10 edits since 19 January 2006
teppic74
20 edits since 12 July 2006
Since NONE of these accounts is new, none can possibly be either a sock- or meat-puppet. Furthermore, if you take a look, as I believe you may now have done in the case of ddstretch, you will see that none is an SPA (though Corky1979 had not yet edited his first article when you mentioned this).
I hope you will take my comment here in a spirit of good faith, since I believe you have simply fallen into an easy trap. The trap was laid more selfishly, I believe, by a libel which was not meant as a personal attack, but I suspect the product of hubris. Please don't be herded by this in future -- it doesn't make you look good. And what's more: it make me henching vex!! (this is not a good thing). I take on board your comment below about aculturation, but I hope you will agree that while my formatting may be rubbish, I have understood what is about here.
82.35.164.244 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. May I note here that I still have made no comment on the article itself. My knowledge of the site is through a fellow-student who mentioned this AfD page to me. I have read WP:WEB and I have a view, but I am not putting forward here an argument in favour or against deletion. Yet, it is important to include in this place the denunciation I have made of the baseless accusations of Puppetry.
Actually I've made approximately 1100 edits since June 11 2006. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Comment" The assertation in your analogy that this article is purely for the benefit of the subject of the article has little merit - any proper article benefits Wikipedia. That this article was created as a result of the Ruby_on_rails article should stand some way towards showing the deciding admin that this is not an act of spam or aggressive commercialism. Finally, Phr should join thingbox - he might enjoy it. Allotriophagy 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Referring further to Allotriophagy (talk · contribs)'s comment, I initially created this article because there was a broken reference to Thingbox on the Ruby_on_rails article (present in all edits) as a notable example of Rails technology in use. Edit history will show I fixed the link immediately after creating the missing article. Teppic74 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ruby on Rails does not make it notable per WP:WEB
  • Strong Delete I've logged onto this website and found the forums urging people to vote in favour of keeping this article. There is probably sock puppetry going on too. As a result, this entry will probably get more keeps than deletes. The number of unregistered comments (and keep votes from people without day to day editing experience of wikipedia) suggest this is being portrayed as a vote. However, the AFD process is not a vote - its a balancing act. Clearly this article does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. If we were being very flexible and allowing Alexa to have a say in this, we can even see then that the website is not notable at all. Other LGBT websites such as gaydar and out are notable by their size, press commentry and, as such, meet WP:WEB. Thingbox does not. One day it might. But for the moment, Thingbox is not encylopaedic at all. --manchesterstudent 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not spam this AfD with the same comment over and over again. Also please do not try to sway the argument with false information (there are no forums urging people to 'vote') and with your own speculation. Teppic74 09:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon writes[edit]

IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY TO alphachimp, I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING ON HIS TALK PAGE SEEKING ADVICE ON GWO who claims to be "The Stig" on Top Gear's libelous posting above.

I think you have elided away from the point, User:alphachimp, or at least as far as the events are significant to me.

The objector made a direct accusation without supplying any supporting evidence. As I know that several of the contributors to the AfD page are distinct carbon-based humanoids, he has libeled them all. Furthermore, he has brought the discussion to a halt by libelling any subsequent contributor who opposes deletion. I am not, by using a legal term, advising a legal remedy -- that way madness and bankruptcy lie! I am simply pointing out that there is a reason in law why it is wrongful to make false accusations and I would ask you to point me to the appropriate rememdy within Wikipedia for an unsupported accusation against fellow contributors.

A bun-fight on the AfD page is not a satisfactory remedy.

User:GWO must either present evidence to support his claim or retract it. How do I invoke this challenge?

The objector's posting was directly responsible for my NOT putting forward a new argument in favour of retention. What am I to do to prevent being subject to this 'prior restraint' which he has invoked?

FYI - the original posting: 

   * Delete, nn website indulging in shocking sock puppetry. -- GWO

May I also clarify my motivations:

it is not 'offence' or 'indignation' at having been bullied out of an AfD. It is the fact that the actions of a contributor on an AfD page have been highly disruptive to the editing process. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.164.244 (talk • contribs)

Hi, you might read this section of the page about sockpuppet policy to understand what GWO was referring to. Basically, AfD's are supposed to be discussions within the regular Wikipedia editing community; newcomers (especially those who show up specifically for some single discussion) are welcome to participate but their conclusions are traditionally given less weight (or none) when determining consensus. In this instance I think that should also apply to nonactive accounts that suddenly woke up for this discussion. Phr (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, what would you say was "nonactivity"? Remember, you probably have to be precise to avoid bringing about even more problems. For example, I made a few edits before, when I first joined, and then was away, abroad (in China) where access was difficult and eventually blocked for many months. In fact, whilst I was away I consciously used some of this time to gather more information which I hoped, and am intending, to use to expand a few entries concerning places in China (Zhangjiajie and Zhangjiajie City to name just two instances.) I think a whole new can of worms could be opened up if this idea of "nonactive" accounts is suddenly applied without prior warning. ddstretch 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikilawyering is not a good strategy. No, I don't need to be precise, there are no set rules, we are allowed to react to situations as they arise, and the closing admin will read over the different comments and then use their discretion and wisdom to do something sensible. The admins are not robots who are constrained to follow formulas; we delegate them the authority to handle these things as judgement calls when necessary, because we trust their judgement.

It looks to me like you made an account, played with it a little, and abandoned it, a very common fate of Wikipedia accounts (something like 3/4 of them have never edited at all). Then someone brought this AfD to the attention of Thingbox members and you came over from there. Please do edit some of the China articles (and anything else that interests you) but until you actually do participate like that (rather than merely intending to), we have to think of you as a non-participant. Also, even if you had been editing regularly, the mere act of coming over because of an external campaign is itself reason to make adjustments (see here); it's just easier to infer what likely happened, given your contrib history. Phr (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is interesting to read the comments made about people perceived to be "newcomers" in the light of the following section: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, in particular, this passage: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary." Some have done this more than others. I do not count user:Phr as being one of them. Thanks for the explanation, Phr, but I can only reiterate that your inference is, in my case, inaccurate. ddstretch 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the reception was a bit unfriendly, and that's why I supplied those links that explained the terminology and logic in ways that were hopefully less upsetting. We should have been more conscientious about welcoming newbies even in difficult circumstances; but I hope you can sympathize at least slightly to the reaction we have (especially since this happens quite often) to being jumped on like this. Imagine a few dozen Wikipedians suddenly showing up at Thingbox without knowing anything about Thingbox's culture, trying to get Thingbox to display some article about Wikipedia for Wikipedia's benefit, without regards to Thingbox's usual habits about that kind of article, and expecting to have the same amount of say in such decisions as regular Thingbox participants who had been there for a while. I think it wouldn't go over much better than this AfD has gone.

