Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Ritter[edit]

Non-notable actress. No IMDB entry. Mad Jack 23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete will probably appear on Disney Channel in a lead role, but not yet notable -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, can't speedy under nn-bio. Well definitely delete for lack of notability Antares33712 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KarenAnn 16:08, 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 Speedy delete as copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary Janes[edit]

While I don't think the article or the band is notable enough for Wikipedia, I also don't feel this is a speedy issue

Comment, for the record, I believe in delete, but I don't think this is a speedy Antares33712 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I proposed a speedy delete as the main text taken from the page http://www.myspace.com/themaryjanesdc without any mention of permission. Travelbird 14:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, true, then the text should go. However, I think he band itself deserves an AfD vote. The copyvio text may be a speedy, but the band may not necessarily be. Antares33712 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text was a copyvio. It has been marked as such and will be removed in due time. I expect that the person removing the article will handle closing out this AfD. -Harmil 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Until someone with knowledge of the band takes the initiative to write a non-copyvio article, this is a speedy situation. Without the copyvio, there's no article. AdamBiswanger1 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Note I tagged it for speedy as per the lack of opposition and the consensus toward "speedy". AdamBiswanger1 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom - can't violate copyrights. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all copyright violations. RFerreira 23:37, 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, unverifiable. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland East Side Writers[edit]

Non notable writing circle SilkTork 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Weak Keep. Subject is notable because of its composition: authors who have "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." The current members listed are noted in their wikipedia articles for having achieved such awards as: the New York Times Notable Book of the Year; the Stephen Crane Award for First Fiction; the Cleveland Arts Prize; the James Tiptree, Jr. Award; a Hugo Award; the Upper Canada Writer’s Craft Award; and the Grinzane Cavour Prize for debut fiction (as well as nominations for the Nebula Award, the Hugo, the Story Prize, the Pushcart Prize, and the Journey Prize). A writer's group whose members achieve such notability is notable itself, because the group's purpose is directly related with the members' field of notable achievement. Scorpiondollprincess 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I fear. My primary concern is verifiability -- the only references I can find on the web are Wikipedia mirrors and a brief one-sentence mention on Erin O'Brien's personal homepage, which is in the form of a link to Wikipedia. Regardless of the notability concern, keeping this would require someone to locate and cite some reliable sources that could be used to verify the article's claims.
    With regard to notability, I strongly disagree with Scorpiondollprincess's claim that the group derives automatic notability from the notability of its members. I do not dispute that at least some of its members are notable, but the article does not claim that membership of the group has verifiably contributed to their success, nor that it forms a defined literary circle with an identifiable style or influence, and I'm not sure what other grounds there could be for claiming that it is of any significance whatsoever to non-members.
    Let me reiterate, however, that notability concerns are secondary; if no sources can be found to verify the article, notability becomes moot. — Haeleth Talk 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concede the point on WP:V, Haeleth. You are right and this article does violate verifiability. I still maintain a group composed of persons notable for X and organized around the subject of X is notable. I don't suggest "automatic notability." If a group of notable writers formed an organization to discuss fishing or woodworking, that's not notable. But if notable persons form a group about the subject that made them notable, then their organization is notable as well. Regardless, you are correct -- the article lacks proper citations. I modify my position to a Weak Keep if verifiable sources can be provided. Scorpiondollprincess 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth unless some proper citations can be found. Great comment, by the way. AdamBiswanger1 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V is a core policy which this article does not satisfy. -- Alias Flood 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Haeleth's comment. —(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth as necessarily unverifiable (although the group might be added to WP:RA, with a note to the effect that sources concomitant to the article would be desired). I agree, though, with Scorpion that a group that comprises several notable individuals whose notability is at least tangentially related to that notability is necessarily notable (toward which, see, e.g., WP:BAND, viz., that a band of which otherwise notable musicians are members is notable). Joe 03:25, 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 move to WP and delete. Mailer Diablo 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamelopedia[edit]

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopedia of Stupid who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). Hardvice 11:08, 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 move to WP and delete. Mailer Diablo 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Of Stupid[edit]

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopedia of Stupid who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). Hardvice 11:00, 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. I am compelled by the argument that these articles should not be grouped together into a single AFD discussion, as they represent significantly varying levels of notability/usefulness/game-guide-ness, and varying levels of quality. It is likely that, if the same contributors were discussing individual articles in this list, many would be deleted while others would be kept. This is NOT a precedent-setting decision and the individual articles involved in this discussion can certainly be nominated in smaller groups or separately right away. The only thing people should take from this is to be careful how you group nominations - it's tempting to say that these are all related because of the game, but they differ too much to get any clear consensus out of the deal. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape armour[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!

Also nominating related articles in the RuneScape Category which fit into the exact same type and style:

Why? Well...

  • These are inherantly fancrufty. Have no relevance outside the game whatsoever, and there's endless amounts of them.
  • WP:OR Completely unresearched. There's no references in any of the articles: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought".
  • WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - Game Guides. These are /most definitely/ game guides. No doubt about it.
    • A quote from RuneScape dungeons: "This dungeon plays an important part in the Monkey Madness quest as Zooknook resides at the end of it. The trip through the dungeon passes zombie monkeys, skeletons, and many traps.". These articles are not self-serving, they don't belong here.
  • Look at the articles themselves. Some of them are indepth, but are far from encyclopaedic.
  • Many of the things are quite simply /not notable/. They don't attempt to establish notability, aside from "Well, it appears in RuneScape".
  • RuneScape Armour alone has previously been on AFD where the result was no consensus. I think this debate, if nothing else, may present a consensus.
  • If it wasn't implied by the above, I "vote" Delete.

-Halo 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just thought it might be worth mentioning (in the interest of complete transparency) the following RFDs I've just found:
Apologies if I missed any. I would /seriously/ discourage anyone from voting "merge", since a merge clearly won't happen considering previous AFD votes. I would also like any admins to consider this AFD properly, and not simply count /votes/, which aren't particularly useful (past AFDs have been "saved" due to "votes" rather than discussion). Halo 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Blanking and Redirection of Smithing_(RuneScape), Crafting_(RuneScape), and Prayer_(RuneScape)[edit]

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion specifically states that "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." The blanking and redirection of these articles thus appears to be improper, and creates doubt as to whether this AFD filing can serve as an appropriate basis for the deletion of the nominated articles. John254 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the improper blanking and redirection of these three articles. However, since these articles were blanked and redirected for over 24 hours, it is still highly questionable whether any of the nominated articles could be deleted as a result of this AFD filing. John254 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there was a consensus to keep Runecrafting, Cooking (RuneScape), Crafting (RuneScape), Magic (RuneScape), Prayer (RuneScape) as a result of an AFD closed July 9, 2006, and there was a consensus to keep Construction (RuneScape) as a result of an AFD closed July 7, 2006. Thus, I claim that Halo's nomination of nearly every article in Category:RuneScape for deletion, included the very articles listed above, so soon after there were decisions to keep these very articles, is an abuse of the AFD process that should not be rewarded. Undoubtedly, if articles were repeatedly re-nominated for deletion within a short period of time, a "consensus" for deletion might eventually be reached during one of the AFD's purely by chance; however, I claim that it is improper to subject articles to "double jeopardy" by re-nominating them for deletion less than two weeks after a consensus was reached to keep them. John254 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - [[User
  • Delete per nom. Also possible copyvio, though I can't verify this. This is stuff that belongs in a manual which traditionally won't get read anyways. Tychocat 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment If there is a copyright violation in every one of these articles then please highlight them. This should have been brought to the attention of the article editors on the article pages, where they can rectify or remove any offend pieces. Runescape does draw a significant amount of first time editors and the regular editors endeavour to maintain the articles and avoid such items. 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete All of these pages were split from the main RuneScape page because that page became too large. Why? Because people introduced too much non-encyclopedic information into them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There exists a place in which one can gather as much Runescape knowledge as they would like. This place isnt here! This fancrufty, video game guide, doesn't belong on the Wikipedia, but rather a suitable article briefly overviewing the game, and then linking to other repositories of Runescape information is much more suitable. --Porqin 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rampant fancruft. We can safely leave the nuances of these topics to the Runescape website and forums. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per well-written nom. Also, the previous AFDs "keep" reasons were bad if at all existent. Wickethewok 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge short summaries into original Runescape article, and delete all the listed articles. I have helped write MMORPG-related articles, and this just borders on ridiculous. For example, I play EVE Online, and I've managed to keep the entire set of articles on EVE Online in Wikipedia down to three. Runescape is no more notable, and doesn't need 30+ articles related to it. Dark Shikari 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should provide an overview of the game and its significance, and point readers to dedicated resources for detailed information. We are not trying to replace the entire internet here. — Haeleth Talk 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into original RuneScape article. These articles are non-notable in themselves, but contain a lot of information that shouldn't simply be thrown out. --Gray Porpoise 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You hit the nail on the head, "contain a lot of information", they contain so much information, they have become game-guides, and unencyclopedic. --Porqin 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't put too much back in the main article, as length is one of the factors preventing GA status. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is why it is suggested that we delete the unnecessary information (articles above) from the Wikipedia. --Porqin 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not arguing with that, quite a bit, but not all of this stuff is unnecessary. RuneScape definitely needs subpages, just not as many as this. See my vote below. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stronghold of Security as a waste of time, since it is covered in the main article, and is the most minor of miniquests anyway. Move everything else to Portal:RuneScape subpages so they can be cleaned, improved, merged and replaced as better article subpages. These articles contain important information for the main article, and it would be damaging to delete them, and they would be recreated as a necessity within a short time anyway. The information was originally in the main article, but we were told to move them into subpages as it made the main too long. I agree that all these subpages are just ridiculous, which is why I'd like them merged into, say; RuneScape equipment, RuneScape monsters and combat, RuneScape economy and skills, or something similar, relying on links to the RuneScape knowledge base for further detail. Other information, such as locations and community can possibly go back in the main article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide; none of these articles are encyclopedic hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide--Nick Y. 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and portalise per CaptainVindaloo. ~ ctales *blah* 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all. I have always thought that these articles are utter trash. You hit the nail on the head quite nicely by saying that these articles are unencyclopaedic game guides that belong on a fansite. Not to mention unconsistency - it doesn't make sense to have articles on some RuneScape skills and have the others be completely ignored. Audacious One 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, invalid nomination, in part because you have not justified grouping 20+ articles for deletion without considering their individual merits. WP:OR does not apply, as this is derivative information that should be considered common knowledge viz game manuals and fan sites. "Not a game guide" is not a strong enough argument to remove the pages as there are over 30 articles in the Everquest series. These pages need to be adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games which should help cull much of the cruft that they admittedly contain. Shoehorn 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My justifcation is all the 20+ articles are (in the most part) very similar. Going through each of the 29 articles, pointing out all the bad points and justifying what's wrong would be /incredibly/ time consuming (unless you want me to explain how long it took me to put all the articles onto AFD as it is) and would clog up AFD. That said, feel free to justify any pages where my initial points don't apply. On top of that, you argue that the pages are tantamount to manuals and fansites (which, y'know, could be referenced - both are online with RuneScape), which teach how to play the game, almost proving my point about Game Guides and instruction manual. I don't understand where the justification for strong oppose came from in the above argument. Also, existance of 30 kludgy EverQuest pages is in no way an indicator that this is good practise... although I would point out that the Everquest pages have 23 pages about different expansions, different releases of the game (EQ1, 2, West etc) and related games (such as a PS2 game), most of which were commercial-released to retail, which makes it easy to justify that they need their own page so it's nowhere near in the same league. In practise, there's about 15 pages actually about the game. On top of that, it could be argued that EverQuest was a lot more influential as a game as possibly the first hugely successful subscription-model MMORPG which caused dozens of other games to be created, but I agree, the amount of pages there is also OTT and should be trimmed. I might do that next. Halo 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laziness is not a virtue. Clogging up AFD is not an issue. This discussion should focus on what should and what should not be included in WP, it is clear to me that one Runescape article would not be sufficient, especially given the history of the articles. I oppose deletion, as I said above, primarily because you are unwilling to examine the articles based on their individual merits/significance. Shoehorn 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really rather not be called lazy, thanks - WP:NPA. Also, putting all 28 pages on AFD would artifically discourage people from contributing (bringing in a clear "non consensus", or keep, bias), they all have similar reasons for being deleted, and really would clog up AFD with the same reasons again and again when the process has been specifically designed to allow multiple deletions specifically in cases such as this (From WP:AFD, they're designed for - An article about a video game/book and related articles for characters within it.). I have good reasons for grouping these nominations. Putting 28 nominations would also represent 20%+ of a days AFD traffic, which I feel would not be good karma and would, indeed, clog it up. -Halo 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the following situation: Nominating 28 individual articles for deletion would likely exhaust the attention of most casual participants, resulting in an unevenly argued consensus about which pages to keep/merge/delete. Probably half of the articles would be deleted, the rest marked for merge or cleanup. If instead you group all 28 articles together, glossing over individual problems/merits, you are going to get an easy consensus to delete all of the articles, as is the case here. So grouping all the articles together is simply a rhetorical tactic to avoid a fair evaluation of the individual articles. I think this is fundamentally unfair to the individual articles in question, many of which have successfully undergone AfD votes on previous occasions, and submit that this is an invalid nomiation. Shoehorn 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is very much scraping the barrel as to why the articles should stay here, and that you are trying to invoke a "default rule" and I'm really struggling to believe this isn't done in bad faith as to avoid an overwhelming delete vote. Fact is that sending 28 /very similar/ articles to AFD isn't going to result in anything but overwhelming beauracracy and not a full and frank discussion, and I would no doubt be told I shouldn't have grouped the nominations and that THAT discussion wouldn't be binding by someone who wants to keep the articles. If there are any articles which you honestly think what I stated didn't apply, give your opinions, otherwise I stand by my comments completely. Halo 15:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote, and we have moved far beyond the point where an "overwhelming delete vote" could be taken as consensus to delete these articles. The discussion is completely polarized, and I am satisfied that this proposal has failed. Shoehorn 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indenting) FYI, AfD outcomes are not binding on later discussions; a later AfD can reverse or nullify the outcome of a previous AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not suggesting that this AfD should be bound by previous discussions. I am saying that given the varied history of each of the 28 articles, some of which have been marked for merge/cleanup, as well as other articles from this category which have successfully been deleted through a valid AfD process, each of these articles is distinct enough to merit an individual AfD. Some of the subpages are organic extensions of the main article; others are indiscriminate collections of cruft that should be trimmed. Which pages deserve which fate cannot be determined by a grouped AfD. People are jumping on the "delete all" bandwagon because they think they can resolve this situation in one fell swoop, but I doubt any of them have reviewed all 28 pages. Shoehorn 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per the nom's well-argued points. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/merge to wikia:runescape and delete from WP. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/merge all to wikia:runescape, which means delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. As said above, Wikipedia is not a game guide. The information in these articles are fancruft, there are no references, they're not what belong in an encyclopedia. They're simply not what Wikipedia is. Pop Up Ads 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete runecruft. --Pboyd04 01:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, what's the point in improving an article if by next week it could be deleted? This AfD has really put me off improving the articles until this is over. Although the nominator has thrown them all together in one AfD, I do not agree that they should all be dealt with as one article. Most articles don't even have a reason--the nominator has only listed seven reasons for twenty-eight articles. On that note, I wonder if the nominator has even reviewed all of these articles. It appears to me that this list has simply been copied from Template:RuneScape; even an errant <br> tag exists after the construction article in a list otherwise empty of them, and this uses the exact same [[x|y]] wikilink format. Up front I'd like to call a malformed nomination. Aside from that, since my input is encouraged, here's my opinion not on the RuneScape series, but on each article as its own entity:

Merge into a possible RuneScape equipment article.
Keep or at least Merge into RuneScape mini-games.
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Keep
Ironically, this page was taken out of the main RuneScape article, but looks like we're going to have to merge it back in.
Merge into RuneScape skills
Merge into RuneScape skills
Merge into RuneScape skills. The reason we moved these articles out was because of size of that page.
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Merge into RuneScape locations
Possible merge into the RuneScape equipment article.
No current opinion; I haven't read the article recently.
Merge into a possible RuneScape equipment article.
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Keep, accepting other articles
Merge into RuneScape combat
Keep, accepting other articles
Keep, accepting other articles.
Merge into RuneScape skills
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Merge into RuneScape skills.
Keep, accepting lots of other articles
Merge into RuneScape skills
This article only has had one contributor with less than one-hundred edits. I'm fairly insulted that the nominator is convinced that this article "[fits] into the exact same type and style" as some of the series's more worked-on articles.
Merge into RuneScape mini-games
Merge into that good ol' RuneScape equipment article.
Merge into RuneScape locations

Just because I say keep doesn't mean I think the articles are FA-status, perfect, or even good. They may have a lot of cruft, but to get rid of it, we don't have to delete the whole series; we just have to clean out the cruft. Anyone can do this. After all, if your house is dirty, you clean it up, you don't burn it down. Hyenaste (tell) 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem lies deeper than just cleaning out the cruft. First off, the only reason the articles exist is because of the fancruft. Secondly, the articles don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. So cleaning them up doesn't solve the problem. A non-Runecraft player in passing, doesn't need to know about every intricate detail of the game. Rather, they can read an overview of the game, with the basics laid out, and then they can follow the links to other information repositories. The house must be demolished, because it was illegally built to begin with. --Porqin 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; whatever happens, RuneScape needs subpages. This is an absolutely monumental subject, so even putting the briefest of overviews into a single page will have people complaining about the length, and dooming the GA effort to failure. Unfortunately, the current subpages have gotten out of control, being too numerous to keep track of, letting the (inexplicably numerous) vandals and crufters run riot. However, it would save time and make the task of cleanup easier to move these to Portal subpages, where worthwhile information can be extracted and placed into brand new, less numerous and therefore easier to control subpages. The old subpages can then be speedied when they are no longer required. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Since this AfD is current, are editors barred from merging pages? Hyenaste (tell) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article." "It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy." --Porqin 12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all per nomination. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, condense to fewer - there is more that can be said, even complying with the strictest interpretation of WP:NOT than will fit in one page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games {{Move to gaming wiki}} tag may be more helpful than highly charged block AfDs where many will consider that a few should not be included and others just need attention. Ace of Risk 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - RuneScape_skills is a poor inclusion in this AfD - with a small bit of reworking, it probably represents an appropriate coverage of the features of a large game - there is probably not enough de-cruftified content to justify individual skill articles. Maybe condense some other material to a page on the P2P enhancements, such as mini-games, sticking to WHAT they are. Needs more than one page, but probably less than it has now. Ace of Risk 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. The subject is too great to fit into one article. We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion. Since the last time they all went up for deletion, we created a portal (which also went up for deletion with a keep result) to oversee and organize the articles. Some of them, such as the monster articles, could be merged. But if you have to delete them, I challenge you to go and delete every single piece of fancruft on Wikipedia. That includes video game and movie characters, locations, and monsters. And they are researched. A lot of the information is taken from the Knowledge Base and fansites, as well as the game itself. We could do with more references, and we have a policy about external links. Anyway, I've posted notices on the main article and portal page. If you're planning to delete articles, at least let the maintainers know. Anyway, keep. Dtm142 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The subject is too great to fit into one article -- That is because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information included here should be concise, relevant, and without all the intricacies or fancruft.
    2. We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion -- Working very hard on something doesn't make you exempt from following the spirit of Wikipedia. Fancruft isn't the only applicable policy it violates. As mentioned above, it is in violation of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a random collection of information. As stated prior, there already exists a Runescape Wiki that can hold endless amounts of Runescape knowledge, here isn't the place.
    3. I challenge you to go and delete every single piece of fancruft on Wikipedia -- As a community, we are continuously improving Wikipedia article by article. --Porqin 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, Porqin and JzG. Take them to the Runescape wiki. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, plenty of excellent reasons given already. Recury 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. I voted to delete last time too, even though I play the game regularly. The information belongs in wikia:runescape or Portal:RuneScape. I agree with Porqin, people have introduced too much non-encyclopedic information into them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There exists a place in which one can gather as much Runescape knowledge as they would like. This place isnt here! One article briefly overviewing the game, and then linking to other repositories of Runescape information is much more suitable.--JanesDaddy 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if possible, if not, I vote Delete all per Haeleth. Wikipedia is a site that provides a general overview of a specific topic, and points the user in the right direction for more information. -- Solberg 01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide. I see no purpose of these articles.--Shardakar
  • Keep, just because people have put so much work into these article and deleting them would not be cool. Lapinmies 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose "Wikipedia is NOT cool" is a part of WP:NOT is it?  ;-) Wickethewok 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pokemon test is the most worthless pseudo-test imo - it is not objective at all, which means its really not a test. Additionally, I don't even know if this stuff passes anyway... 0_o Wickethewok 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, the deletionists have supported their views with policies (read above). Contrarily, the keepers have been among the fancruft, who make statements such as: "because people have put so much work into these article and deleting them would not be cool.", "We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion.". --Porqin 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page states that the Pokémon test isn't policy, merely a point of view of a few people. IMO, two wrongs don't make a right. I am also slightly offended about my supposed "prejudace" against this game. Halo 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, firstly a lot of these articles have been created as they are two long for certain pages, thus shouldn't be merged. Secondly, this AFD is a is too muddled, some of the articles are of entirely different nature. Englishrose 19:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (All). Wikipedia isn't an in-game guide for this game. Makoto 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All. Wilipedia is not a game guide, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If people want to transwiki this to Runescape Wiki, then by all means go ahead, but this excessive fancruft has no place in an encyclopedia. --Wine Guy Talk 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We had a single article before, just the RuneScape article. It was one of the longest articles on WP and needed serious shortening. Because there is so much information on RuneScape, the only way to shorten it was to have sub-pages. These sub-pages are all well written, well maintained and frequently checked through to make sure they conform with WP policy. We have been down this road before, a number of times. There is simply too much information to merge, and at least 90% of it is needed, so you cannot simply remove it. It is extremely useful to thousands of people and is factual. The portal serves as a great portal and a go-between on all the different pages. This series is far less game-crufty than some game series I can think of - • The Giant Puffin • 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at the Dagannoth and the Magic pages, I can't see where the actual encyclopedic fact applies. In essence, the Dagannoth guide is basically a dry walkthrough of the locations of the Dagannoth themselves, and the Magic guide is the same thing. Fansites and the Knowledge Base do a better job of explaning what those are than the Wiki itself, and that's just a couple out of the 29 or so pages. Makoto 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree. Why should Wikipedia include all this information, when including external links on a few Runescape articles would allow for players to obtain the same and probably better documented information? -- Solberg 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Strong keep- During the past few months there has been a "crusade" of sorts to delete anything and everything having to do with RuneScape. Several people have put up arguements about this being an encyclopaedia and not a game guide. Well...you're wrong. Have any of you heard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games? There are long articles about skills, locations, affiliations, and such dealing with the RPGs Everquest, World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons, etc. Is Runescape any different? At 10:00 PM the game has about 150000 people playing. There are as just as many players i9n WOW and EQ. Should we delete them, too? Not a strong enough arguement? Well according to your mindset, Wikipedia is also not a guide to comicbooks or theological information either. Now view Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. The truth is that numerous Wikipedians have dedicated their precious time resaerch and write "guides" to these subjects asper Wikiproject guidelines. Forgive me, but when someone just waltzes in and requests a deletion of everything in this series (without even giving a clear explanation why!) I consider it a slap in the face to all those dedicated reseacers and scribes out there. These articles are sanctioned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. If there is a problem with these articles, FIX THEM, DO NOT DELETE THEM FOREVER AND MAKE IT SO THEY CANNOT BE REWRITTEN IN THE FUTURE!!!!-Merlin Storm
    • While this is one of the first reasons someone has proposed to keep the articles, there seems to be a minor flaw.
      Most Notably:
      Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it.
      A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable.

      This is directly from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games page, and is exactly what these articles are violating. --Porqin 05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is kind of hard to explain what a game is about without explaining how to play it. However, if you feel that you are capable of doing so, please do it so that these articles need not be deleted. Otherwise, do not insult the writing abilities of other Wikipedians. This is a free encyclopaedia and not everyone has the skill of Hemingway. Also, to further my arguement, I suggest that you examine the deletion vote for construction. You will notice that in the course of a week, another user has used another lame excuse to try to get a large amount of RS articles deleted. We have moved from "I don't think they deserve their own articles" to "I think they have poor writing quality". Heres a tip! If you don't like the writing, and you can edit it, DO IT! I am under the impression that you have some beef against RuneScape,Halo, otherwise you would just fix it, other than destroy it all together.-Merlin Storm
    • Please give all and any evidence of me ever showing "any beef against RuneScape" in any of my edits. I have absolutely no opinion about RuneScape, having never played it. I really don't have any "beef with RuneScape", but I really do "have a beef" with pointless, overly long articles that don't belong here, hence the AFD. RuneScape is possibly the biggest offender, but yes, it also applies to other games - but this doesn't mean that those articles belong here either (I've also explained why the Everquest articles aren't as bad). I also think rather than making it personal, maybe you should respond tothe points in the AFD? You haven't given a good reasosn why these articles should not be deleted (except possibly Skills, which I can accept could be expanded without overcruft). Halo 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have never played RuneScape before, Halo, how do you know that these articles are "fancruffy"? It seems to me that the best person to write an article about a subject is someone knowledgable about the subject (hence "fans"). Which would would you rather read- an article about JFK by a historian or Random Joe? In your logic, a man fom Uganda could get on the computer and argue that the JFK article is only valid to Americans and not to the rest of the world. Which means that someone with no knowledge about the entire subject, can come in and request it to be deleted with some lame excuse thats only half true. How can someone with no knowledge of RuneScape possibly know the value of the King Black Dragon? This is why I am inclined to think you have a beef against RuneScape. You, someone who has "never played it" before waltzes in saying how these entire articles are pointless and of low quality? I don't buy it. How in her name would you know that these are pointless if you have no knowledge of any thing in the game? I they are "overly long articles" then take advantage of the fact that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone and everyone can edit! But by no means are these articles "pointless". They have just as much point and relevancy as any other game article series. Can we please stop the argueing-this deletion is not valid.-Merlin Storm
    • An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain something to someone who hasn't played the game or doesn't know about a subject - it's not supposed to tell you everything about every topic ever in existance. I don't know about the subject, therefore I am the INTENDED audience to these articles... you've basically confirmed my point in saying that these articles are only relevent to people who play the game therefore they ARE fancruft which isn't wanted here. Articles that are only relevant to a small amount of enthusiastic fans (people who play RuneScape) don't belong here. Game, set and match. An article about JFK I'd want written so that if I didn't know who he was, I could find out about it, each point explained to me. I would not want an individual page about JFK's toilet habits though, which is what these pages are akin to. These articles are useless to non-RuneScape players. All these reasons have already been explained, and you've explained no reasons why my nomination is "invalid" according to any policies. Long rants are not going to change the fact that you seem to be blinded by some sort of bias towards the game rather than taking it independently, such as I did, and realised these articles did not belong here. Maybe you should go to the Runescape Wiki, where these articles will be actively encouraged? Halo 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if deletion not void RuneScape is already in the top 5 most edited articles and is already large. It cnanot take merging any information back into it. Also, this whole bundle was up for AFD only a few months ago, so doesn't that make the deletion void? J.J.Sagnella 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A no consesus vote from a month ago is not a reasoning for a speedy keep, which is what your vote seems to be. Wickethewok 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to remind people who are "voting", please give reasons including policy, and a reminder that AFD is not a vote - it's a discussion - and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Halo 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beleive he talking about the vote in which it was fully agreed that Constructioon, Magic, Prayer, Cooking, Crafting, Skills, and Runecrafting have relevancy in Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrafting) I beleive that these articles should atleast be spared- the discussion was only about a week ago.-Merlin Storm
  • Comment - I would like to point out that User:Dtm142 posted in Talk:RuneScape and Portal talk:RuneScape: The RuneScape series has gone up for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination). I encourage all of you to vote on this. Dtm142 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC). As such, I would like to remind all that AFD is a discussion, /not/ an election and that it isn't down to "votes". An inaccurate notice in the RuneScape article and Portal:RuneScape has also appeared at the top, stating:[reply]

Note: Each article in the RuneScape series are being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
I'm not convinced that putting that notice at the top of the RuneScape page is fair game, particularly as it implies that even the main RuneScape article, which should exist, is being deleted but I'm wary of changing it, particularly because of some of the accusations levelled at me in this AFD debate. I'm also wondering where to find the "if someone asked you to vote" template is. Halo 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Top 10 reasons to keep: One: Merging is Not an option, all the bigger articles are too long. Two: RuneScape is the 6th or 5th most edited article on wikipedia, meaning all those smaller articles are big-ticket items despite their size. Three: I don't see many other MMO games getting attacked, these AFDs seem to be of a personal dislike, and not for any professional reasons. Four: All comments are researched and factual, per in-game and the runescape knowledge base. Five: RS has a minor impact on real life, as despite RS rules, people sell RS gold, accounts, "cheats" on EBay Six: Another Real Life part is the fact that most likely, 2m people have played at one point in time. Seven: The game has several historical referances in the form of descriptions. One example is items from Monty Pithon stuff. Eight: I still don't see how this qualifies, as it does NOT violate WP:NOT or any afd policy. Nine: Really no physical need to get rid of articles. Ten: The RuneScape articles attract many new editors who raise the amount of information on wikipedia. If you have a problem with a comment I made, put it Here with the subheading of the reason's number, as well as below. Thank you, p00rleno 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. I agree, merging is not an option. Deletion is. There's too many articles, too much information that doesn't belong here that needs to go.
  • 2. The amount of edits do not mean anything.
  • 3. I'm not "attacking" any games. Very few games have almost 30 articles written about the most intricate details, and they don't belong here.
  • 4. Not all comments are researched. Out of all the articles, only 3 or 4 actually have references.
  • 5. I don't understand the relevance of the point. I'm not here arguing RuneScape doesn't deserve a page, I'm arguing it doesn't deserve more than two or three pages at most.
  • 6. The fact 2 million people have played it is fine. That's why RuneScape itself deserves an article. Not 28 detailing the intrinsical details about everything involved, things that don't stand alone... then it becomes Fancruft and game guides which don't belong here.
  • 7. I don't understand the relevance of the point.
  • 8. Wikipedia is not a Game Guide. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", there's no references in most of the articles. The articles don't estabilish notability of themselves.
  • 9. I understand Wikipedia is not paper. This DOES NOT mean that Wikipedia is "indiscriminate collection of information"
  • 10. Completely irrelevent. I am not going to repeat my comments in your talk (keeping discussion all on one page), but I'll happily reply to them here. Halo 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles are not original research, as the game itself serves as a valid primary source. Articles on books or movies with few or no references beyond the works themselves are not deleted as "original research" -- a similar standard should be applied here. The massive popularity of this game clearly establishes notability for all of the articles listed. Finally, it hasn't been demonstrated that the deletion of the Runescape articles would improve Wikipedia. A few articles in Wikipedia have been so badly written, so massively biased, or concern such frivolous subjects that their presence is an embarrassment -- for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant music. The Runescape articles, however, clearly don't match this description, and are valuable to readers who want to learn about the details of Runescape. Thus, retaining these articles offers significant advantages, but no significant disadvantages. John254 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Merlin_Storm said 'It is kind of hard to explain what a game is about without explaining how to play it'.