I see that we agree now that Thingbox doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines. See also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer (the "review your intentions" paragraph), understand that Wikipedia is in the 20 largest web sites on the whole internet, realize we're constantly bombarded by people trying to sell products or gain notoriety by putting stuff in front of our readers because they know the value of that much advertising, and understand that we know exactly what it is that they want. It's a perpetual battle to stick to our goal of being an encyclopedia and not an advertising service and we very frequently have to tell (e.g.) up-and-coming musicians claiming to be on the verge of "making it" to come back after they've made it, not before. This is pretty similar--if the article gets deleted, I advise waiting a few months and examining the guidelines before trying again (assuming you meet the guidelines by then, which you very well might), and don't organize a campaign, those (as you see) tend to go over badly. I hope that helps you understand the situation a little better. -- Phr (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • hello - i don't quite know how to post this but - well the thing is - i find the idea of suppressing the existance of the thingbox site rather sinister - and very sad given that it is a community site that exists for gay and lesbian people to better be able to get in touch with each other. Given the extremeness of the slightness of some entries on Wiki - and given that nobody is being forced to the info on Thingbox - I can only conclude that the wish to have it removed is for political or vindictive reasons - and frankly the idea that that sort of behaviour should be successful would be a tragedy for the Wiki. Thanks for reading this. *
  • Consider the following:
WP:WEB is not satisfied.
WP:WEB does not apply.
Thingbox, like other social networking "sites" does not merit inclusion because of the notoriety of it's web-only content. It merits an article because of the social activity of human communities bound through on-line communication. Like geographically-bound communities, there is not the same threshold of notability -- Wikipedia would not delete an article about a village because it was not frequently mentioned in the press, or was not utterly unique. Thingbox merits inclusion as one of many LGBT social networking communities in just the same way as Saxmundham merits inclusion as one of a number of Suffolk geographic communities.
It should be sufficient to demonstrate that a sufficiently distinct activity took place, involving a significant number of people over a significant period of time for the activity to merit inclusion. This is not a static website and it is not the content per se which is notable.
What must be supplied, however, is satisfactory references i.e. the article should not be 'autobiography' or 'original research'.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Scanlon[edit]

Claims subject is a lottery winner, and that might be true -- but the article is completely uncited. There's about 18 hits for "Andrew Scanlon" + lotto, [45], and about 21 for "Andrew Scanlon" +lottery [46]. I don't think winning the lotto (even together with philanthropy and youth) are notable enough. Throw in unverifiaiblity and you don't have a good subject for an article. Mikeblas 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While the odds of a specific person winning the lottery are extremely poor, there is no shortage of lottery winners. There are several new ones on a weekly basis in all the places that have lotteries. As a result, winning a lottery does not impart any sort of notability absent any other independent factors, including those at WP:BIO. Agent 86 19:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yeah, the only way people become notable under these circumstances with BIO is if they are involved in noteworthy events. As Agent 86 says, there's no shortage of new lottery winners, so it's not an event for anyone but the winner.--Chaser T 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This AfD was blanked by User:Pretronas -- Mikeblas 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is superb and helps poor people by giving them hope you <personal attack/incivility removed>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Curran[edit]

Footballer girlfriend: notable? Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was in the middle of stubbifying it based on the rather dubious columnist bit, but really, we don't need this. FCYTravis 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable tabloidcruft. --MCB 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relevant parts are already covered in Steven Gerrard. ~ trialsanderrors 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — whilst I am a great admirer of her husband's footballing abilities, she has yet to attain notability in her own right. Fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe redir to Stevie G. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight weenie[edit]

Delete as it is little more then a dicdef. Gay Cdn 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Move to Wiktionary - apparently a genuine term. BlueValour 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real term, and there's far too much information in the article to Wikify it to Wictionary without lossing the bulk of the article content. Herostratus 18:38, 15 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, Kimchi.sg 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Transwiki real term, in use in the cycling world, but I don't think this can be more than a dicdef. --Pboyd04 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary per above. --Wine Guy Talk 07:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best move this to Wiktionary. I can do it for you, if you'd like. Mostly Rainy 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, more than a dicdef. Merge or move to a title like "bicycle weight reduction" as appropriate. Kappa 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because the term is real but moving to bicycle weight reduction might be better Yuckfoo 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete or something. Are we supposed to be waiting for a section on the history of weight weenies? A list of weight weenies throughout cycling history? Recury 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dad strength[edit]

Contested prod. This is a weird combination of a neologism and original research. The links at bottom point to a forum and a weighlifting page. In both, the word appears with quotes, indicating even the cited sources consider this a neologism. Googling for "Dad Strength" reveals 750 hits, but after the first two pages, many of them are "dad. Strength" or "dad's strength", so the real Ghits are probably far lower. Among the one's actually about the stated term, there's nothing useful, just more forums, etc. Googling for the Latin term, vires paternus, turns up nothing as well.--Chaser T 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified jibberjabber and possible OR. Eddie.willers 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced OR and possible hoax. --MCB 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks made up to me. Artw 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bad joke (I'm a dad, too)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehcsif (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lest the "normals" find out the secret behind my amazing powers! 206.11.112.251 21:56, 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 was Speedy delete as CSD A7 and A1. Mushroom (Talk) 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liking Heights Marching Band[edit]

Article is not encyclopedic and is about a non-noteworthy band per the Music Notability Guidelines. Stratosphere 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't even verify that they exist. --Pboyd04 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged for little/no content or context. I think the author meant the "Licking Heights Marching Band" in Licking County, Ohio. NawlinWiki 22:07, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Kwan[edit]

No evidence of notability, looks like vanity and (self-)promotion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the writier for this article. Jerry Kwan is one of my friends and I'd like to write an introduction of him. He is a public writer in Hong Kong and has published books as evidence of his publicity. Please check up the books before you decide there's "No evidence of notability".. thanks a lot!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsomclose (talk • contribs)

Delete Publishing a book does not make one notable - a lot of people publish books, most of them obscure, bad or just unprofitable. Most of this article is trivial info and on the rare occasion that anything is cited, it's from the subject's own site. If this person is notable as his friend suggests, someone other than himself and his friends will write the article. Ytny 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the author wants it deleted, speedy? Ytny 16:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPixcel.com[edit]

This is not an article but an advert for a non notable company Andymarczak 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertizing --Xrblsnggt 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete grand total of 32 hits on google [47]. No Alexa traffic info, no indication they're remotely notable. --Crossmr 21:15, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Parnell[edit]

Non-notable motivational speaker. Lots of Google hits for his name, but a lot don't appear to be him. "David Parnell" speaker gets about 366 hits. A lot of it seems to be sites for schools and organizations saying that he has/will speak to them. The article reads like an advert/speaker's biography, gives no sources, and expresses nothing about him that doesn't sound like a lot of other motivational speakers out there. Metros232 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and send to live in a van by the river. NawlinWiki 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be notable in the "don't do drugs" speaking circuit. Info appears to come straight from his own website, though. so possible CopyVio. Nonetheless, seems notable to me. --Rehcsif 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't even come close to WP:BIO, unless I missed the part about former drug addicts who go around talking to schoolkids. --Wine Guy Talk 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This man has done a lot to keep kids off of drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.82.216.246 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It's commercial advertising, not a proper encyclopedia entry. Jonswift 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO. --Satori Son 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though perhaps "The person has done a lot to keep kids off drugs" should be added to WP:BIO. —Centrx→talk • 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and recreate as redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas bashing[edit]

Delete. Just came across this page, have no bias for or against Lucas but this page describes original research on a non-notable topic and does not deserve more than a couple of lines in the fan criticism page. Zargulon 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-- even the article title is unencyclopedic. Any relavant info can be merged to the Lucas, Star Wars, or other articles. --Rehcsif 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, looks like an attempt to create terms.--Crossmr 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment previous AfD. --Pboyd04 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote from the last AfD stands. "Delete and redirect to Fan criticism of George Lucas. I've heard the term but don't think it deserves an article of its own. --Pboyd04 04:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)" --Pboyd04 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess you mean merge to the fan criticism page rather than redirect. Thanks for contributing again. Zargulon 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no I mean delete the content that is there since it is orignal reasearch and non-encyclopedic and redirect the topic to Fan criticism of George Lucas. There really isn't anything worth merging. --Pboyd04 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This would parallel how Bush Bashing was handled. --Rehcsif 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ok, got you.
  • Good Lord Delete NEOCRUFTOR. ~ trialsanderrors 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meesa Say Delete Danny Lilithborne 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm always surprised by how much ire this page draws. Really, what is a "Good Lord Delete"? How on earth can a title be unencyclopedic? For a topic which is supposedly "not notable", it is noteworthy to me for being the page I'm forced to defend the most against attacks which don't reference problems with the content. Yes, as Pboyd04 linked, there has already been a Delete flagging of this article. Since then, the content hasn't really changed since then except to increase the number of inline references. Can I say again:
  • This article is not "original research". It plainly lists 17 references which define the term both implicitly and explicitly and certainly detail all of the attributes listed in the article. Most can be clicked on and read. Go ahead, try it.
  • Comment I just did an edit to integrate the references into the text. The number of references is down to 15 but given that most sentences now have a source attached, I think this argument is probably more true than it was before. Mattisgoo 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the Delete votes here claim the article is not "encylopedic" and yet want the page merged into Fan criticism of George Lucas which is currently labelled "this article or section may require cleanup" and is little more than a list of gripes.
  • Further against the merge: Fan criticism of George Lucas is actually "original research". It lists only 5 references, all copied from Lucas Bashing, and all are actually about Lucas Bashing.
  • Fan cruft is a valid argument although the determination remains difficult. That peer reviewed research papers define, examine and discuss the term (Elana Sheffrin, "Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and participatory fandom: mapping new congruencies between the internet and media entertainment culture", Critical Studies in Media and Communication, Pages 261 - 281, Volume 21, Number 3, September 2004) would indicate a penetration outside the fan community.
  • Bush Bashing was deleted for the reason "Contains no information beyond what is implicit in the title" [48]. Lucas Bashing details attributes, nostalgia, flaming -- root causes, significance, ad hominem, etc.
Vandalism, POV disputes and Delete debates on this page which never do more than cry "not encyclopedic", "original research" and "inherently biased" make supporting controversial pages on Wikipedia extremely hard -- they are just names insulting the page rather than arguments about the content. Never do people say: this paragraph doesn't give a source. Never has anyone said: the core idea is supposed to be X but you drift off into Y. Never do I see: this source has been discredited. Actually, most people on the talk page seem convinced that this page gives no sources. The only assumption can be that people vote against the page because the title offends them or the whole concept offends them because I've never seen an argument over the content.
It's not the most significant topic on Wikipedia, nor does it need to be. It's not the best written article on Wikipedia, nor does it need to be. It is adequately referenced and yet gets nothing but grief from often irrational posters (read Talk:Lucas_bashing some time). I really think that deleting this page would be a win for censorship and motivated fans against the efforts of people trying to support topics with research and facts.Mattisgoo 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Pboyd04. No merge, because this article is terrible. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep
These "original research" comments are puzzling in light of the journal papers and other resources cited (excluding fan forum links of course). Given the existance of these sources, discussion and analysis of this topic clearly exists outside Wikipedia. Please (re)read the article and supporting references before making a call for deletion or merging. If after (re)reading the article in detail there remains anything that is unreferenced, please make a note of it on the talk page. These blanket "original research" statements without highlighting specific areas does not help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
As has previously been mentioned on the first deletion discussion, the Fan criticism of George Lucas page was created to remove unreferenced material from the Lucas Bashing page. I doubt that anyone who suggests merging has actually had a good look at Lucas Bashing and Fan criticism of George Lucas; while the former is well researched and well written, the latter is just a collection of fans' complaints about the Lucas films and is unsupported and unreferenced.Zukeeper 12:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, the keepers have a point.. Fan criticism of George Lucas is an even stronger candidate for deletion. Still, one thing at a time. Zargulon 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or Redirect Wow this one is really over the top. Unencyclopedic entry. Fancruft.--Nick Y. 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect. There's no "there" there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
I'm going to voice a strong objection to the manner in which Delete votes are being cast (and it's not supposed to be a vote):
No argument has been made against the content of the article yet
These are the assertions made (without reference to the article itself) against the article so far:
  • "This would parallel how Bush Bashing was handled"
  • "non-notable topic"/"fan cruft"
  • "not encyclopedic"
  • "Neologism"
Yet none of these points have attempted to support themselves with evidence. Here is why none of them actually work as arguments:
  • On Bush Bashing, juding only from the deletion votes (since the article is no longer accessible):
  • Bush Bashing had no information beyond the title.
  • It had nothing to offer about the bashers or the individuals involved.
  • There is already an adequately written page on Bush criticism.
By contrast, this article:
  • Details the evolution of the community which has led to the schism
  • Point out why the schism is interesting (an ongoing divide between otherwise like-minded fans)
  • Only mentions the existence of criticism in 2 sentences and has no overlap with the totally unreferenced, questionably neutral, significantly unstructured, Fan criticism of George Lucas article.
  • On notability, I quote (from WP:Notability) "notability is not formal policy", and it is generally considered that anything "based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research" is notable enough. It's generally accepted that a number of references from different sources are required. This article has 1 research paper from a large journal (plus one on bashing more generally), 2 print newspapers, 4 large online news sources, plus some dozen sundries. The article has also never suffered from a lack of regular edits, changes, comments about content and reliability and POV discussions in its 8 month history; again supporting the argument that it is notable enough.
  • Not encyclopedic isn't an argument, just a vote since it can't be determined what you mean by it as a statement. This is supposed to be an effort to reach concensus. Since almost all Deleters here so far have a history of participating in delete discussions, you would think that you should all know better by now. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean every test in WP:NOT is failed, let's look at them all.
  • "Not a paper encyclopedia" -- well the article isn't too long.
  • "Not a dictionary" -- the article does define the term but it goes into details that fit well outside a dictionary's scope.
  • "Not a puplisher of original thought". Again:
  • 1 journal paper which spends 3 paragraphs defining and analyzing the two camps of "Lucas bashers" and "Lucas gushers"
  • 2 print newspapers, one which defines the term explicitly and looks at the community
  • 4 online news sources, two of which explicitly define the term.
  • Almost a dozen other sources, explicitly defining the term, some of which go into great detail about "fan schisms", basher and gusher motivations, traits, etc.
  • "Not a soapbox" -- this isn't an ad for anything. The assertion has been made that the article is trying to "invent" the term. Read the dates on the sources, the term plainly predates the creation of this article.
  • "Repository of links" -- no.
  • "Indiscriminate collection of information" -- no.
  • "Crystal ball" -- no.
  • Lastly, on "Neologism": "Lucas bashing" and "Lucas gushing" are fan community terms and they are not authoritative. "Lucas" is often omitted or replaced with "Star Wars" and this is mentioned in the article. The term are used in the journal paper and both newspaper sources which would satisfy Articles on neologisms. Even were this not the case, I would argue that the article is not about the term but the behaviour of the fan community and the rift that formed over changes and additions to it's base.
So finally, make an argument people! You're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia and few of you are forming complete sentences (I know that's a rude thing to say but the quality of the delete votes is seeming absurd to me and it's frustrating). Show a little good faith about trying to reach a concensus. By simply voting for deletion, or raising points so broad and unfounded that it amounts to a vote, you're violating Wikipedia:Deletion_policy in a misguided attempt to uphold WP:NOT.
Mattisgoo 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mattisgoo, consensus does not mean complete agreement; here, there is no need to "reach" a consensus, as it clearly exists already, namely that this page doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The main point that you seem to be missing is that Star Wars is basically not a big deal. Join the consensus, or don't join it, but please stop spamming refutations to arguments that have been made only in your imagination; the only effect is to make this page more difficult to read, which may irritate the the adjudicator but will not change their decision. Zargulon 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, I see no evidence for your assertion that "[consensus] exists already". As Mattisgoo has already stated, this is not a vote, so simply saying "Delete" or "Redirect" without supporting evidence, and without any indication that the voter has actually taken the time to read the article, does not indicate in any way shape or form that consensus has been reached. I have not read anything on this page that I would consider as reasonable justification for a deletion. As for your request that Mattisgoo "stop spamming refutations to arguments that have been made only in [his/her] imagination", I believe that he has quoted "Rehcsif" on "This would parallel how Bush Bashing was handled", yourself on "non-notable topic", "Nick Y" on "fan cruft", "Pboyd04" on "not encyclopedic" and "Trialsanderrors" on "Neologism". He has gone through each of the statements and refuted each argument with reference to various Wikipedia policies, presenting his arguments for why this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. May I suggest that if you wish to continue with your argument that this article should be deleted, you could go through the Wikipedia criteria for deletion and give examples from the Lucas bashing page that meet these criteria. Zukeeper 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. I also feel that neither m nor Z really understands the concept of consensus.. they seem to feel that it means "persuading everybody", whereas the normal meaning is "overwhelming agreement" (as is the case here). As a tiny minority, the burden is certainly on you to demonstrate why "Lucas Bashing" should be in WP, but m's attitude has merely been to argue (at gargantuan length) that removing it would be unjust. Z's implication that voters who didn't leave a comment may not have read the article carefully enough to reach an opinion is nothing other than an imputation of bad faith, and it has been noted. Zargulon 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Bob[edit]