Er,... 'Runescape is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)in which players, shown on the screen as customized avatars, can see and interact with each other. Players can set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities they wish to pursue. They can increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills from runecrafting to construction, complete quests, develop skills, merchant, or just hang out and chat.' There should be a prominent link to wikia:runescape or Portal:RuneScape and all the fancruft, which is NOT encyclopedic, and IS a game guide, should be moved there. --JanesDaddy 00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft "is an essay... not an actual policy or guideline", and thus does not provide a policy justification for the deletion of these articles. Furthermore, the statement that "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is not actually present in the policy page linked to: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Finally, there is appears to be no satisfactory explanation as to why maintaining the Runescape articles is harming Wikipedia -- or why the existence of the Runescape articles merits the expenditure of significant amounts of time on repeated, and so far unsuccessful, AFD filings. John254 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Number Eight states that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's." The articles, while providing extremely detailed descriptions of the minutia of Runescape, do not, in general, seem to provide "advice... suggestions, or... 'how-to's." The overall focus seems to be on providing information about the game, not on explaining how the game is best played. To the extent that some of these articles do provide some amount of instruction, the proper solution would seem to be to remove the offending passages, not to delete a large number of articles that are mostly consistent with Wikipedia policies. John254 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before you post any more misleading comments, please reread the link that you posted, and navigate your way to number 8. I will copy exactly what it says the sentence after the one you posted: This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. --Porqin 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My comments are accurate. The policy does not use the term "video game guides" in the context of "Wikipedia is not a video game guide". Instead, "video game guides" is used merely as an example to illustrate the general principle that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's". The context in which the term "video game guides" is used necessarily affects its meaning. If the policy stated that "Wikipedia is not a video game guide", one might justifying in claiming the following:
(a) These articles treat video games in extensive detail.
(b) Articles which treat video games in extensive detail are video game guides.
(c) Therefore, by (a) and (b) these articles are video game guides, which are prohibited by policy.
However, since the term "video game guides" is used as an example of "instruction manuals", it should be recognized that "video game guides" that are not "instruction manuals" are obviously not being given as examples of "instruction manuals". Therefore, it is reasonable, in this context, to limit the construction of "video game guides", so that the term only describes articles that are, in fact, "instruction manuals". It would follow that if an article is not an "instruction manual", it cannot be a "video game guide." Since "video game guide" is, abstractly, a fairly vague and uncertain term, I have chosen to focus on the policy statement that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's". I believe that I am correct in my claim that these articles are not largely comprised of "advice... suggestions, or... how-to's". To take "video game guides" out of context, and state that "Wikipedia is not a video game guide" seems to miss the point. John254 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You completely overanalyzed, and twisted the words to make them read exactly as you want them to. But you seemed to go through some convoluted logic proof, that doesn't accurately take the policy for what it is. It clearly states that "advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's" are forbidden, and the following are not permitted as being a subset of the aforementioned policy (("This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.")). This list isn't fully inclusive of every violation of the policy, but the ones listed are definitely in violation of the policy. Also, I think it is fairly well established that these articles do go into great detail. However, giving the level of detail, and the meaninglessness to any non Runescape gamer, that it can be concluded that these articles are indeed in the video game guide category. (This post is a very good summary of why the articles do not belong here) --Porqin 07:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Despite the claim that "An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain something to someone who hasn't played the game or doesn't know about a subject - it's not supposed to tell you everything about every topic ever in existance...", Wikipedia actually contains numerous articles about a number of highly specialized subjects that are only useful to readers who have a significant quantity of background knowledge. For instance, consider our article on Measure (mathematics). Would this be characterized as "mathcruft" since it is written so as to be incomprehensible to readers without the necessary mathematical background? Is Measure (mathematics) going to be subjected to repeated AFD filings? Where will the deletion end? John254 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mathematics is a field of knowledge. Fields have many components. The article about measure simply explains what measure is. This is not "mathcruft" because the field of mathematics encompasses several unique encyclopaedic topics. Runescape is not its own field of knoowledge. If you want a mathematics example, think of it this way: improper integrals merit an explanation. A page discussing a specific improper integral, or, say, "Skills and techniques used to solve improper integrals," or something to that degree, would, in my opinion, be "mathcruft." In a similar sense, Runescape merits its own page, but specific aspects of it do not. GassyGuy 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I waited to even read this AfD and the associated articles because I wanted to see what everyone had to say, but most of the folks voting for keep are either doing so because they don't believe these articles are game guides (which addresses only one of the points raised in the nomination) or are making arguments that demonstrate the notability of RuneScape, but not the articles actually being discussed. Therefore, I have to conclude that, while RuneScape is certainly notable, all of these skills are not and do not belong in a general encyclopaedia, especially when there is a wiki specifically set up for this kind of content. GassyGuy 08:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked at many high-quality articles, and I noticed they usually have 5-10 short sections which summarize aspects of the article topic, with full articles covering each aspect in greater detail. We don't want the RuneScape article to become too long, do we? The sub-artixles may be a little crufty, but that can be fixed. And WP:NOR is always used as an excuse to delete useful information. Finally, with the amount of vandalism the RuneScape article receives, I have a slight reason to doubt the good faith of this AFD. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to point out I've been editing for over a year, contributed heavily to the Brand New page (which does meet WP:MUSIC before anyone AFDs), and I have never vandalised anything (no test templates on my talk page). I am certainly NOT a vandal, and I've described my reasoning for this AFD. I honestly don't believe you can have 28 articles about a relatively minor subject and leave them only "a little bit crufty". -Halo 10:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cant see reason to delete these articles as a group some topics may be better served by being merged into more general subtopics. What I do have an issue with is that this is creating precedent to change Wikipolicy that should be discussed in a wider forum. The deletion of these as a group will justify the deletion of other articles, on topic where they appeal to a small band of editors and readers Gnangarra 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge similar topics into larger, single articles since many of these articles are well written yet small (or contain much non-notable info). It would be a shame to see so many well-built articles which help people who play this game disappear, so merging things like monsters, enemies, and gods into one thing such as characters. Please note that I haven't ever played this game, so someone more familiar with the information would do a better job at streamlining this idea. I know this game is quite popular with the younger demographic on the internet, and I see that a large amount of these keep/delete votes are correlate with age and familiarity with the topic. Well, just because a person does not know of a topic very well, or because it plays to a younger age group, does not mean it is any less important than someting else in the encyclopedia. Things that cater towards older teens and adults such as Stargate (another topic I don't know outside of this encyclopedia) seem to have a large amount of information) as well as information like this from Andromeda (TV series) usually escape the fancruft pogroms.....which is wonderful! They all should. If wikipedia is the encyclopedia for everyone, built by everyone, why base what is notable canon and non-notable canon off of traditional literary ideals? And to delete a series because of vandalism? Articles can be semi-protected if it is becoming that bad. While deletion of certain unneeded portions of information is in order, it is quite ludicrous to delete thousands of edits off of a few wikiessays and complaints about vandalism. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know....more like a person who wants to know more about it...after all, how does one write enough about this topic without it inevitably helping people who play it? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The RuneScape articles are not "game guides". Consider the passage about glassblowing in Crafting (RuneScape), in comparison to a passage about the same activity from a genuine "game guide":

Wikipedia:

In order to make items by glassblowing, players must have a glassblowing pipe. They must have seaweed to burn into soda ash and sand, which are heated together in a furnace to make molten glass. The molten glass can then be blown in items such as vials, which are predominantly used in the herblore skill, lantern lenses, which are used to facilitate travel in dark caverns such as the slayer dungeon in Lumbridge Swamp, and orbs, which are used by P2P players in crafting battlestaffs.[1]

RuneScape Wiki:

Glass is a members only part of the crafting skill. You will need

  • A glass-blowing pipe, obtained from Entrana.
  • Buckets of sand. There are sand-pits in Yanille, on Entrana, and in the Lost City. Just use an empty bucket with a sand-pit to get a bucket of sand. If you complete the Hand in the Sand quest you can get about 60 buckets of sand a day delivered to your bank free of charge if you talk to Bert in Yanille.
  • Soda ash, which is made by burning seaweed on a range or fire. There are numerous seaweed spawns on Entrana, on Karamja, or it can be fished using a big net.
  • When you have all the ingredients, use a bucket of sand and soda ash in a furnace to create molten glass.
  • Use the glass-blowing pipe with the molten glass to blow various items.[2]

The passage from the Wikipedia article is merely descriptive of glassblowing, while the passage from the RuneScape Wiki provides detailed advice and suggestions as to how glassblowing is to be accomplished. John254 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete all', but before deletion, transwiki to RuneScape Wiki. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP ALL - VERY STRONGLY STATED - KEEP ALL There are a lot of passionate pleas, accusations, answers, and crap in all that mess above here, but it all comes down to this. If Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then the people who edit are going to write about the things that they (1) love or (2) hate. In the case of RuneScape, it is usually written about by those who love it and then vandalized by those who hate it. Some have a marginal ability to write; some are mere children who do their best. To go in and wipe out all that work, all that time, and all that effort would devastate some of those people, to the point that many may never return. How can driving off who knows how many editors, good or bad, be good for this endeavor? Yes, I agree, these articles need a lot of work. I have spent a lot of time editing them myself. I spend part of almost every day cleaning up the messes that people inadvertently or purposefully make of them. I am a lover of the game (and just for the record, I am not a child or a teen - I am an adult woman with children of my own, teens who also play the game), and for that reason, I would like to see the articles remain with the chance to finish the cleaning up, merging, and transwiking that need to be done and that has been being done for several months now. One of my goals in editing these articles has been to decrease the amount of game guide information slowly, so that there is no culture shock as the articles are transformed into the best set of informational articles ever written on this, or any other, game. It isn't easy to keep all "instruction" out of an article about a game, but we are getting there. We just need more time to get it right. I hate to assume bad faith, but it seems that someone or a group of someones, has taken a dislike to the RuneScape articles and set out to destroy them or to distract those of us who edit them away from improving them with this series of AFD's. I say to the admins KEEP all the articles at this time and let us finish the merging that is already planned, and to the deletionists, get a life that doesn't involve the destruction of countless hours of work by many people, especially since these articles aren't hurting you or anyone else and do not violate any Wikipedia policies in any material way. Xela Yrag 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would refer you to WP:CIVIL, and also, after saying they should be kept because of strong emotional attachments to the articles, to this article. The work can be preserved in a transwiki to the Runescape wiki or something to that degree. I have already said my piece about how notable/encyclopaedic specific aspects of a notable entity are, so I will leave it there, although I'm not sure what an immaterial policy violation is. GassyGuy 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Comparison Only[edit]

This AfD appears as more a dislike of articles that have any association with fancraft. Yet there are larger projects on Wikipedia that being harassed like RuneCraft articles are. He is another wikiproject based on fancraft for comparison. If volume of and presentation of the Runecraft is the problem this project has 10 articles with their own category dedicated purely to web fan pages. Gnangarra 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars[edit]

has 26 subcategories and 5 articles

Star Wars films[edit]

Subcategory of Star Wars has 4 subcategories and these 20 articles Anchorhead Story of Star Wars Blue Harvest Chenini Cultural impact of Star Wars Empire of Dreams The Hero with a Thousand Faces The Hero's Journey The Making of Star Wars Original trilogy (Star Wars) Philosophy and religion in Star Wars The Power of Myth Prequel trilogy (Star Wars) Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) Star War The Third Gathers: The Backstroke of the West Star Wars (radio) Star Wars opening crawl Star Wars prequel trilogy references to the original trilogy Star Wars sources and analogues Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination Themes in Star Wars

category:Star Wars fandom[edit]

sub category of Star Wars , has 2 subcats and these articles 23 articles 501st Legion Star Wars canon Chewbacca Defense Docking Bay 516 Fan criticism of George Lucas FidoNet Star Wars Echo Han shot first Lori Jareo Jedi Jedi census phenomenon Life Day List of cultural references to Star Wars One Man Star Wars Trilogy (play) Star Trek versus Star Wars Star Wars Celebration Star Wars Insider Star Wars Technical Commentaries Star Wars fan fiction Star Wars kid Star Wars: Second Strike Steve Sansweet Stormtrooper effect Timetales

Category:Star Wars websites[edit]

subcategory of fandom, no subcategories, with these 10 articles 501st Legion Southern Outpost Jedidefender Star Wars Databank Star Wars Technical Commentaries Super Console Wars SuperShadow The Unofficial Clone Wars Site TheForce.Net Timetales Wookieepedia

Message left at Star Wars project[edit]

AfD RuneScape[edit]

There is currently a proposal to delete all articles for RuneScape as they are based on fancraft and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. As this extensive project and its articles can also be considered as fancraft I have utilised for comparison only a selection of 4 categories and approxiamately 60 articles from your project to demostrate the scope of what is being proposed.

This discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination).

None of the articles from your project mentioned in this discussion are proposed for deletion, this notice is only to advise interested parties of these article that these pages have been referred to at AfD. Gnangarra

  • Several things to say here. First and foremost: irrelevant. We're not discussing the merits of Star Wars. Second: There has been some Star Wars stuff put to AfD, and more of it has survived than I think should have. However, the argument that the existence of some unencyclopaedic content means we have to allow all unencyclopaedic content is fallacious. However, you are welcome to nominate any Star Wars or other articles which you think merit deletion, and I'm sure you'll get some agreement. I would move that this entire discussion be moved to the talk page of this, as it has no real bearing on the AfD at hand. GassyGuy 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not irrelevant as the basis for deletion is fancraft articles this is an example of another project substancially larger than RuneScape that would also be a potential AfD target of deletionist based purely on the arguements being presented here. Gnangarra 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this applies to a number of other projects and associated articles. I agree this isnt a discussion about the merits of Star Wars, but it is a discussion about the foundation of all projects similar to RuneScape. Gnangarra 05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update Wikipedia:WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga Wikipedia:WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoids Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokemon and there are many more. They offer topics similar to articles of project RuneScape. All of these are entry level topics that introduce wikipedia to a wider audience and increase the number of editors that continue to build this project. Its actually to fallicious and mallicious to continually attack one group of articles while ignoring all similar articles. Gnangarra 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a debate about unrelated WikiProjects. If there are other bad articles out there, they, too, should be examined. But thats unrelated to this AFD. Maybe use the talk page for some of the stuff you're bringing up, as its cluttering up this page. Wickethewok 06:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blah, this page is 26 AfD's wrapped into one so it's inherently cluttered. Hyenaste (tell) 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that there is a concerted effort at the Star Wars Wikiproject to de-cruft Star Wars-related articles. The project has recently had three articles promoted to featured status. I would also like to point out that several Star Wars-related articles were recently deleted because of cruft. My suggestion to RuneScape folks is to become intimately familiar with Fiction on Wikipedia and especially Writing about Fiction. Dmoon1 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I really don't think it's right to lump all the articles together like this. Giving examples from a select bad few does not justify deleting the whole lot. These articles vary in quality enormously. Some are bad, but some are very good. I've supported deleting individual fancrufy articles in the past, but can't support an overly sweeping move like this, as some of the articles in this set are fine. Taking the example of the "Kalphite Queen page" which isn't even the easiest to defend, and addressing each of your points in turn:
"Have no relevance outside the game whatsoever". If you wanted to find out about roughly what RuneScape is about then info about some of the major original characters (which can be understood without having played the game) is surely relevant. You don't have to be a RuneScape player to be interested in how different games structure their economy, story line, or characters. If you're not interested then how did you even get to the page?
"Completely unresearched. There's no references in any of the articles". Just because there's no references doesn't mean it's unresearched! If you want references add some, it's not a reason to delete the article. Ironically some people in this same AFD are arguing the articles should be deleted because all the info can be found elsewhere anyway. This is the easiest to defend because these articles are really really blantantly not original research, they just need more references.
"These are /most definitely/ game guides". No they aren't - using the "Kalphite Queen" example again. The page in question tells you what the kalphite queen is, why it's notable, but DOESNT give any tactics on how to kill it at all! If it were a game guide it would surely be focussed on the best way to defeat it, not the environment in which it resides.
"A quote from RuneScape dungeons:". Quoting a bad section from an individual article does not justify deleting all 28. It proves nothing with respect to your sweeping AFD.
"Look at the articles themselves". Good idea - why don't you?
"They don't attempt to establish notability". Another sweeping remark with no basis in fact. Yet again using the RuneScape monsters examples, only the 6 strongest monsters in the game have a page. The article clearly establishes that those are the most notable on the basis of being the 6 most powerful and hence the 6 most iconic, and relevant to non players. If a RuneScape film or book were made they would surely be the most likely to feature. If pages were made for every monster in the game ala pokemen then I'd agree, we wouldn't want a "runescape chicken" page, but this section at least clearly establishes which facts are most notable, only writes about those, and does so in an encylopedic style rather than a gameguide style.
And IMO that's not even using the best examples, pages like RuneScape skills, and RuneScape economy are even easier to defend. It seems to me like you are trying to get rid of articles which have previously been voted keep in AFD, by lumping them together with some less good articles. Hence I feel this nomination is invaild.

Runefire 06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is about all fan based articles to select one group then continually AfD their articles with the reasoning its fan craft is creation of new wikipolicy and that once the precedent is set all other article will AfD for exactly the same reason. To hide behind erroronous statements of unknown copyright violations is mallicious and unfounded. What is being discussed here is where fan/web sourced articles are part of this community encyclopedia and all affect article needs to assessed not just one small group. Gnangarra 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continually requesting the deletion of articles doesnt aid the editors in improving the articles. Gnangarra 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First off, the talk about WikiProject as a whole is not what this discussion is about, and this is taking up a ridiculous amount of space on this page. I still say this belongs on a talk page. However, consider this: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. True, it's not paper, but it's still not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, consider notability. Is RuneScape notable? I would say yes. I imagine most would say yes. That's probably why RuneScape has not been nominated. The rest of these, however, have no real general interest notability. If a person is looking for information about Runescape in a general encyclopaedia, they should find an article about what the game is. All of this other stuff is outside the realm of this resource and much better suited for the Runescape wiki. I am not saying that one or two subpages are not viable, but, for the most part, these topics do not merit coverage. As for all the rest of this stuff about the philosophy of wikiprojects, the merits of requesting deletion, etc., this really isn't the proper forum. GassyGuy 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with GassyGuy that this isnt the proper forum to delete a complete project and all its articles(except one), but this is where the subject was raised. That the reason being given for the deletion equally applies to all similar projects and that the scope of whats being decided and the affects of this decision must be part of the consideration. Gnangarra 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. - brenneman {L} 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Records[edit]

The company existed, but it's not notable BalfourCentre 09:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete 216.141.226.190 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep, I now see the value in this article, but it still is a mess and while I can say keep per Antares33712, I am afraid that the article will have no valid resources to cite if needed, ths putting it in a perilous position. But based on Antares's comments, I feel the subject is notable enough for conclusion and we can at least conclude that this isn't some hoax. 216.141.226.190 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, given that Play Dead are both in Launch and AllMusic, I'm erring that they and the UK label are notable enough for a disambiguation page. Antares33712 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it saddens me tbat a record label that was instrumental in the development of '80s hip-hop is receiving so little recognition. While I am not the biuggest fan of hip-hop, Public Enemy, Tone Loc and K.R.S One all got their start at Fresh. Jive Records started out as a hip-hop label as well (they just blew up instead). I have no idea who Play Dead is (was or whatever), but Fresh was ALL about hip-hop. They were based in New York City. But I guess thats the problem. Since they were around before the Internet, there isn't a lot of information left about them. I found a link to an album review [[3]] and also a search in Amazon (under Popular Music) for Fresh Records will find a whos who of East Coast '80s rap, before N.W.A desecrated it with that gangsta shit. Oh well, off my soapbox I go Antares33712 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Antares33712, please add that information to the article! If what you say is true (that Public Enemy, Tone Loc, KRS One got their start at Fresh), then this is certainly notable. Yes, it's sad that it's not recognised but reading the article as it stands (small record label, now defunct) I would come to the same opinion. --Canley 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I gain nothing from making that up, but defunct indie labels and even acts tend to lose information over time. Antares33712 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, thats the best I could come up with until I can talk to my friend who knows more about hip-hop than I. I could write something now, but I don't want it to be both unsourced and wrong :-) Antares33712 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no notability stated or implied in the article. Tychocat 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Antares33712, but I am afraid that if kept, sufficient valid sources won't be available to make this article worthwhile 66.32.196.194 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this is only a disambiguation page, I guess it's fine. However, the actual article pages will need watching. So I say Keep. 65.122.138.194 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - former record company of several notable artists. Needs to be improved, but doesn't necessarily mean it deserves to be deleted Halo 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although FYI Public Enemy got signed by them, they left for another label before their debut. Also, you should include info on Sleeping Bag Records, another indie label that merged with Fresh (why most 80s output from them say Sleeping Bag/Fresh Records). 63.164.145.85 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment where shall we find the sources to verify this? There are a couple of '80s magazines with some information, but those aren't valid since they are not Internet. 216.141.226.190 21:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - printed media counts, so if you have resources, please share it will help us flesh this one out. Personally, the page as it stands I feel is fine, but before we undertake the real article we will need sources (and yes, the pickings are scarce :-) ) Antares33712 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is the name of two important labels article shows notability Yuckfoo 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Jive Records... the American record label was notable ... the british was only minimally so.  ALKIVAR™ 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Corker[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted

The amount of verifiable information in this entry is so small that it does not merit its own page. The entirety of the verifiable information is encapsulated within the single Harvard Gazette link given at the bottom, which should be instead placed on the fun czar page. Speedyeric 03:49, 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 no consensus. Personally, I am more swayed by the delete opinions than the keeps; there are many award categories out there for schools to win, and the little notability it has would be better served in the school district article. However, by a simple count, the delete and keep counts are almost the same, and there are some valid points on the keep side. Having watched the "school debate", I feel that schools may be at the front line of incrementalist reform on Wikipedia... If said articles can be well-maintained and verifiable, I say, go for it. (That is a very big if, though.) This should be revisited in the future as the status of the school changes (which it probably will.) Grandmasterka 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wydown Middle School[edit]

nn middle school; no claim of notability; article reads as an advertisement Carlossuarez46 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The information is accurate, and is useful enough to be kept. I, in fact encourage other schools to do the same, if there is no one who wants to create a page on something, that doesn't mean that if someone else does want to create an article on a similar subject, they shouldn't be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyluismofo (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Carlossuarez46 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools carry inherent notability -- Librarianofages 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. First of all, there is absolutely no policy that says that schools are inherently notable. Saying it repeatedly does not make it any more true than me saying I'm a millionaire until the bank decides to credit my account accordingly. Until there is any such policy on the issue, each school article ought to be judged on its own merits. I for one have chosen to consider the WP:BEEFSTEW test (which is also not binding). On application of that test, it's borderline, but I'll give this article the benefit of the doubt. Agent 86 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a firm supporter of High School notability, but I have to draw the line at middle school. Let's Merge it into an article on the school district, if there is one. AdamBiswanger1 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we really need an article about a middle school that not that notable. Never heard of it before the AfD Aeon Insane Ward 04:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another school. -- GWO
  • Delete, WP:SCHOOL is a failed guideline and the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer notability on its subjects. Also, middle schools don't cut it unless they have some remarkable achievement. Merging into a school district article would be acceptable, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all schools, high, middle, or low. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources cited other than the school's own website, suggesting that this school isn't very important. Mentions in books, in a biography of a famous person indicating that the school's philosophy played an important role in his development, mention in other than regional press for other than athletics, would be examples of things that would convince me otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with a school district article. I agree with AdamBiswanger1: High Schools might be notable, but middle schools are inherently a great deal less notable. Scorpiondollprincess 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Agent 86 Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School District of Clayton. I already merged a brief summary onto that page. — RJH (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Delete, article provides no discernable notability amongst middle schools in the United States. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another unremarkable school doing a wonderful job at educating kids in exactly the same way as every other school in the world. We don't have articles on every human or every house, important as those are to their families or occupants; it's unclear why schools should get special treatment. — Haeleth Talk 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another school, no doubt doing an excellent job, but with no claims to encyclopaedic notability. -- Alias Flood 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many of the reasons listed above, mainly that most public schools are simply not notable in and of themselves. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the school district article per above. ~ ctales *blah* 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. No valid reason for deletion supplied by nominator. Silensor 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This school is repeatedly mentioned in the book Class Warfare: Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence (ISBN 1594030448) by J. Martin Rochester. Silensor 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is more notable than most of the schools which make it to AfD, and this article supplies a decent framework of information. GassyGuy 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Clayton School District. Err... since that article doesn't exist, I guess that's more of a "move." --BaronLarf 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both Agent86 and GassyGuy, several minor claims to notability are made. RFerreira 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the information is now adequately housed at School District of Clayton. GassyGuy 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While most middle and high schools are non-notable in my mind, this school is notable since it has won several awards for its academics. --Royalbroil 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with royalbroil, the awards make it very worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™ 12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the awards basis, if that's not consensus then please redirect it to School District of Clayton so readers can find the entry there. BryanG(talk) 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A decent little article. Golfcam 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Haeleth has it on the nose. I wouldn't mind if this were merged into Clayton School District, I guess, but I'd rather see the whole mess smerged into Clayton, Missouri. Nobody who doesn't live in the area this school serves will ever know or ever care about this school specifically, and a number of people who have lived in areas it serves (Hello!) won't care either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to School District of Clayton. I don't see what's important or exceptionally special about this school to warrent the need to have an article about this middle school. The 'awards' it has are mearly extremely common ones that most schools have, and the statistics are abit skewed by forcing 500+ students for their 'top 10'. The wiki is not a ballast of every last tidbit about every school in the country. Did anything major happen here? Who wants to read about any random middle school? Does it have a special history? No. Man in black also has a good point about how noone will notice this outside of the community it serves. It probably serves nothing more than to booster ego of parents of kids at said school. Delete. Kevin_b_er 06:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school has demonstrated notability Yuckfoo 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is obviously notable. --Myles Long 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability established by way of awards. As an aside, I wish my school were a blue ribbon school. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to district; do not keep separately. Middle schools do not have default notability, and this one does not have anything particular about it. We would be better served by a policy/guidelines that was accepted, than trying to do these individually, however. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the article which makes multiple and verifiable claims of notability. Yamaguchi先生 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly noteworthy.--Nicodemus75 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of added notable Igorot history. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article. --JJay 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Quite a bit of St. Louis's outlying area is built on sites used in the 1904 World's Fair, seeing as the fair and outlying associated exhibitions were arranged around a city that has grown in the last 100 years. At what point do we stop according notability-by-association for reusing ground used in the 1904 World's Fair? Should I write articles for gas stations built on that land? Personal homes? Vacant lots? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The World's Fair was located in just Forest Park, which is now a large urban park - larger than Central Park, for example, but much smaller than many others. So not "quite a bit of St. Louis's outlying area" is built on World's Fair sites. In addition, the exhibit shown on the land that was later used for this school was the most popular, controversial, and notable exhibit in the World's Fair: a fair within a Fair, as this article notes. So it's not just any gas station... zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just like with high schools, lack of notability should have nothing to do with it. With high schools lack of notability is not and never has been a reason for deleting. If you start with middle schools, the Wikipedian's who want all high schools deleted will start winning. Capit 17:48, 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 for now. The one claim to her notability is cited at her IAFD entry. There are a handful more delete opinions than keeps. It does not meet WP:PORN BIO, but in a few months that will be made official, and she'll have more notability (more movies,) and this discussion will prove to be rather academic. (I'll undelete the basic info for you then if you remind me.) Grandmasterka 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Loren[edit]