Searching for this person's album titles produces zero relevant GHits except for his own website. That spells NN and total failure of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC to me. Fan-1967 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and the web page is hosted on a free service.--Crossmr 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fame and fortune first, Wikipedia article second. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crap music (I'm not insulting it, that's what Sick Bob calls it), nonnotable. NawlinWiki 22:04, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuwaubianism[edit]

This article is largely erroneous, non encyclopedic, opinionated, incomplete, and loosely formulated. Nuwaubian Hotep 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no vote fixing incorrect AfD step 2.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn neologism. --Pboyd04 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please note that the abundant tags were added by the Afd nominator. --Pboyd04 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable kind of colective idiotism. See template:Nuwaubian for more of it. Rename neologism into someting that correctly reflects the content. `'mikka (t) 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Looks notable, but needs a lot of cleanup. I went to the article to find out what it was, but I'm not really sure what it is. — Omegatron 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From what I understand of it, it's just on the good side of notability. BigHaz 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable especially given current events[49][50], interesting, well-referenced, but in need of some clean-up; the AFD nominator is acting from partisan bias against an objective look at his belief system.--Moorlock 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No where in main stream media including the New York Times are Nuwaubians mentioned for being apart of the recent arrest of the 5 Haitians (1 illegal, others 1st and 2nd generation) in Florida for supposely plotting to blow up the Sears Tower. It's my genuine opinion that a ghost writer who also uses the negologistic term "Nuwaubianism" has been responsible for spreading this rumour over the internet with falsely written articles made to appear legit such as this one [[51]]. Nuwaubian Hotep 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of the article can be changed. AfD is about whether Wikipedia should have an article about these people or none at all. — Omegatron 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, other factors concerning the article would include the author's sheer inablity to project his thesis in an intelligent, logical manner. Here's an example of Nuwaubian literature for comparison. [[52]] Nuwaubian Hotep 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The AfD nominator is trying to summon support from Nuwaubian mailing lists:
"By Nuwaubian Hotep <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"To [email protected], [email protected]
"Plezse vote this article off Wikipedia.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuwaubianism"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.137.242 (talk • contribs) 04:22, July 17, 2006 (UTC)
Are we not allowed to petition voters? If not, then I apologize. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia medium. Nuwaubian Hotep 05:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: certainly seems notable, well-sourced, external links confirming notability. -- NORTH talk 08:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not well sourced in the least, he's referencing user created websites with half truths. Nuwaubian Hotep 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article may be edited and disputed at article's talk page Talk:Nuwaubianism. Please address specific disagreements there, one by one. `'mikka (t) 23:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. --SJK 09:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable and well referenced too Yuckfoo 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizoku-Fansubs[edit]

Page appear to be vanity / advert / spam Wirbelwind 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del fancruft. `'mikka (t) 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fna subtitleing group. --Pboyd04 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per precedent. Let's stop this before the sockpuppets invade. Danny Lilithborne 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fansub group that only fansubs one series. The article also appears to be an advert. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policies are for articles about groups that engage in copyvio. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unmet notability criteria in WP:ORG. Incidentally, they appear to brazenly engage in illegal activities (illegal even according to the loose standards adopted by the the "fansubbing" community). This is not a speedy criterion, but I would recommend SNOWballing this one, and salting. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now I'm curious. What illegal activities? Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: continuing to publish "fansubs" after the show in question has been licensed by a company for distribution in America, etc. Technically speaking all fansub videos involve copyright infringement, but until there is a licensed distributor in the relevant countries it is not worth prosecuting, so fansub groups thrive. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:52, 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 was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 1000 home run hitters[edit]

Unencyclopedic at this scope and largely superfluous. There already exists a list of Top 500 home run hitters of all time on Wikipedia. This list does not add any notable information that is not already available on that list. RPIRED 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to duplicate. Rename Top 500 home run hitters of all time into Top home run hitters (and have "top 500" subsection, if one wishes). Wikipedia does not really need sensationalist article titles. `'mikka (t) 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, List of leading MLB home run hitters, since those are the only ones covered. ~ trialsanderrors 21:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SweetNeo85 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the lines at the bottom of the table, it looks like it plans on including any active player that has ever hit a home run, and any inactive player with more than 50, which is not cohesive with its title. Listmania is unnecessary. -- NORTH talk 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How is a list of the 501st through 1000th homerun hitters even remotely notable? The top 500 ought to suffice... this is listcruft to an extreme. --Vengeful Cynic 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would think that the top 100 or 200 should be enough. Plenty of the top 1000 home run hitters will not and should not be in the Hall of Fame. Jonswift 05:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novostroika[edit]

del russian language dicdef and nothing else. (the previous nomination was for different content Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novostroika). `'mikka (t) 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or transwiki to Wiktionary if they want it, although it's not a great definition. —Caesura(t) 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this time, I'll agree also. :) Sorry about mess last time, I thought there would be something to write for the article... --mno 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not a Wiktionary expert, but I doubt it's what they'd want. -- NORTH talk 08:39, 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 (no consenus). Several comments by new users discounted. TigerShark 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbud[edit]

Non-notable band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Roy A.A. 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--SweetNeo85 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --NEMT 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:MUSIC through touring easily. Looking through a few media sites I found plenty of UK touring and a U.S. tour. Also, featured on Allmusic [53] and Spin.com [54]. --Joelmills 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As previous comment, also they were joint-winners of the glastonbury 2004 unsigned bands competition (with The Subways) (EFestivals news page [55](BBC [56])MrDaveS 16:25, 17 July 2006 (BST)
  • Keep - Signed band with singles/albums released, they've toured the world and have regular airplay on major stations (Radio 1, etc). SJH
  • Comment - Blackbud has had a XFM session and a track has appeared on the soundtrack to The Skeleton Key Movie. MrDaveS
  • Keep. Mostly Rainy 10:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SJH. Reggae Sanderz 10:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please touring data meets bio guideline per joelmills Yuckfoo 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Alabama[edit]

Wikipedia:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information SweetNeo85 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruf. --Pboyd04 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to be a notable, unique, or useful list. Yanksox 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - who really cares? --Alex9891 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Not all the info was up at the time -- inkjet 21:32, 16 July 2006 (CST)
  • Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 09:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominations from yesterday for NC and Georgia. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:01, 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 DELETE. TigerShark 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and Pathology of Parkinson's Disease[edit]

These articles were forked from Parkinson's disease, an article that has recently been plagued by one particularly nasty editor. These forks were not discussed on the article talkpage, and other material much more suitable for splitting off has been left. I propose delete (no merge necessary). JFW | T@lk 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without merge as per above given that it's a fork. Andrew73 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parkinson's Disease page is well over size. Symptoms, Pathology, Toxins and Treatments each take up a large part of that article. They could therefore each be summarised on the Parkinson's Disease page and be dealt with extensively on their own pages. --Xemxija 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge as per above. --PaulWicks 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Parkinsons. Size limits are totally bogus -- we're not all MTV generation, you know. -- GWO
  • Comment: is this a POVFORK? I notice Parkinson's disease is currently protected. What exactly is the dispute? Perhaps the problem there should be resolved before deciding to delete, keep, or merge material here. Scorpiondollprincess 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is material identical to the present format, copied to be edited by General Tojo and his Sockpuppets at their collective leisure. No merge necessary. Potential to degenerate into a POVFORK. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - needs to await dispute resolution. BlueValour 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. -AED 23:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - the Parkinson's Disease article is too big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanadew (talk • contribs) N.B, suspected sock puppet of General Tojo.
  • delete both per nom Tom Harrison Talk 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Virginia Junior Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Besides being an incredibly ugly black table, this article clearly says at the bottom of the page that the information in it is copyrighted. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio. --DarkAudit 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyright violation by its own confession. -- Alias Flood 23:39, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Pudding Productions[edit]

Nonnotable video production company/website, 12 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete per nom. I consider over a 1,000 hits a month to indicate a relatively popular site considering we haven't been online for many months. Omnilink
  • Delete per nom. Site has no Alexa ranking, that's kind of odd for a site as "relatively popular" as they claim to be. Metros232 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just 12 Google hits for "Magical Pudding Productions" — none of them notable. Alias Flood 23:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. Take a look at this edit: edit by the page's creator. Nice try. --Xrblsnggt 03:43, 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT and WP:SNOW. No sense being overly legalistic. FCYTravis 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screw me do me do[edit]

It is a hoax --Alex9891 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax. And not in any case encyclopedic--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a speedy candidate; it is clear what it thinks it is about. However, it should still be deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdulTv[edit]

Nonsense hoax, see listing for "Screw me do me do", above. NawlinWiki 22:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrosphere[edit]

Neologism. Returns around 600 Ghits, many of which are wikipedia-derived, or have variant usages Artw 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as failing WP:NEO. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then move first sentence to wiktionary - not a neologism, it is a proper term see here. However, this is not an encyclopaedic entry. It can be recreated if someone wants to do justice to it. BlueValour 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MobiMed[edit]

Is an open advertisement. Doesn't pretend otherwise. Company links at bottom of page. KarenAnn 22:15, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award Categories where a tie occurred.[edit]

Yet another pointless Academy Awards list (only 5 entries).NawlinWiki 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into the respective Nth Acadamy Awards pages if the information isn't there already, otherwise delete. If it's only happened 5 times it's probably worth mentioning, just not as a seperate article. BryanG(talk) 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was originally Merge -- per BryanG above. Not like there have been thousands of these. A * footnote would be totally appropriate. My reality test is "Dave, how many times has there been an Oscar tie? Dunno, lets look on wikipedia," and he looks under the main article. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - modified own consensus building declaration, with notation of support (which is not to be confused with an actual "vote"  :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Merge folks should note that that is effectively a Keep since a merge can be undone by any editor the next day. After delete authors of Academy Awards articles can incorporate any nuggets if they wish. BlueValour 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Team ECK. TigerShark 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team_RECK[edit]

It seems a report of a wrestling event or series of events, without wikilinks, categorization, and so on. Cantalamessa 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Team ECK and redirect. Someone should also alert WP:PW members, but they don't seem to have a delsort list... — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Team ECK, just like we did with the nWo and nWo Wolfpac articles. I will let my fellow member of WP:PW know. TJ Spyke 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Team ECK. The two would mesh perfectly, and I wouldn't like all this work to be deleted Kingfisherswift 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Team ECK as per above. --Oakster (Talk) 17:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G7 author request. Kimchi.sg 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbsoluteRaleigh[edit]

A company that repairs, refurbishes and resells laptops in Raleigh, NC. No indication that it comes remotely close to WP:CORP unless you want to count its great feedback rating on eBay. Fan-1967 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Caesura(t) 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, there they are. I searched quite a while for CORP guidelines. I see my company page should probably be deleted as it isn't a Fortune 500 company and hasn't been mentioned in many books. —AbsoluteRaleigh 16 July 2006
  • Speedy Delete per author request. --DarkAudit 17:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author request. NawlinWiki 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items[edit]

This is entirely unencyclopediac article, both in prose and in content. According to WP:NOT, we are entirely opposed to gameguides and article in similar veins. This is gamefaqs material and unjustified for encycloepdiac inclusion. Its also horridly written and infrignes upon numerous manual of style guidelines. Randall Brackett 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Encyclopedia Gamia. Wikipedia isn't a game game guide, but what is a game guide? IMHO, this is a corrolary of Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, meaning Wikipedia is not for game walkthroughs. This article isn't a walkthrough. Information of issues like design and gameplay is exactly what we should be covering in the computer and video games project. That said, the items in Majora's Mask are not notable in their own right and we already have a good page about items in the series, so this should be moved to a more appropriate wiki. Ace of Sevens 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a game guide. Dump a copy on an appropriate game wiki if they want it (note that this can be done at any time). Proto::type 08:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT does not state we are entirely opposed to gameguides and article in similar veins, it states that Wikipedia...should not include... tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides.... This article is a decent list, it is complete and contains background information. It is a not a game-guide and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - isn't this already covered in The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items, which is an article with a good reputation as NOT being a gameguide? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article is only for recurring items inthe series, while most of the Majora's Mask items are unique to the game. Ace of Sevens 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well-said nom. Recury 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge As noted in Ace of Sevens's comment, many items are found only in Majora's Mask. Subsections like the various masks available throughout the game are cruicial and specific to this game only — they should remain in a separate page such as this in this category. However, it does makes more sense for subsections like "Dungeon Items", "Arrows and similar weapons", "Shields", etc., to be merged with the main The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items page as these generally apply to the whole series than this game, even if they do make an appearance in Majora's Mask. So, I say keep "Masks" at least (perhaps Rename page to "The Legend of Zelda: Masks from Majora's Mask) and merge the other non-specific info. --Tryforceful 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information that is not redundant with the Zelda items article or the main Majora's Mask article are the minor masks and minor items like the Bomber's Notebook. Nifboy 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is for items only in majoras mask and is not a game guide Yuckfoo 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article quality is not a factor in deletion, as it can be remedied by the Nom as easily as listing for deletion. As the article is not a game guide, I don't see any problem with it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged to castration. Ordinarily I wouldn't close one I commented on, but the opinion was nearly unanimous and the redirect had already been done. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castration cult[edit]

listcruf. Each of the cults mentioned already includes remarks on castration. --Pboyd04 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to castration. -Will Beback 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Not sure what is gained by having a separate short article here, but having the redirect will help our search engine. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per comments from nae'blis. This is interesting, encyclopedic info with external links provided. But as written, it's merely a list and not an actual article. Scorpiondollprincess 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. In fact, I've been bold and already done it. --SJK 09:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyone giving a page where this should be merged to? Mostly Rainy 10:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already merged it to castration. --SJK 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note this AfD was originally closed as no consensus by MostlyRainy. However I am concerned that this was improperly closed and am asking another admin to re-evaluate the result of the debate. Gwernol 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original result was No consensus. However this debate has been reopen for discussion by Gwernol (talk · contribs). Mostly Rainy 14:18, 22 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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Nintendo Nerd[edit]