Non-notable. Of course, there are hundreds of non-notable articles in the porn actor category. Not all of them, I gather, but most. I think those should probably be AFD'd as well. --BradBeattie 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hasn't even won a "cum award". 205.157.110.11 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, it definetly fails WP:PORN BIO but thats only a proposed guideline or policy. None of its verified per say either. But I dont think that having been in 90 videos would be notable in at least the porn industry so I say it fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incorrect, I would say that it does meet WP:PORN BIO ~ true, not in 100 films, but it says "in or around" which to my mind 90 is "around" 100. In any case by the amount of films that these people turn out she will be iron-clad signed and sealed notable per this proposed "standard" within 6 months! -- Librarianofages 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
where is the evidence that she has done 90 videos? The external links indicate 50. Not that this is sufficient for inclusion Bwithh
  • Keep Per WP:PORN BIO & my above comment -- Librarianofages 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PORN BIO even though it is still in the proposal phases. Yamaguchi先生 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see how this is usefull to the community or even notable of an Encylopedia. Aeon Insane Ward 04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might just sneak PORN_BIO, but I don't care for the 100 film criteria. As noted above, that can be just 6 months work in the industry. -- GWO
    • I think you misunderstood Librarianofages's comment. Librarianofages was trying to say that NL would almost certainly make 10 more films (90+10=100) in 6 months, not 100 films in 6 months. 100 films in 6 months would be quite high even by porn standards. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. Unless anyone else can come up with any other information, the article should just be deleted. She only has 90 films and, even if we were to be generous with the 100 film criteria from WP:PORN BIO, she has no other claims to notability. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SynergeticMaggot. Voice of Treason 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't really cut it per WP:PORN BIO and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the in around wording of WP:PORN BIO is weasel words and should be changed. Eluchil404 12:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not it squeaks by PORN BIO is irrelevant, as it isn't policy or even a true guideline yet, and the 100-films point is one of the most controversial parts anyway. Certainly fails the established WP:BIO by a mile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic porn "actress". Just zis Guy you know? 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep close enough to 100 films so i think WP:PORN BIO applies.  ALKIVAR™ 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SynergeticMaggot. GassyGuy 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This actress (a term I use loosely) has partaken in 90+ adult films, notable in my book. Will the person who said this feat is easily accomplished in 6 months please stand up? Sources on that would be appreciated. RFerreira 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar and RFerreira. --Myles Long 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ninety films is an impressive number, at least to me Antares33712 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PORN is a proposal. This discussion points out the problems with trying to use a specific number for a notability decision. This is close enought to the proposed criteria to meet it. Also consider that this article could be deleted today and in 9 months it would qualify since she is now at 100. Vegaswikian 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Alkivar. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:PORN BIO. Where's the evidence for 90 films? Anyway, this would fall short of the "around 100" requirement and is not sufficently encyclopedically notable if it was 100. (PORN BIO is a proposed guideline not an established one). Don't see any assertion of notability or fame beyond the little info in the article. Bwithh 05:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question Can anyone come up with verification that this porn star has done around 100 movies or even 90 movies. This seems to be impressing a number of keep voters for some inexplicable reason, but it has not been verified as far as I can see Bwithh 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just clicked on the IADB link and it quickly stated 90 Titles. The IMDB has 43 titles. Many people on this 'pedia have just one or two items in the IMDB and are more marginally qualified. I re-assert my KEEP 216.141.226.190 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, that's a lot of movies. We have many people on here of more marginal importance. KEEP 216.141.226.190 14:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hullabahoos[edit]

I think this band fails WP:MUSIC - Their website claims they have released 12 albums, but there is nowt at amazon and the same result at discogs DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probably self produced albums. No other mainstream reference. 205.157.110.11 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Their website makes some bold comments that meet WP:MUSIC, of course, I can't verify if it's true or a simple joke. Yanksox 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are quite a number of reviews for albums, but I couln't be bothered counting how many, doesn't appear to be a hoax. -- Librarianofages 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I'm not being awkward (honest!!!) but from where does the quotation "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." come from ??? DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeeek!! sorry missed that one DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's only for performers outside of mass media traditions. It doesn't apply here.
  • Keep per Librarianofages. Voice of Treason 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Librarianofages' comments. Scorpiondollprincess 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Where do you see any of these sub-culture publications/reviews? I'd like to see some reliable sources used in the article. As it is right now the article looks like original research. Wickethewok 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in my grumpier moments (like, now) i look at articles like this and almost conclude the writer wanted to get the article deleted. It's written in such a fashion as to obscure what facts there are, much less provide citations and sources for those facts. I started with the same questions of this being a hoax or not. The group does exist, but you have to search through the University of Virginia's website to find it, and apparently the 12 albums exist but were produced privately, and they aren't for sale on Amazon (wow, what a concept). This isn't helped by the fact the CARA website didn't make it easy for me to finally find award-winners from 2005, but I eventually verified that bit. I take away three lessons here: One, editors should be aware that Google and Amazon are not the final arbiters of notability, which should be judged in context of all notability requirements; Two, writers should at least read an encyclopedia before trying to write one, and; three, I'm far too grumpy to care if this article sinks or swims, and shall therefore not vote at all. Tychocat 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously, every university has an a capella group that goes around singing The Nylons tunes and whatnot. They are always popular because they are crooners. They usually record and sell albums (which is something that anyone can do, having a publishing/distributing deal is the real business), and they are usually hired to sing all over the place. But, why is that notable? They don't usually write their own songs, even - their albums are all cover tunes. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep against nom per Librarianofages Antares33712 18:51, 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 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Opera[edit]

Only 7 ghits for this Rock Opera with the artists name - WP:NN rock opera DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:00, 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 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University College Cork YFG[edit]

Does not sufficiently assert the importance of this particular branch of the Young Fine Gael. See WP:ORG SarekOfVulcan 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure it is: it's done all the time on AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 23:26, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35[edit]

The article says only that: This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 35. I think this might be a copyvio if that is the case. Listcruft and all the links in the article are red. SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nom. I was unaware of other the rest of these articles at the time, but still feel its unencyclopedic. SynergeticMaggot 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *Delete per my nom and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SynergeticMaggot 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SynergeticMaggot. Fabricationary 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you realize there are over 80 more of these? [4] Articles exist for most of volumes 5 (1801) through 91 (1975). A number of them have a few cases that aren't redlinked. Looks like the author MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has authored a huge number of Supreme Court case articles, and filling in details on many of these. I have left a note on the editor's talk page to notify him/her of this AFD. Fan-1967 02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still, the user shouldn't be creating lists full of redlinks. He should be creating the pages, then adding the lists. If this page does get deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date whenever the named pages get created. Fabricationary 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always hate it when people use the Wikipedia is not paper argument, but I think it applies here. Most of the problems with lists don't apply here. Many lists are POV, or inherently not complete or comprehensive. Doesn't apply here. I don't know why half a dozen of the volumes are missing, but that seems easily remediable. I don't see a problem with keeping these lists, even if the process of blueing the links is only 10% done in ten years. Fan-1967 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this project is, in fact, encylopedic in a very real sense, and these may be quite useful, even if only one or two notable cases in each volume ever get blue-linked. Looks like these are a framework. Fan-1967 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the volume number is the reporter volume reference number; since the actual lists are obviously products of public institutions I'm not sure why there is a copyvio inference. The list would appear to be a working list that is actively being worked to fill; I'm sure many of the entries are more than notable. Kuru talk 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is no copyright violation here and the content is encyclopedic. The volume refers to the public domain, U.S.-government published United States Reports, the official case reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States. Far from "indiscriminate," listing the cases decided by the highest court in the United States is clearly an encyclopedic venture, and organizing them by the manner in which they were published is one of many sensible ways to do this. I've already used these lists as an aid in writing articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases is organized and active to address how to better improve and maintain these lists, including changing the titles. Postdlf 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it may also help standardize case naming conventions. Rklawton 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is a minor issue. I happened to find an entry in one of these articles (volume 60, for 1857) with a blue link to United States v. Stewart. Stewart is a common name, and the article linked to is for 2005. But, I'll let the fine people on this Wikiproject address issues like that. Fan-1967 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And using "what links here" along with these lists will help us identify those repeated case names, long before all of them have articles. Postdlf 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please show me the copyvio. If there is none, it is an encyclopedic entry and, even if filled with red links, serves as a to do list for Wikipedia contributors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf. There is no copyvio as this is a work of the US government and is thus not covered by copyright (the Court has several of the newer volumes, though not this particular volume, freely accessible on their website, for goodness sake). Given that the reporters, indicated by the volume numbers, are essentially chronologically ordered, this is basically a "portion of a chronological list of SCOTUS cases." Far from an indiscriminate collection of information. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No. When I nominated it, I was not aware that there were 50-80 articles more just like it (which should be deleted also). Why there needs to be a list of Supreme Sourt cases is beyond my scope. They should be turned into a category at best. The entire article is filled with no information other than a list of court cases which 1, arent even notable, and 2, arent even articles. I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, or how it helps Wikipedia. I wont be withdrawing my nom. Plus, I never said it was a copyvio, but that it might be. It reads like it was copied directly from a source. SynergeticMaggot 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly makes a U.S. Supreme Court case not notable, and how did you manage to determine that for all of the cases in this list? Postdlf 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've never liked these lists full of redlinks when we already have these lists full of bluelinks, but I'm persuaded by Postdlf's arguments about use as a research tool and for identifying repeated case names. The relevant wikiproject's coverage of cases heavily trends toward recent cases; if there were a list like this for volume 541 (from two years ago), it'd be full of bluelinks. Eventually we may extend our coverage to cover important older cases, but we haven't yet. I also think the nominator is misapplying WP:NOT. It says "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:" and then goes on to list eleven specifics. Claiming an article that isn't one of those eleven specifics is an indiscriminate collection of information does not make it so.--Chaser T 04:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not misapplying it. I didnt point to a statement in the header "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I quoted the statement and pointed to the policy page. Because this is a clear statement none the less. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a clear statement, but the policy specifically applies in eleven limited areas. This article is none of those eleven. Which specific section of WP:NOT are you asserting this is in violation of?--Chaser T 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I think the confusion is that I was quoting from the preamble for the header you mentioned. There are eleven specific types of indiscriminate collections of information. This isn't one of them.--Chaser T 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Personally, I think this is terrific, and it seems to me the easier thing to do is to make the list first and then work on the individual cases. Not everyone who wants this kind of information can afford LexisNexis or Westlaw. While WP obviously can't compete with those services (and shouldn't), this information is useful to those who need it. If a list of SCOTUS cases isn't encyclopedic, neither are the lists for the anime characters, or the professional wrestlers, or the video games, or movies that start with the letter 'B', and on and on. It can't be written overnight, either. There are some editors who can thoughtfully analyze these cases and many more who can't, but at least it's a start. Just my two cents. - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is why lists > categories for material that isn't created yet, but should be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep Not indiscriminate, the only delete vote was per nom, and the nom has now been withdrawn, so effectively noone now wants to delete this. --ais523 08:41, 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. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Kunz[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Chief claim on her in the body of the article is being executive director of the Center for Adoption Policy Studies—which does not have an article. [ETA: Article was enhanced to mention four books she authored. Three are on university presses. None of them have an Amazon sales rank higher than 1.2 million. 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)] Article was prodded previously, put to clean up, but the article kept coming up with non-notable biographical information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - Gobeirne 07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for having no references - thereby failing WP:V Kevin 09:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - failing WP:V and WP:BIO. KarenAnn 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and, seemingly, unable to satisfy WP:V -- Alias Flood 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another editor has restored some deleted information from the article about four books Kunz has authored. I didn't see anything on the amazon.com blurbs to indicate awards won by the books or significant press coverage of the books. I have noted this in my nomination under the ETA (Edited To Add) block, but I make no change to my recommendation of deletion at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Following WP:BE BOLD, I'm closing this as a keep because the subject of the article unambiguously meets notability criteria as the author of significant books from major publishers and because the article was effectively vandalized to remove all mention of a well-known controversy over tenure at Yale in which she was a central figure. I've devandalized the article. Google "Diane Kunz Yale" and find a few dozen articles about the controversy. You can also check any reliable book review index to see she meets that notability criterion, even though the nom says otherwise, unless you think "multiple" means more than two dozen. VivianDarkbloom 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-opened the debate as it was clearly closed in violation of deletion policy. I didn't want to censor VivianDarkbloom's comments, so I have moved them here. Kevin 00:55, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newshounds Furry Webcomic Characters[edit]

This is a multiple nomination for a bunch of furry webcomic characters from the Webcomic Newshounds. The articles nominated are:

Newshounds is a long running webcomic hosted on Keenspot. I am not discussing its notability or encyclopedic value at this point, but that of their characters. Whereas I'm sure factual nuggets such as how Kevin J Dog met his bitch at a Rowan Atkinson autograph session, I absolutely fail to see how it is encyclopedic. How many professional sources have written about the characters of Newgrounds? What kind of influences have they had over other works? I'm sure actual journalists working in the real world have written extensively about Asterix, and the nature of Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes). What they haven't done is comment on how Wolfram Blitzen was worried about not having a shoetree for his shoes. This is a textbook example of fancruft, appeals to only those entrenched in the series already. I am NOT proposing a merge, as I believe that Newshounds#Characters covers the characters in suitable depth already. - Hahnchen 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all agree that the main page covers the characters sufficiently, but if someone who knows the comic better feels any info needs to be merged in, I'd be ok with that too, as long as it's not all kept. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per above, character don't have individual notability outside of comic and comic's article suffices for their bios. Yanksox 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, or as a remote second choice redirect all to Newshounds instead. --Metropolitan90 04:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. SynergeticMaggot 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ISD 07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Normally, you're supposed to leave a reason to keep; especially if the vote is not going your way. Danny Lilithborne 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply As Newshounds is one of the longest running webcomics, their characters are some of the most in depth. Thus, I believe that there is enough information about them to justify their own articles. It also makes it easier to extract information from each character rather than searching through the main entry. ISD 08:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, especially since they're well covered in the article. Voice of Treason 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Just because a webcomic is long-running doesn't mean its characters are worthy of articles in an encyclopedia. The main article works just fine. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, harmless, but reduce fancruft and balance the articles. - Gilgamesh 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think any current webcomic is at a level where we need an article on every character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Unreasonably fine granularity. If the descriptions in Newshounds aren't considered detailed enough, there's plenty of room to add detail there. Spot-checking several of these articles shows no sources for the specific details given. They give the appearance of being a display of personal knowledge, included on the editor's own authority, rather than being based on cited, verifiable published sources (as required by the verifiability policy). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Open and shut case per reasonings given above. Wickethewok 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since these characters are a subset of a webcomic (which is less notable than a comic) and is in any case a furry webcomic (which is a minor subgenre). No evidence of significant external coverage (is this WP:OR from fans?). Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:FICT. — Haeleth Talk 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well reasoned nom, this does not satisfy either WP:V or WP:RS -- Alias Flood 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, but no problem with some of the info being used to expand the bios in the main article. GassyGuy 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Individual articles for webcomic characters just scatter the content, making it all difficult to maintain and keep internally consistent. While this may be okay for the characters of popular television shows and syndicated print comics, even the most popular webcomics don't have enough eyes to do that job well. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Alias Flood. -- Dragonfiend 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with multiple headshots as per nom Bwithh 06:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, failing that, Merge. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Baba[edit]