Non-notable person/persona. o/s/p 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This person is notable in the gaming community. Much like The Video Game Pianist, the angry nintendo nerd has gained a large following.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike8bit (talk • contribs)
  • Please note: The following three votes were deleted or modified by User:Elixer202 [57]--Daduzi talk 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a member of the gaming community who has never heard of this person. Nor is the current article encyclopedic. --Pboyd04 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)(changed to: Keep as a member of the gaming community who loves this guy.)[reply]
    • Delete pending some kind of mention of the subject in an at least moderately mainstream source. I should also point out that Mike8bit's only contributions thus far have been creating the article and creating links to the article in game articles (typically "this game has been reviewed by the Angry Nintendo Nerd"). Distinct whiff of self-promotion. --Daduzi talk 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Pboyd04. — Reinyday, 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC))(changed to: Keep per Pboyd04.)
  • Delete, reviews on the sites mentioned in the article aren't enough to estabilish notability, IMO, even if they popular. Recury 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy is awesome. Many people haven't heard of him but after reading this will learn.--Elixer202 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not our job to advertise for people. If they are already notable, then we write articles on them. This guy isn't. Recury 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I love the Angry Nintendo Nerd's reviews, and as he reviews more games, more info for his entry will likely surface. --Shadow Lord 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently this page is the first one Mr Shadow Lord found after registering. --Daduzi talk 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — getcrunk what?! 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can get some reliable sources on this. nn. Ziggurat 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like WP:BJAODN to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't have found him if he wasn't talked about enough to put on here. He should at least be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia since the person who filmed himself getting angry playing Abadox is mentioned on that game's page. --Richard Cane 08:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he is talked about a lot then finding a mainstream source that mentions him should be no problem. Whether or not he warrants a mention in Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether or not he warrants an article; if you can find an article where you think mentioning Mr Nerd would improve the article then feel free. The only real issue here is whether he fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO, if you can find one criteria he fulfills then there may be a case for an article. --Daduzi talk 10:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look on google and type "Angry Nintendo Nerd" you'll see there's considerable interest in him. There are German [58], Japanese [59], Spanish [60], Swedish [61], Dutch [62] and Hebrew [63] sites discussing him. The reason I mention this is there are those who seem to be implying that he's orchestrating this for self promotion. If that's so how is he able to know all of these different languages? The problem with most people trying to see this as relevant is that he's reviewing old nintendo games. The reason I see this as supporting his staying on here is that I don't see how it hurts to associate him with the obscure games he's reviewing. The "google test" seems to show his popularity, it'll be more than a stub since his reviews keep expanding, he has a cult following, and there's no downside to having him on. Another "nerd" who is on wikipedia, and I believe rightfully so, is Gary Brecher also known as the War Nerd. He pretty much does the same thing but he's an expert on wars rather than old nintendo games. Richard Cane 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Google test alone isn't sufficient to warrant inclusion, there must be some other claim to notability. To take the War Nerd for instance, his article shows that he's writing a book and has been referenced on Fox News. A closer parallel is Old Man Murray, but again he has a greater degree of notability (having been referenced by the founder of Valve, and though it's not mentioned in the article the team were also investigated by the Secret Service). You'll also notice that as far as the Google test goes both the War Nerd (173,000 unique hits for "War Nerd" [64]) and Old Man Murray (103,000 unique hits for "Old Man Murray" [65]) considerably outrank the Angry Nintendo Nerd (20,500 unique hits for "Angry Nintendo Nerd" [66]). So the Google test is not convincing on its own, and I still don't see anything notable about this individual that warrants inclusion aside from the fact that his reviews are popular within a certain community. --Daduzi talk 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That book hasn't surfaced after nearly two years after it was announced and the Fox News mention is extremely recent. His article's creation on Wikipedia even predated the controversy with Victor Hanson. Did the creator of that article somehow predict all of the notoriety he was to receive when it was made? It seems to me that person saw somebody who was gaining popularity and decided to post about him on here. And you're forgetting that the Angry Nintendo Nerd is writing about old nintendo games. It's not going to have widespread appeal based on the subject matter but that doesn't mean he's any less relevant in regard to what he's talking about. It's a niche audience but the point is he does have one and it's considerable enough to warrent mentioning him on here. Old Man Murray has been around since 1999 and Gary Brecher has been writing articles since 2002. The Angry Nintendo Nerd has been doing this for about three months according to the signup date for his character on his myspace page so comparing those numbers only proves my point that he's gaining widespread popularity in a short amount of time. --Richard Cane 06:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd suggest re-creating the article when Mr Nerd becomes notable outside of a niche audience, then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Daduzi talk 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to talk numbers lets look at the Angry Nintendo Nerds YouTube count alone. 128,749 then add to that screw attacks versions of the ANN nerd videos 92524. That doesn't even include other sites he is featured on like gametrailers.com and others. Hey, but who's counting? Solarman 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since when has "number of videos uploaded to Youtube" been a good indication of how encyclopaedia worthy an individual is? --Daduzi talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You were the one who started dropping numbers, not me. But I agree. The numbers aren't what's on trial here. Even though the angry nintendo nerd has more views than the War Nerd and Old Man Murray put together. Solarman 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I noticed you ignored every other point I made except where I mentioned that reviews for old nintendo games aren't widespread in today's national media. Why do you have such a high standard for a person who makes videos of reviews for old nintendo games? He's become the most notable person at what he's doing. People who are interested in what he's talking about have shown they are willing to watch what he has to say. Why even bother making pages for the old games he's reviewing? Do you really think there's a huge group of people currently playing Who Framed Roger Rabbit? or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Nothing new or interesting has happened in regard to those two games except his recent reviews for them which have been viewed by thousands of people. --Richard Cane 07:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The reason for ignoring the other points was that I didn't want to get bogged down too much discussing the ins and outs of other articles. I know I did earlier, but I was wrong to do so. Simply put, the content of other articles is irrelevant as to whether this article should be deleted: the criteria are in WP:BIO, and precedent isn't one of them. Only if the other two have been through AfD (and there's no indication that they have) and were kept might there be something relevant to bring up. As things stand all that matters is whether the conditions of WP:BIO are met, and apart from a relatively unimpressive Google test result I've still seen abdolutely nothing to suggest any of the criteria are met. --Daduzi talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So there are whole new criteria for every different article on Wikipedia? Some articles are ok but some aren't because it's incovenient to discuss their acceptability by comparing them to other articles which have already been established? Sorry, I don't buy it. If you look on WP:BIO you'll see that that isn't an exclusionary list and the google test is more than enough for the subject matter involved. Not only that, but he has a cult status and his article is likely to expand beyond a stub which are arguably reasons enough for him to be on here. I'll put it this way, if somebody goes to the games he refers to the odds are they will want to see what he has to say about them. Linking to them does absolutely nothing to hurt the content of this site. But not only will the people who are interested in those games (which are already accepted content on this site) want to see what he has to say but he's shown that even more people are willing to view what he has to say about them even if they aren't interested in that specific topic. If those games can be put on this site his popular opinion regarding them deserve to be on here too. Unless there's some hierarchy that puts biographies above articles featuring old games in importance that I'm not aware of. --Richard Cane 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reindenting)OK, this will be my last comment on the issue here since things seem to be getting dragged out. To answer your points, it's not a case of different standards because the articles in question (as far as I can tell) haven't been put forward to AfD. In other words, no standards whatsoever have been applied; there's no standards regarding what articles can be created, only what articles can pass AfD. I know WP:BIO is not an exhaustive list, but there still needs to be some claim to wide notability and as things stand I'm just not seeing it. Finally, on the issue of links to his reviews of games, I personally wouldn't have a problem with providing external links at the bottom of the relevant articles; given that it's likely he's the only one to have reviewed them it would seem to fit within WP:EL. Anyway, like I said I'm bowing out of arguing on here, but feel free to respond on here, and if you want to get my responses drop me a line on my talk page. --Daduzi talk 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Richard, I was responding to daduzis comment about the War Nerd and Old Man Murray. I am well aware that those old games are not too important anymore. Part of the joke to the ANN reviews is why would anyone even bother reviewing those old games. People that may go to wikipedia and look up the angry nintendo nerd may want to learn more about the games he reviews however. In which case it's good to have links to those games articles on the ann wiki page. Solarman 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was responding to Daduzi. I'm on your side. I should have made that more clear. --Richard Cane 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the entry a chance. the guy's movie clips are relatively new and yet he got more than 30 000 hits for one, as well as some internet interviews here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.19.90 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 July 2006(UTC)
  • Keep How much more information would we need to keep this page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanWaste (talk • contribs)
    • The nomination isn't really because it's a bad article (there are far worse, anyway), just that the subject of the article doesn't need an entry. So adding more stuff probably wouldn't change most of the delete-voters minds (unless you added reliable sources that indicated some level of notability). Recury 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Screwattack is a great upcoming website. The popularity of the Angry Nintendo nerd currently is growing at a decent pace, don’t delete this wiki as long as there is no similar character producing on the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.193.165 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: In interesting trivia news: the above three keep votes come from users who have either one edit, or no edits, that are not related to Angry Nintendo Nerd. In completely unrelated news, one of my socks has mysteriously gone missing. --Daduzi talk 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I use Wikipedia as a strong source of information. I have never edited a page before, because I generally use Wikipedia for items that I don't know much about...so how would I edit the pages they relate to? I do know, however, a bit about the ANN. I understand all of the arguments shown so far, but I greatly believe that after the ANN's debut has sunken in, more and more people will want to know more and more information about him. Why can't the initial fans provide that information with Wikipedia? HumanWaste 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Oh, it's right here next to this promotional pamphlet I just recieved from wikipedia. o/s/p 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I’m awfully sorry if being a fan of this guy nullifies my right to have an opinion on whether or not this entry is purely promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanktheevilmonkey (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, stir, and simmer with noodles. Deltabeignet 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. he is very popular with 300,000 total views of his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainMe (talk • contribs)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia, I guess. Recury 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Fact that there is such a debate going on here proves the character is notable to a large group of gamers. He has a large following and is a very recognizable figure.Solarman 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would be fine were this an encyclopaedia aimed at that particular group of gamers. It is not, however, so there needs to be some evidence that he is notable outside of that group. --Daduzi talk 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There would be no reason for people outside of the gaming community to know about him, since he is someone who reviews games. Nevertheless, if you even bothered to check out some of the external links provided or do a simple google search you will find people all around the world talking about his video reviews, and I'm sure a lot of them are just average people who have heard of him, much like how everyone has heard of the star wars kid. --Solarman 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no reason for people outside of the gaming community to know about him, so there is no reason for him to have an article here. Recury 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are many articles about people who are famous in the gaming community on wikipedia. You didn't understand what I said. He is becoming an internet phenomenon which includes people outside the gaming community. Even though it should really only be gamers who are interested. AND even if it was only gamers who were interested, it still warrents and article, because like I just stated, there are many articles about famous gaming personalities. Solarman 12:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't worry about the other articles, this is the one up for deletion. Recury 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which it shouldn't be. Solarman 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Recury your logic doesnt make much sense. Suppose i don't have any interest in say, electronic idm music, that doesn't mean i should vote the deletion of all artists page that sell about 500 copies of their album thru their own indie label. Yet they are probably all worthy of a wikipedia entry. i dont know why this guy, whose clips have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people should be deleted. 206.172.19.90 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of those articles would not survive an AFD. What does that have to do with anything? Recury 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point was that even though something like idm music which he doesn't care about has an article, it's still there, because there are people that do have an interest in it. Like the angry nintendo nerd, though not every person on earth will have an interest in reading his article, there is a large enough following to warrent his wiki topic. Mike8bit 16:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, its there because no one has tried to delete it yet. Like I said, many wouldn't survive AFD. People create articles that don't fit Wikipedia standards all the time. That isn't a valid argument at all. Here is a good essay that explains why: WP:INN. Recury 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This particular part of this discussion is now just going around in circles. The overall point is that he meets the criteria for his own article. He is widely recognized in his particular field. Mike8bit 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Since this was indeed reopened, I don't see any harm about keeping this page. I does need a little cleanup. Mostly Rainy 14:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worth server space. --Calton | Talk 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet any of the initial criteria for WP:BIO. Seems that supporters are attached to the google test, which 20,000 hits just plain isn't very impressive. Alexa rankings are screwattack.com - 1,156,995 [67] and cinemassacre - 3,905,515 [68]...both are extrememly low. This just plain isn't notable. IrishGuy talk 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not where his notablity is. It's on sites such as youtube and various gaming websites. This is the part where you'll say to me since when has number of videos uploaded to Youtube been a good indication being worthy of a wiki article? It is totally a good indication because thats how many people know about him. Solarman 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde gets 16,600 using the google test [69] and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? gets 25,200 [70]. The Angry Nintendo Nerd has 22,300 which is good enough for the subject matter involved. Again, if those two games can be on here so can the only person on earth doing a video review for them. As for your Alexa search, I chose Bruce Campbell as an example. His offical page [71] ranks 471,684. The screwattack site is only known for the Angry Nintendo Nerd's rants and if he's able to pull in a third of what a cult star like Bruce Campbell can get on his page then I don't think he's that bad considering he only posts videos about old games. Also, I'd like to point out that their websites do not denote how popular each is at what they do. The Angry Nintendo Nerd's popularity, as Solarman pointed out, is derived mostly from very popular mediums like myspace and youtube. --Richard Cane 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Baptist Association, CBA[edit]

nn group. A google search revels about 800 different groups of the same name. --Pboyd04 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No web visibility. The article asserts that they are in the Indian state of Tripura. Google search for "Central Baptist Association" and "Tripura" gives only three results: Answers.com (any guesses as to which Wikipedia article that would be?), and two pages that happen to have both strings used on different database records. GRBerry 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 18:36, 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 that we worry because of articles like this - delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why we worry[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. —Caesura(t) 23:16, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 07:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Baptist Church (Warner Robins, GA)[edit]

nn church (299 members). Plus most of the article reads like an advertisement. --Pboyd04 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of notability in the article. GRBerry 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Have the raised the dead? thought not. parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 18:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emon Ghaneian[edit]

Nonnotable Yu-Gi-Oh player, 80 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as possible vanity (author's only edits are to this page), failing WP:NPOV, uncited, and non-encyclopediac. A local Yu-Gi-Oh champ, or even a regional champ, is not notable by most standards. --DarkAudit 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - DarkAudit summed it up pretty nicely. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person is too new and not important enough to warrant an article. —TheRockBoS 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or userfy to save the author/subject unnecessary embarassment) per everything above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:37, 19 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 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Antichrist Superstar[edit]

nn group grand total of 177 ghits with wiki mirrors still in the mix. --Pboyd04 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with another article on the occult (possibly Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path). The article refers to Marilyn Manson who is definately not non-notable (as much as I dislike the guy!). If there is a citation that can prove the existence of the link between this and Manson, then the article should be kept, but merged due to its lack of content. --Mal 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fringe group. Fails WP:ORG, as proposed, and WP:V. If anyone has links to coverage by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," please provide. --Satori Son 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stiffener[edit]