Notable? This article appears to be abandoned. --Xrblsnggt 01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems largely unverifiable. 180 Ghits few of which seem to be for the one in this article. I don't see his name on the website in the article but it's so annoying I admit to not having tried very hard. Dlyons493 Talk 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this person passes WP:BIO Kevin 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above plus fails WP:V - no references. KarenAnn 12:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified; I have tried and failed to find references in either English or Japanese. — Haeleth Talk 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to satisfy the core policy of WP:V -- Alias Flood 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Knowing Is Half The Battle 19:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight On The Break[edit]

Borderline spam. We had a place like this near us that stayed open for about a year. I don't know that it warranted an encyclopedia article. Discuss... --Xrblsnggt 01:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless this claimed notariety can be proven... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a pool hall. Not much else, it seems. Kuru talk 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local establishment, no notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a Bemani enthusiast, I can say that this arcade is somewhat notable to the Bemani community, but it isn't really notable outside of it. Fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that they pass WP:CORP, and no reliable sources Kevin 10:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disagree with the nominator, though. The border of Spam does not like smack dab in the middle of spam, where this resides. WilyD 13:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. SynergeticMaggot 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCREDIBLY reluctant delete I have only been there twice, but I love The Break. My ex-girlfriend (who is currently one of my best friends) is hugely into Bemani, and she took me there, and it was glorious. Unfortunately, as much as I adore this wonderful establishment, The Break is simply not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 22:02, 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 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Flashcards[edit]

Only 15 ghits] Fails on WP:NN DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:46, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zap! (computer game)[edit]

Shareware 2-d shooter game around since 2005. No evidence of notability. Xrblsnggt 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. gakon5 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The developers are notable (the guys from Tribes), which makes this notable by association. Ace of Sevens 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability by association is novel, but not part of WP:NOT. Keeping to the issue, a Google check of "Zap!"+game gets a lot of hits, but most of these appear unrelated to the game itself - sound effects, use of the word as a verb, and other games with similar names. I sifted through a couple dozen pages, and found no multiple non-trivial third-party articles to base notability on. Mind you, if such could be found, I'm open to changing my nomination, but the article itself neither states nor implies notability. Tychocat 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GarageGames comes out with many of these to demonstrate their development tools. They really aren't any more notable than an average flash game. Wickethewok 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another flash game without any notability. -- Alias Flood 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think its a flash game - I think it uses their Torque engine. I was merely pointing out that it is similar to an average internet flash game. Wickethewok 19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flash games generally are not appropriate for an encylclopedia (unless of course they were groundbreaking in some way). If it has some degree of notability, perhaps a reference in the Flash or Tribes article might be suitable. Knowing Is Half The Battle 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat, Alias, and Knowing, and inasmuch as a more limited Google search than that essayed by Tycho returns only 425 results, with the caveat that I'm not wholly opposed to our conferring notability by association, but only where such association is neither tenuous nor negligible. Joe 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zap it, zap it good. RFerreira 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel strongly either way on this particular article, but I must say how it warms the cockles of my heart that two of the delete voters didn't even bother to skim to the Infobox at the top right of the article. Cheers! --SevereTireDamage 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly how most articles branded "gamecruft" are being deleted; by people who aren't even looking at articles. (but delete anyway) I'm switching over to Keeping per Ace. Considering how many obscure stub article games exsist on this site, we might as well keep this one. Espeically since it's beyond stub status (and more could be written about it). I'm also pretty sure that the game won at least one or two indie development awards. -- gakon5 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Looks like it did actually win some indie awards. [5] [6] That's enough to get me to vote. --SevereTireDamage 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ace. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Zap! is a published game being sold for money by GG on their website. It's not just some flash game. It is a published game for sale and in effort to be as complete an encylopedia as possible, I feel like it shoudl definitely stay. Ayavaron 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons above. --SevereTireDamage 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a award winning game not a flash game Yuckfoo 20:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a game developed by a notable group, GarageGames. In fact, it is a commercial product, selling for $20 at the GarageGames website. Mipchunk 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Horror Show. Song is already mentioned there; very little from this article is appropriate to put there. No consensus on deleting or keeping the redirect, so we default to keeping it. Mangojuicetalk 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im-Ho-Tep (song)[edit]

WP:NN song off an album - never released as a single DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The song's mention within Horror Show should be sufficient. I doubt if it needs expansion even within that article -- Alias Flood 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Horror Show. Decent content for that page but hardly needs its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgies (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, no merge, I don't believe Im-Ho-Tep (song) would be realistic for a redirect in this case. Voice of Treason 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Horror Show. Probably the other linked songs need to be merged in as well, unless one has individual notability. GassyGuy 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Horror Show. There's some useful material here, but a) the article doesn't establish notability for the song outside the album, and b) the Horrow Show article is rather short. Extraordinary Machine 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above and WP:NOR. --Peephole 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma’s Virtual Studio[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. -Nv8200p talk 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article doesn't make any sense. If it started in 2006, how can it have history earlier than tha? -- Gogo Dodo 04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. (vanity). Rob (Talk) 10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete non-notable and obviously a vanity page hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/unnotable (possible A7) -- Alias Flood 19:19, 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 A7 (done by Gwernol) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Kaplan[edit]

Seems to qualify for Geogre's Law. Non-notable website founder trying to coattail on his brother. Autobiography. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating Seth kaplan as well--identical article. -- Scientizzle 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Now deleted. -- RHaworth 07:58, 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. Note that CSD G4 only applies if similar content is added; an article could certainly exist at this title if the concerns about original research and verifiability are addressed. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall letters[edit]

Original research. NawlinWiki 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Wikify duh! -- Librarianofages 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, please keep your comments civil. Kuru talk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moreover, as this is a discussion, not a vote, you are expected to explain why you believe the article does not violate the fundamental policy which the nominator believes it violates. "Duh", while expressive, is not exactly informative. — Haeleth Talk 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entire article seems to be some odd mish-mashed commentary centered around a spam link (wawallletters). Kuru talk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a mixture of neologism and original research. -- Alias Flood 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR essay that doesn't read like a WP:ENC topic, the surreptitious placement of the website link adds a notch to WP:SPAM in my book. --Kinu t/c 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above reasons. To placate anyone who wants things kept, there might be something that could be added to information on some of the buildings mentioned (the Latin stuff, f'rinstance), although I'd be surprised if it's not there already. BigHaz 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR plus WP:V. Links embedded in article go to
  • a photo of a rabbit plaque
  • a commercial site selling wall letters for home decorating such as nurseries, etc.
  • a long article on The Pantheon-- Rome -126 AD
  • an article entitled Couple to Marry At Plantation Where Groom’s African Ancestors Once Labored. KarenAnn 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as WP:OR and WP:V. KarenAnn is right: the links provided are weak and somewhat non sequitor. This article could (and perhaps should) be recreated, as this does seem to be a genuine phenomenae. But as currently written, this smells too much of unverified original research. Delete, unless someone feels ambitious enough to do a complete rewrite and cite some better sources. Scorpiondollprincess 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look like a genuine phenomenon to me; rather, as the links in the article itself demonstrate, people have always decorated walls with plaques and inscriptions, ever since the invention of writing. I'm pretty sure we'll have many an article on the subject already, and this one doesn't seem to add anything. — Haeleth Talk 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepYou all make excellent points and as the writer of this article I will revisit it and make the recommended changes because I beleive it is very valuable information. I have a degree in art with a concentration in design and the use of typography in our daily lives is extremely interesting to me. I feel it is worth writing about on. Please come back in give your votes again in a few days and see if it is not more to your liking tlob Talk 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still looks horribly like WP:OR to me, only now it's completely unsourced. Paddles TC 13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above WP:OR and WP:V. Massmato 15:47, 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 redirect to The Trouble with Trillions. Kevin 10:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trillion Dollar Bill[edit]

I'm not quite sure about this one. Is something appearing once on The Simpsons Notable? I don't think so, but i just want to make sure... 11kowrom 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the simpsons -- Librarianofages 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's been on for 17 years. If I had a dollar for every quotable reference from the show, I would be wearing gold-plated diapers (which I am not). --Xrblsnggt 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A little to fancrufty, even for me. The bill also has no significance outside of that episode and it has had no notable cultural impact. If we allowed this to be kept, that would set a precedent allowing thousands and thousands of other pages about minute details of a television show. Also, the merge would be rather deleterious because one simply wondering if there is such a thing as a trillion dollar bill would be led to an article on the simpsons and left rather confused. AdamBiswanger1 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this insignificant plot device in a single episode The Simpsons. And if they were going to do a screen capture, why not one of the bill? --Joelmills 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Trouble with Trillions, the episode it's found in. All the relevant information is already there. There's disagreement between the two pages about which President's face was on the bill, but I found this page on the internet confirming what's in the article on the episode that I'm proposing we redirect to.--Chaser T 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Trouble with Trillions per Chaser. There's simply no reason to have a distinct article on a single gag. Kuru talk 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Trouble with Trillions, which even has a picture of the bill itself! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Trouble with Trillions. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:25, 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 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Rotonda[edit]

It's already been prodded and contested. Unverified, non-notable, hoax, ....

Well, I guess I could create an Isotopia article stating that it lays claim to the territory of Talk:Sultanate of Rotonda... but somehow I think that would violate WP:POINT. Would it be WP:V if I added a statement declaring "victory in a bloodless coup" to my blog? My blog is a WP:RS right? Heh.--Isotope23 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't believe when I saw this article the first time. A tad scary the effort put into it. GassyGuy 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax. Too much time on somebody's hands, and/or too many screwdrivers. Oh, and I don't recognize Isotopia's claims. :-) --Pc13 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop it, you're killing me. Speedy delete Antares33712 18:53, 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 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl (American Singer)[edit]

Of her work, an out-of-print CD, Love Trip, was released by a San Francisco independent label (Ten-Six Records) in 2001 and is the only commercial recording of her found thus far. Also worth noting, a song "Twilight" (which seems only to have been released on white label vinyl) charted in the Top 40 of national club play in late 2005.. Sure doesn't make many claims to notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep from your own admission notable per WP:Music due to chart rating. -- Librarianofages 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a quote from the article, not the nominator's admission. ~ trialsanderrors 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have strong doubts that an artist who had a charting record in 2005 has her 2001 album deleted already. Also, it says club charts. Delete unless verified/notability established. ~ trialsanderrors 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps we have different ideas of what club charts are, I understand it to mean the charts for dance music as a whole. -- Librarianofages 03:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand it to mean somebody's (whose?) tally of what DJ's are playing in clubs. Per Billboard Magazine, this artist never charted in record sales. Fan-1967 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her webpage says "DJ Times magazine". Is that anything noteworthy? I added a sources tag. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initiated article after realizing there were very few places to find her. I work in music publishing and have run across her recordings many times. She is listed in All Music Guide, is a registered member of Broadcast Music Incorporated and the cd mentioned was released on a notable hip-hop label owned by Richie Rich (rapper), and he guest appears on her album's single. Completely understand if this does not warrrant inclusion, though I felt it did. --BandHistorian 03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you read the standards at WP:MUSIC, it looks like she does not quite make it. Only one album, which did not chart, puts her close but not quite there yet. (If you work in music you know that basically everyone above a garage band is registered with BMI, so that doesn't count for much.) Fan-1967 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Edit conflict] Well the issue is more that we can't tell from the only source (her webpage). There is a music guideline at WP:MUSIC which gives you an idea which kinds of artists get included, but really the key is to find reliable sources that cover her career. So if DJ Times has a write-up on her and it's mentioned in the article, that can sway the vote. ~ trialsanderrors 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to be notable. There aren't any claims in the article or this debate that suggest sufficient notability but I'd be happy to be corrected if verified notability emerges. MLA 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per MLA's comments. Doesn't seem notale yet, but if the author could provide verifiable sources on the charted Top 40 Hit or any mention of the artist in "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media," that'd be different. Scorpiondollprincess 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per lack of reliable sources and looks like original research at this point. Wickethewok 13:49, 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. Proto::type 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoryuken.com[edit]

Non-notable game website does not meet WP:WEB - 83 Ghits (incl wiki).