Deproded - Slang dictdef - Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Delete --Spring Rubber 23:33, 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 delete and redirect to Vissarion considering that more than half the article is copyvio from [[72]]. Kimchi.sg 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Last Testament[edit]

nn group. Few ghits. Would speedy but they claim media coverage. --Pboyd04 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They have plenty of coverage for a Russian cult. They are also referred to as the "Vissarion cult". Accoring to this site they are estimated to have 10,000 followers. [73] -Will Beback 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Religious crack-pot cruft. —optikos 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Religious crackpots are at times notable or become so. Look at Hong Xiuquan or L. Ron Hubbard. The "Church of the Last Testament" has been covered by The Guardian[74], CESNUR[75], and Zenit News Agency[76]. That said a merge is a fine idea as it adds little uncovered by Vissarion.--T. Anthony 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with Vissarion. as per wikipedia's stringent "One article per messiah" rule -- GWO
  • Merge & Redirect per GWO. I hadn't heard the one article per messiah rule. We need it. The current article reads more like a how-to-contact the group article than an encyclopedia entry. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As should go without saying it's not a rule, not even for NRMs, it's more a kind of joke. The examples of Category:L. Ron Hubbard and Category:Meher Baba kind of prove that. As for non NRMs there's Category:Jesus.--T. Anthony 05:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merge and redirect all the 167 pages in Category:Christianity and all the who-knows-how-many pages in its 32 subcategories, per WP's stringent one-article-per-messiah rule. Incidentally, that following also started with a "religious crackpot" (unless, of course, you believe that it started divinely. But then that's true of every religious following). [This is not a vote.]—msh210℠ 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per GWO -Will Beback 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Merge & Redirect folks should note that is no different from Keep since the merge can be undone by any editor the next day. After delete the editors of Vissarion can add any relevant content to their article. BlueValour 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Beware the copyvio under "Official information about the Last Testament Church" from [77]. If this is to be merged, it may be best to delete it/the page history before redirecting. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blizzard of One 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult mind control[edit]

seems to be original research. --Pboyd04 23:52, 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. Kimchi.sg 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian until graduation[edit]

NN neologism, possibly protogism, that fails WP:V Stanfordandson 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot believe this has been here 2 years.--Crossmr 01:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though I hate to do so, having read about this in the NY Times, I can attest that it's a real concept, or so the NYT feels, and the article does cite newspapers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no doubt the concept is real and that the article cites newspapers. However, neither of those is sufficient reason for Wikipedia to keep an article that is, in the end, just a non-notable neologism. Stanfordandson 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you claim that the article fails WP:V then?Cowpriest2 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the NYT times ciatation is enough for somekind of notability in this case. Yanksox 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability, maybe, but is there any reason to think this phenomenon actually exists? Moreover, if it does, is there any reason to think it isn't just another neologism, quite possibly a protogism? There's no reason to keep this article. Stanfordandson 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete derogatory sexual cruft that a few people made up because they thought it was cute. Perhaps we should AfD Mrs. degree as well. Neither Mrs. degree nor LUG are encyclopedic, except at some sexual website's slang-terminology reference section. If the tongue-in-cheek LUG is encyclopedic, then so are the tongue-in-cheek fraternities I Tappa Kegga and I Spreada Thigh. Perhaps I should add those articles, just to make sure that everyone's clever college slang has a Wikipedia article. At some point we must ask ourselves, is Wikipedia merely a landfill for isolated-subcultures' arcane trivia or a real encyclopedia of merit, such as Encyclopedia Britannica? —optikos 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.  :) Stanfordandson 05:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't forget the redirects for Iota Tappa Kegga and Iota Spreada Thigh, where Iota is (mis)pronounced "I oughta". :-) —optikos 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Largely as Optikos. Take it to urban dictionary, where it belings alongside BOBFOC. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of everything every mentioned in the press. Non-notable College slang that once got mentioned in the NYT is still non-notable college slang. -- GWO
  • Keep. The concept is real, the phonomenon is real, and the term is well beyond the stage of neologism. It's mentioned within LGBT circles as often as (if not more often) than it is by people who made it up because they thought it was cute. -- NORTH talk 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO. The NYT is useful as an independant reference on lots of things, but that does not mean that everything in the NYT should have an article here. --Wine Guy Talk 08:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do think that the term can contain an element of homophobia/misogyny -- I've certainly seen some people use it in such a manner. (That is not to say that all uses of this term involve homophobia or misogyny -- it all depends on context/intentions.) But in any case, I feel that the fact that people invented this term & spread it is notable. The present article is less than impressive, but I still don't think it should go -- its more than just a dictionary entry. And besides, we have articles on heaps of other pejorative/derisive (or potentially pejorative/derisive) sexual or group terms... I think so long as we can talk about the terms origins, motivations, history, the ways in which it is used, etc., its more than a dicdef. --SJK 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism. Possibly bears a mention as a one-liner in some other article about sexuality but is not a sufficiently notable phenomenon for an article in my opinion regardless of how new it is. MLA 12:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting term. Konman72 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism. Ramseystreet 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO and others. USA Today and the New York Times and other periodicals often do little issues where they have some information about current slang. That doesn't mean every slang term covered is notable. GassyGuy 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times article cited here is not one of those, however. It is a 1993 article titled Campus Lesbians Step Into Unfamiliar Light. This may have been a neologism in 1993, but it is not anymore. -- NORTH talk 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting that once slang has become old or "out of use," the article should be deleted? If so, then you would have to wipe out a fifth of this site. Yanksox 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite. (Note that I said Keep above.) I'm saying that this term still is in use, and has been for (at least) 13 years, thus I don't believe it's a neologism anymore. -- NORTH talk 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your comments (something I hope that I rarely do), and have to somewhat agree with you. Yanksox 01:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, that's why I clarified. -- NORTH talk 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into lesbianism or related articles situational sexual behavior; not a neologism though, so I wouldn't oppose a straight keep. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article does not fail WP:V as nominator suggests. Sources are cited. The term is not a neologism if it's been around since 1993. And evidence does not need to be provided affirming that "this phenomenon actually exists." WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If verifiable sources are cited and the term has been around thirteen years (as NORTH points out) then it is not a neologism and passes the the WP:V policy. Scorpiondollprincess 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well sourced term for interesting concept. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the common usage of the term has been around for some time which invalidates the "neologism" claim. The article is sourced and the information is very relevant to the greater topic of sexuality, in particular bi-sexuality. Agne27 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into situational sexual behavior -- it's clearly an example of that, and doesn't warrant a separate article. Susan Davis 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good idea. I would not oppose this merge. GassyGuy 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge into situational sexual behavior, and/or merge into Human sexual behavior with situational sexual behavior as a subhead. as a case in point of merge, i think LUG is one example of situation sexual behavior, as is, for example, prison sexuality. as a case in point of keeping, however, note that prison sexuality actually has its own wiki entry. however, as a further case towards merge, the prison sexuality article (as it stands) is a total load of crap (imho) and needs to be heavily edited and/or merged back into situational sexual behavior as well. unlike "iota tappa kegga" listed above, LUG is not just a cute phrase, it is also part of a verifiable sexual behavior, and the article should not be deleted as the phenomenon deserves encyclopedic treatment *somewhere*. the problem as i see it is that a valid, verified (and increasingly common) phenomenon is being listed under a cute name, rather like having an entry for "Gay for the Stay" instead of "Prison sexuality"; however, again to be contrarian, please note that wikipedia has a well-worked out page at "Gay-for-pay". and finally, here's a 2005 AP story regarding a CDC study that verifies the activity and the term [78]. sorry i can't make up my mind -- i, um, go both ways on this issue. -- Slamorte 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at best, delete at worst. Does not currently warrant own article -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. definitely not new neolojism, protojism, might be a stanfordism though ... Must not be merged with Prison sexuality. Universities aren't prisons. Mostly. horseboy 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, documented phenomenon. Gazpacho 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolusoft[edit]

Contested Prod. Another small software company with no indication it meets WP:CORP. Google returns 21 unique hits, most of which seem to be for a Montréal firm of the same name. Fan-1967 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Luna Santin 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability--Nick Y. 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the article fails to show any verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP.--blue520 06:20, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_16&oldid=1116878557"