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pls refrain from listing number of "hits" on Google, also list why you think it is notable per WP:WEB or WP:NN whichever you think will help. -- Librarianofages 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not list google hits? They tend to be a fairly good measure of notability for internet phenomenon (not so much for 16th century composers, but for websites? Yes.) Mak (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because Google is a commercial search engine, they don't publicly list their criteria for choice of websites, we dont know how accurate it all actually is. -- Librarianofages 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Google Test" is an established method of taking first-pass snapshots to note a subject's popular usage during AfD discussions (WP:GOOGLE). It doesn't suffice on its own for determining notability, but it's hardly an unusual or inaccurate tool when used in combination with other tests. -- H·G (words/works) 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to be fair, he in fact indicated that it doesn't meet WP:WEB, which is a whole battery of tests. The fact that it fails the Google Test notwithstanding, it also appears from the nomination that it doesn't live up to any of the other standards going round. BigHaz 05:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment worth mentioning that this was previously deleted on 6 Oct 2005 and again on 19 Oct 2005; however, each of those deletions was due to "patent nonsense" or lack of content. The only similarity here is that each of those versions only had one editor involved, too. H·G (words/works) 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, Alexa ranking for this site is 114,603, FWIW. -- H·G (words/works) 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weird theories about Google notwithstanding, this obviously isn't a notable website. Admittedly the first Google hit for "Shoryuken", but #2 is a travel site and #3 is Wikipedia - never a good sign. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's a travel site called Shoryuken? This I gotta see! Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm wrong - it's just one of those domain-squatting search things whose google title is about cheap airfare. Not nearly as interesting. Opabinia regalis 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see absolutely no reason to doubt Google search results' validity, and claiming that it's not accurate because of some kind of a secret commercial conspiracy or something is just weird. Google is a crap tool for many purposes, but when it comes to video game websites, it gets the job done admirably well. -- Captain Disdain 05:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB & a comment surely, google is the best possible place to discover the notability of websites, or am I being daft ??? DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a regular poster to this website. I also nominated Daigo Umehara for deletion. This subculture is way below notable at this point. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep On second thought, if that article survived AfD, then this one should, too, since it's really the only place where his name means something. It is really the primary site for fans of Street Fighter-type games. Danny Lilithborne 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think that being the primary site for fans of a certain genre necessarily means the article meets WP:WEB. (Of course, this is even assuming that its status as the primary site et al can be independently verified.) At most, it merits a mention on the article on the appropriate genre. -- H·G (words/works) 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It is pretty much the last American site for the vs. fighting game genre. Though I'm not sure if this will hurt or help the cause, statistics at big-boards[7] show that the forums have 40,000+ active users. --SevereTireDamage 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HumbleGod. GassyGuy 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It might meet number oen of WP:WEB as it is pretty much the source for competive vs fighting game play and as such is referenced by other gaming publications, but if so, it's just barely. Ace of Sevens 05:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I remember Tips & Tricks running a series of articles based on fighting game tournament coverage, a good deal of information being derived from the Shoryuken.com community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.161.246 (talk • contribs)
    Third edit. Mak (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Article needs work but should not be deleted. SRK actually hosts the largest international tournament for 2-d fighters on US soil each year. People from all over the US attend and people from japan, china, canada, etc... fly in to compete among some of the best in the world. This year the tournament has corporate sponsership from toyota and is giving away over 80,000 dollars in prizes. Evo website --> http://www.evo2k.com/ EDIT- After reading Mak's comment if my edit is in violation of wiki rules feel free to delete. My point is still valid though. 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    No such user, comment was left by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.6.149 (talk • contribs) , whose only edits are to this afd and a related one. Mak (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although, honestly, it could use some refinement. But I think it definitely qualifies as notable. --VG Emblem
    First edit. Mak (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. www.shoryuken.com is a great site, and one of the few that 2d fighting has left. This site is the homepage for EVO, the biggest tournament for 2d fighters in the US. The article could use tuning, but as of right now it defines the basics of the forum nicely. Jr7891 July 25, 2006
    Second edit, first was vandalism. Mak (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is pure CSD G1: insufficient context to expand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallwood Academy[edit]

Another one I so did not want to do, but I continue to be fool enough to proceed. Originally listed as speedy per A1 (empty). The article at that time was, and still remains, simply an infobox. The speedy tag was removed with no other explanation than “not a speedy” in the edit summary. With apologies and no intent to impute endorsement by Dpbsmith, I've applied the WP:BEEFSTEW test. The answer to every question is "no". Add to that the fact that schools are not inherently notable, WP:SCHOOLS did not pass and is not binding one way or another, and precedent is not supposed to apply, I'd say that this article has no encyclopedic value and must go. Agent 86 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Super Delete this school stuff is insane. Two-sentence stubs with info copied from the school's website is bad enough, but a naked infobox is not an article. Opabinia regalis 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, passes nothing. Michael 03:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Opabinia regalis. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if nothing else, because it's not a valid stub. --Kinu t/c 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, just an info box for two weeks. Voice of Treason 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 07:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A1, empty article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Opabinia regalis. Schools can be notable, but the burden of proof rests with the article's author(s). Nothing but an infobox doesn't give us any proof of notability. Scorpiondollprincess 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand. If article is not expanded (I would do it myself, but have no knowledge or experience with Canada's school system), consider my input negated. The article's subject is a notable organisation, and as such it deserves an article. However, an infobox is most decidely not an article. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see these nominations ended up listed on different "dates", but for the purposes of full disclosure I have also nominated Gander Academy for deletion (see discussion here). Agent 86 20:03, 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 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Babcock[edit]

Obvious vanity, but contains a shade of an assertion of notability; User:Jeffrey Babcock created it and has been inserting himself into various TV stations' "former personalities" sections. It's not exactly an uncommon name, but googling "jeffrey babcock" WABC gets all of 9 hits. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, non-notable... Michael 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author's insertions into various TV stations, as noted, reflect his previous television work. Nothing more or less. Failure to list biography of Jeffrey Babcock just leaves this station information without a biographical link. --Jeffrey Babcock 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure. The above editor is both subject and original editor of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't talk about yourself in the third person, it makes people cranky. Mak (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The AfD on Angela Russell was restarted due to the addition of more articles to the deletion proposal; now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination). —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 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 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Extreme Wrestling[edit]

Non-Notable. Google turned up a link to the article and a link to thier geocities page. I live on long island, I am a fan of wrestling, and I know people who run thier own "back yard wrestling federations" and I have never heard of these guys, if you want a local persepective. Kennykane 04:20, 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 to delete. - brenneman {L} 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder Scouts Association[edit]

Fails WP:ORG and is also spammmmmm only 10 unique ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:26, 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 merged. Done. Ifnord 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Layshock[edit]

American high-school student who pulled a stupid gag and filed a non-precedent-setting lawsuit when he was disciplined for it. Not notable: fails not just the 100-year test, but the 100-day test. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that a comment was supposed to be left with removal of it. I removed it because this article holds relevance and significance to controversy over MySpace.com and was an example of negative implications of the site. --Twitch 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage of the incident only garners a handful of Google hits (274 total). The person isn't notable. The court case isn't notable at all. While it might hold some relevance as a minor example of a subtopic on another article, that hardly merits an article of its own. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of weak keeps, subject apparently skirts by WP:BIO ("the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person") due to the incident and subsequent trial. But this is one of those cases where meeting the bureaucratic definition of "notable" isn't necessarily the same as being notable. It wouldn't be inappropriate for this to be deleted on non-notability grounds, meeting WP:BIO aside. -- H·G (words/works) 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (vote change). I think I was being overly wikilawyerish in accepting the subject's notability due to an arguable meeting of WP:BIO criteria. I accept GassyGus's view of the situation (expressed below)--a kid did something bad and was caught. The MySpace tie-in is incidental and isn't incredibly significant. To bring up my analogy below, if he had used Geocities instead, would he still be notable? Does the fact that he used MySpace automatically confer notability? In my opinion, in this case it does not. -- H·G (words/works) 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per HumbleGod's comments. Subject seems to be a one-trick pony whose media coverage stems from a single event. Barely notable, but in the context of MySpace and those researching legal issues related to it, I think this does just squeak by. I wouldn't be opposed to condensing this and merging it with My Space Legal issues. Scorpiondollprincess 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second the motion to merge this article. It belongs in My Space Legal Issues because of it's size and small impact. --Twitch 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about that earlier...my view is that the Legal section of the Myspace article primarily focuses on issues where MySpace is one of the major parties involved in a legal dispute. In this case, though, MySpace was merely a conduit for this kid's actions, and was never really held liable that I can see. If he'd posted his fake material on Geocities ten years ago, for example, I doubt it would merit a blurb on the Geocities article. -- H·G (words/works) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an appropriate merge target can be found, it may merit mention. Barring that, delete the student who went too far and was then shocked to incur consequences. This one's only slightly better claim to notability is his coverage, but I can't see him passing the 100 50 25 10 5 year test for being remembered. GassyGuy 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MySpace Legal Issues, coverage was primarily because of the MySpace connection, not because subject had done anything notable. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided but considering a merge somewhere. The content itself is interesting but I'm not so sure the article should focus on the individual. RFerreira 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info into MySpace article, either Legal Issues, Educational Setting or new section. People doing stupid things on MySpace (e.g.) is worthy of some attention in that article, but there's absolutely nothing to this 'bio' except his MySpace exploits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Schaich (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 July 2006
  • Merge- MySpace in educational settings looks like the place for this. The incident does not merit a separate biograghical article. --Wine Guy Talk 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a Myspace-related article. Not notable enough to warrant an article of his own. Paddles TC 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a Myspace-related article. --Peephole 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen W. Burns[edit]

Non-notable film actor. Career highlights: Herbie Goes Bananas and 14th-billed on The Thorn Birds. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment AIDS victim is significant). I hate to say this, but no. Calton | Talk 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete IMDb has more listings for him than other actors profiles I've seen but as Calton states, his highlights are not up to much and I beleive, would be considered lowpoints of many actors' careers ! DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Unfortunately, being an AIDS victim is all too common to make one notable. However, the Herbie films are notable, and The Thorn Birds is very notable. He may not have played a major role in that one, but it seems like enough. Will not be protesting if the article is deleted, though. Borderline case. GassyGuy 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't see how his cause of death from AIDS is anymore relevant then if he was a man who died from Breast Cancer---of which there are thousands. Do they merit a Wiki article based soley on that? No, however his roles in the Herbie films and Thorn Bird do maintain enough notability to warrant an article. Think of all the Star Trek minor characters we have. 205.157.110.11 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Minor film roles barely qualify him. No coverage of him as a PWA. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote AIDS info unverified (was deadlink). Can we be certain IMDB is accurate given this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep'. rootology 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think his film/TV roles are just enough to get him over the line on notability. Paddles TC 13:00, 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 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ringbakk[edit]

Bio of a so-called "executive producer", written by User:Rickringbakk: IMDB reveals almost all credits are as "supervising producer" -- the Hollywood equivalent of middle management. He lists himself as a two-time Emmy winner: true, but he shares each award with 14 or so others working on The Amazing Race. Was prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment Uncivil remarks are uncalled for on edit comments, admin notified -- apparently "middle management" is a dirty word to that particular editor. Calton | Talk 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. (Also, looking at said user's edit history, I see that you guys have run into each other before. I don't see any evidence of him actually "notifying an admin", though. Looking at his edits (and edit summaries) is, uh... interesting. I particularly like the part where he says he notified admins by telephone.) -- Captain Disdain 05:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. By that same standard, the gaffer and best boy on those productions can claim to be "Emmy winners." (Hm, judging from AfDs, some actually do.) RGTraynor 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:21, 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 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mao[edit]

Asserts some notability, but no source to back it up, and doesn't seem that overall notable anyway. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. CNBlog.org has an Alexa ranking of 41K, which is mediocre, and with the lack of sourcing ...Keep. He's featured in a good many other places as well, given some of those Google links I've seen; a LOT of media coverage. I'm convinced. RGTraynor 05:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Steel 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to new evidence below. -- Steel 23:48, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 10:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Tiomno[edit]

This physicist seems to be very qualified, but there is currently no assertion of notability. It appears that this physicist is not quite notable for inclusion (unless someone can provide some sources that show that he is notable). DarthVader 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It looks from a scan of his bio and some of the Google hits like he passes the professor test. I'd slap expand and source tags on the article, but it isn't really deletable. RGTraynor 05:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible that those papers were seminal in their field. If that's not in the article, I can't say that he's notable. -- GWO
  • Keep if N can be better established. The Order of Scientific Merit puts him above the average prof. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As member of a national science academy and holder of an order for his scientific work, he passes point 7 ("has received a notable award or honor") of WP:PROFTEST. (These are also clear assertions of notability, but were added after the nomination.) up+land 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I withdraw my nomination (there is still however currently a delete recommendation by GWO) and apologise for not checking thoroughly enough for notable awards. I did read through the external link website and also the pages of the first few hits on google, and I didn't see anything about this notable award. I did not however check the incoming links which would have lead me to the award page. DarthVader 09:57, 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. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 06:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFSCars[edit]

No real claims of notability or meeting WP:WEB. Delete this is all original research about a nn forum. Unimpressive 100k Alexa ranking. Wickethewok 05:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I ought to add to my list of prima facie AfD candidates any article about a bulletin board that has a list (by handle) of staffers or members. RGTraynor 05:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and Alexa. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wine Guy Talk 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom, speedy A7 db-group because there is no assertion of notability. List of staffers is pure vanity. Paddles TC 02:52, 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 redirect; all the encyclopedic content outside of the list is already at City of Heroes. Mangojuicetalk 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supergroup (City of Heroes)[edit]

This article, as it is now, is extremely crufty, and seems to only serve as a list of some of the editors' Supergroups in City of Heroes and City of Villains, as well as a bunch of really specific stuff ("Form 27/B"? Who remembers that kind of stuff?) as well as a lot of in-game spcifications one can do for the group. I think this article should be deleted, or at least cleaned/trimmed of excess. Ryūlóng 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with City Of Heroes. Having played the game myself for an extended period of time I can say that Supergroups are an important aspect of it. I would recommend that the list of supergroups within the article be removed. Kennykane 05:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Kennykane. -- GWO
  • Merge minus list, per Kennykane.--Isotope23 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, but little of this is salvagable, being mostly instruction manual material as it is. And the list is definititely OR without some kind of reliable source. --SevereTireDamage 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While merging does sound good, the short section in the main article for City of Heroes article is more than sufficient for this article to be deleted. And I quote (minus internal links):
Ryūlóng 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct Merging is unecessary as this is already covered by the main article, but I don't see harm in the namespace staying. Ace of Sevens 05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without redirect. Merge not needed per Ace of Sevens. I can't see anyone doing a search specifically on "Supergroup (City of Heroes)". The entry in the Supergroup disambig page could point directly to City of Heroes, making a redirect redundant. Paddles TC 02:49, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philharmonic[edit]

Was speedied twice for having no claims to notability; the most recent post has what could amount to a claim (that the group's songs were featured on a TV show); I don't feel that's quite enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. They have no entry on AllMusic.com and no titles for sale (on Amazon or anywhere else) that I can find. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; make that an unsourced claim ... in any event, IMDB never heard of them. RGTraynor 05:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they fail WP:MUSIC. Possibly use the page as a disambiguation page of the various groups commonly referred to as The Philharmonic, e.g., New York Philharmonic, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, etc.? GassyGuy 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave As Is check allmusic.com for past band name Epoxy Ruin - they are in fact a notable band with history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshape (talk • contribs) User's only edit
    • Comment The article should've stated that Epoxy Ruin was the former name of the band (the article only mentions an album by that name). Using that info, the only press mention I could find was this article from a local independent magazine. The allmusic entry helps (although it is a minimal entry), but I can't find any verification that the band in any incarnation is well-known outside of Victoria. Kurt Dahle, who the article says is the current drummer, is notable, but I get zero Google hits when I search for "Kurt Dahle" + "The Philharmonic". OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page as the author's name is [email protected]. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave As Is That's not the bands e-mail address, check their myspace page. [email protected] - maybe [email protected] is a fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshape (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 redirect all but Ships of Homeworld to Ships of Homeworld. This will leave previous versions intact in history so folks can work on transwikiing; keep that one. Mangojuicetalk 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bentus[edit]

Original research, no references, and highly unencyclopedic. It is highly unnecessary for any video game to have a listing for each of its units as well. Delete as well as the following...

Also listing:

Similar also nominating:

See also here for a similar AFD.

Wickethewok 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as fancruft. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-notable and very minor game details. MLA 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree with the nom, although I would phrase it to say "It is highly unnecessary for most video games to have a listing for each of their units." But God help you if any fanboys show up. -- H·G (words/works) 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as the article was already nominated for deletion once, I see no reason no nominate any parts of it agian, if all other ships have their own article why shouldn't these?--Awesome Username 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I added some similar articles to the list above that are the same just on different ships. Wickethewok 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save all. First of all, good work for whoever added this as an AfD, you did it incorrectly. It was previously nominated for deletion, and obviously it was kept. Because you repeated the process instead of making it a 2nd article for deletion, that record is now gone. To address individual points... First, you can't delete something for being "Fancruft". WP:Fancruft is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy, and the sources it cites such as WP:Importance are frequently only proposed thus not universally agreed upon. If you want to delete the articles for being Fancruft, first you have to get Fancruft established as a reason for deletion; until then, your argument is without merit. As far as the "Original research, no references, and highly unencyclopedic." accusition goes, they're false. There is no original research; stats and background histoy of the units can be found in technical game manuals, the games themselves, or else online. While it is true that about half of the pages in question do not have external sources listed, you should keep in mind that these articles are currently undergoing overhauls by Awesome Username and myself, being worked on daily to improve quality and add sources. As far as being "highly unencyclopedic" I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." The information being presenting in these articles can be verified, and the articles don't violate any of the other Wikipedia:Not guidelines. No, we're not providing How-To's so don't wave that around either. Back to nomintating this for deletion, you have utterly no basis for it. The category with criteria for deleting it would most likely include: Is not suitable for Wikipedia (already addressed, doesn't violate anything); Original research, including the coining of neologisms (no original research is presented); Vanity page (obviously not applicable); Advertising or other spam (not applicable either); and Completely idiosyncratic non-topic (N/A as well). If the quality, sources, and sizes of the articles are problems, then put in the appropriate templates to bring attention to them so they may be addressed (although chances are I will fix up all the articles eventually anyway). If you don't think that the articles themselves are information worthy of being on Wikipedia, I'd ask what the defining line between permissible and non-permissible is; I for one have spent hours at a time reading about the various weapons, vehicles, characters, etc in works of fiction such as games and movies, and I find it hard to believe that nobody else does. I will point out that for "minor characters" in works of fiction the general guideline seems to be to combine them into one article called "List of minor characters in ____" but this wouldn't work so well for Homeworld stuff: First of all, the Ships of Homeworld article (equivalent to a list of minor characters) is already quite long, if every article were to be a length such as Kushan Scout, Kushan Mothership, and Kharakid Scaffold then as you can imagine the page would become quite large, certainly more than the < 30 KB target size. Although I suppose that's really not an issue, as you didn't propose merging, and you want to delete the Ships of Homeworld page entirely. Really, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish or what point you're trying to make. There are articles entirely dedicated listing the names of TV show episodes, for example, and I actually do use those regularly. Lists can be quite useful. "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.' This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." So you see, we actually are following Wikipedia guidelines here... for more reasons why keeping "cruft" articles can be useful, I point you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Counter-Strike maps. --Twile 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone with a bot add the tag {{subst:afd|Bentus}} to the top of the newer additions? It would be much appreciated. Wickethewok 17:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a gameguide hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it's not a game guide. Good call there. So how does non-game-relevant information fall under the category of being a game guide?--Twile 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how these articles are not relevant to the game. The articles subjects are objects found in Homeworld games. Furthermore, the articles were created to serve the player of Homeworld computer games. IMO, the articles are very game guide-ish. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • These articles are absolutely not game guides. If they were, we would've included sections like "Tips for usage" and such. The only such information provided is in the Roles section of the template, which more or less says what the ship is used for (Anti-fighter defense, for instance). Take a look at Kushan Heavy Corvette to see what I mean. Eventually all the articles will be akin to that, providing a brief historical background, technical details, etc. The articles were not "created to serve the player of Homeworld computer games" as you put it; the Game of the Year Edition of Homeworld (which has been retailing for 5-6 years, thus the only one that someone might realistically come across) comes with a strategy guide telling how to use everything. A player would be better suited reading the provided material for "how to" and "game guide" content. Let me put it this way: If there's an article on cheese, does it mean you should nominate it for deletion because it's a recipie? No. Even if it talks about how cheese is used in cooking, unless it provides recipies that are aimed at instructing how to specifically use cheese, it's not a "how to" article on cheese. --Twile 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi again! Per your further explanation of the nature of the articles natures, I've revised my deletion reasoning a bit. I still feel that these articles fail WP:NOT, however. The articles are on minor objects in a computer game, which are hardly notable enough to warrant articles in an encyclopedia. I also believe your cheese comparison to be a bit extreme, but thank you for your further explanations. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all per hoopydink--Nick Y. 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I'm sorry, but there are far, far too many articles listed for one deletion. Please break this into smaller chunks.--Nydas 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're all the same type of article (ships from the game Homeworld). What would be the point of making them into smaller groups? It seems like that would just scatter the arguments across several AFDs and make it more difficult to find a consesus. Would you prefer if I moved the list to a subpage so that it doesn't look ridiculous? Wickethewok 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that both supporters of keeping the articles and supporters of deleting them would agree that it's best to consider them all at once, if they're all of the same type. Whatever outcome is reached, it will automatically apply to all of these. If these were nominated separately, the process would take much longer and be more prone to possible inconsistencies. -- H·G (words/works) 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I partially agree with both of these. For the smaller ship articles, mainly things that aren't Mothership-class, I can see how the conclusion reached for one would be the same for all of them, and I'd rather not have to defend every one of them constantly. However, for things like the Kushan Mothership and Somtaaw Explorer, those are some of THE big ships in the game, the equivalent of Major Characters in a work of Fiction. Those do get their own Wikipedia article regardless of whether you think a minor character should or not. Funny that the large ones were the ones initially nominated for deletion. --Twile 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this afd list contains ships from three different games (not just Homeworld), and lumps together ships of vastly different importance, ranging from ships that appear only in a solitary singleplayer mission such as the Junkyard Dog to the iconic Kushan Mothership. I'd suggest starting with the most obviously crufty entries - ships that only appear in singleplayer missions. --Nydas 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wholly unencyclopedic, pure game-guide, and no impact outside of Homeworld players. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disclosure: I have only read a sampling of the articles. The ones I've seen do not establish notability outside the game itself. The quality of the articles is decent, but the subjects simply don't merit coverage individually. GassyGuy 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep All - This is a hard one. The articles, if they are all made to be the target size of Kushan Heavy Corvette, are much, much too large if merged together into a single page. And even if they were, the nom ha seen fit to submit that page for deletion as well, which flies in the face of every other "listing of minor characters" page. Maybe they should be merged together into sections- a page for fighters, a page for corvettes, etc. But the impression that I'm getting is that most of the people here are not looking at the articles, they're just reading the opinions of others written here and voting "delete per nom" or per above. Something needs to be done to this group- I agree, that's a lot of pages there. But deleting them all isn't the answer. --PresN 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - also, I agree with Nydus- if you disagree with me and say that they shoudl be deleted, they should be broken up into chunks to decide, not cramming 30 articles of differing importance into one afd. --PresN 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, reading Kushan Heavy Cruiser, I don't see one sentence that belongs in an encyclopedia. It's entirely in-universe, seems to be paraphrased from a game guide or manual, and doesn't make a distinction between why the people in the Homeworld universe use it and why people who play Homeworld use it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge, condense, and redirect all into an article such as "_____ on the Bentus". That way, we can keep some of the information for those who feel passionate about it, and keep it all under one roof. I don't think it's that insignificant. AdamBiswanger1 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to Twile and by all means let him transwiki them - but since it's likely to be a long job, Delete after they have been userfied. Delete all as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/merge to wikia:homeworld. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki - I always forget about those other darn wikis. Yeah, move it all there. Leave the Ships of Homeworld page, and maybe some of the more important ones, like the mothership articles, and just put something on the Ships of Homeworld page about how the actual pages are over at wikia:homeworld. --PresN 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. I'm revising my stance. Everything up until now, to me, seemed to indicate that such a thing as these articles were entirely permissible on Wikipedia; however, the in-universe stuff is something I can't contest. While it would be nice for Wikipedia to be a one-stop shop for all your information needs, if the relevance of that information in regards to the here and now must be stated, there really isn't much for the majority of the Homeworld series ships. Here's what I propose: Leave the articles alone. Every one of them. Especially significant ships, such as the Flagships of the various races, and the Ships of Homeworld article, will be left more or less as they are now. I will oversee the transfer of information from Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Hiigara wiki, and change all Homeworld-ship-related Wiki links to point to the new pages there instead. Likewise, on the Ships of Homeworld page, the links will be changed to point to the new pages on the alternate Wiki. Current articles, such as Kushan Scout and Somtaaw Recon, which cannot be meaningfully be changed to reflect an outside-universe opinion, will become redirects to the Ships of Homeworld page. This way, the information that I and others have poured over for hours will not be lost, and will find a place where people won't complain about its relevance. How's that sound to people? --Twile 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. I'm glad you're willing to compromise AdamBiswanger1 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki. This is one of the most reasonable of contested AFD of a game article(s) I have seen. Major elements here, details there. It is just as accessible and allows Wikipedia to be more formal. Please keep all of the articles as redirects. This is one of the strengths of Wiki, finding the information you need even when you approach the search from the 'wrong' direction. Dimitrii 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast them off of here and transwiki. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Prepare for takeoff to wikia:homeworld. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 00:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per twile--Awesome Username 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Transwiki great game but all that content is not for WP. --Pboyd04 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save and/or condense Either keep the articles and leave them alone (Wiki has plenty of space; these articles do not, in fact, violate the rules; there are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that should perhaps be Wiktionary entries or else be deleted altogether and yet remain without question), or condense them into a single, pithy "Ships of Homeworld" style page for each race. Significant ships, like Bentus, the Mothership, and the Naggarok, should be left as is if only due to their significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.147.113 (talk • contribs) 05:38 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Save and/or condense Its rediculous to delete all of this. I think it is a great idea to condense the sets of ships from these games into 3 or four individual articles while leaving the current articles pertaining to the canon as they are. There are articles about lots of fictional things, persons, and theories, and it is not unreasonable to have a few pages dedicated to the fictional devices and ships in the homeworld series. It should not be a gameguide, and so far it isn't. Wikipedia should have a plethora of knowledge, videogame universes included. As long as someone is organized and obeys the rules, they should be allowed to spend all the energy they want writing about ships and thier purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.85.122 (talk • contribs)

Comment - The problem is that, upon further inspection, many of the articles in question do not fit with Wikipedia's Writing About Fiction policies. They would have to be kept if they had information told from an "outsider" perspective, such as commenting on how a certain ship design was inspired by a particular real life aircraft, or how the Kushan Mothership appears on the game box of Homeworld, or things along those lines. Wikipedia doesn't let you write about Fiction from an inside perspective (talking about the article from the perspective of being inside the series) or from an outside perspective if you're giving advice, such as recipies or game guides or FAQs. I do think Wikipedia has made an error with this policy, because although it's good to have an outside perspective for some things, if you require that you limit the sorts of articles you can have, and the intelligent, useful linking. For example, while most of the information about the Cryo Trays is in-game and shouldn't be there according to present guidelines, if you were reading about Cryogenics and wanted to see some examples of where it was in fiction, it might be interesting or useful to see how multiple places implemented it. If the article were limited to "This is a large orbital tray holding cryogenically frozen people" it would be of utterly no use, whereas the "gamecruft" material that people seem to hate so ferverently might be useful to the individual interested in Cryogenics. --Twile 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or condense. Deleting all these articles at once seems like an overtly hostile gesture. Furthermore, it establishes a dangerous precedent. If we were to delete all in-depth articles from video games, that would require us to delete most of the articles in Half-Life 2's entry, The Elder Scrolls' entry, and so forth. Really, that seems a bit overstepping, don't you think? 72.234.85.122's comments above more or less get at this. However, taking Wikipedia's Writing About Fiction policy into account (I disagree with its current iteration, but we'll save that for another time), these articles could use some condensing, or perhaps being merged into one of those "big list" articles on a faction basis. More importantly, that bit about 'Outsider perspective' or what have you should be satisfied. Simply deleting them because they don't quite fit a specific policy, especially when said articles are well-written, quite useful, and wholly salvageable, strikes me as being thick-headed, and Wikipedia cannot abide thick-headedness.24.161.191.234 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has ~10 edits hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all'. The guy nominating this stuff for deletion does so for anything he personally dislikes-- I suggest everyone view his past attempts to remove Gundam-related material. Jtrainor 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you I have nothing personal against Homeworld. If you have read my nomination along with my comments on other game-related AFDs, you will see that I am simply trying to implement Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research as well as keeping Wikipedia a source of encyclopedic content. I would ask you to assume good faith. I want what is best for Wikipedia as I am sure you do as well. If we disagree on what is appropriate content thats fine, but I assure you I haven't nor will I never nominate anything because I "personally dislike" it. Wickethewok 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we'd gone over this before. There is NO original research, the information can be obtained from reading manuals or playing the game. If that's original research, then so is reading anything or watching, say, a movie. Furthermore the information is verifiable, as it's not original. Yes, it's not all cited, but it can and will be cited eventually, and might I point out that a great number of Wikipedia articles lack citations and those aren't instantly AfD. Thus your only point is what's "Encyclopedic" which is a highly debatable point. I'm willing to admit that many of these articles do not conform to the Writing About Fiction guideline (which I again feel is highly flawed, "Luke, I am your father" is an important bit of information that can't be conveyed easily or at all from an outside-universe perspective), however, I won't stand by while you restate incorrect grounds for deletion. Don't tell people to assume good faith either; it's not exactly good faith to nominate articles for deletion because they have fixable shortcomings. Tag them for improvement, citations, etc instead of automatically trying to get them deleted by the hundreds. If you don't try to see them improved first, it looks like you're aggressively deleting them for the sake of deleting them, not because of what they actually are or may become. Factoring in your past attitudes towards game "cruft" related articles, it doesn't look like you're assuming good faith, and that you just have a vendetta against such articles. Since you hold me in high regards why not humor me and consider revising your ideas based on the input of others? --Twile 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and condense Per 24.161.191.234. 66.27.107.6 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Eriotes[edit]

Although this is an interesting feat, he appears to have no historical connection to the professional game. He's a random guy who went up to a team and said, I'm 83, can I play, and it was a neat novelty idea. Considering his record has now been broken after only existing for a week, I'm not sure he reaches "encyclopedia" status. Dakern74 05:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, although I feel very mean doing so, since anyone who has the idea of doing that is really cool. BigHaz 05:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially since the article has no more information on Eriotes -- or why he should be considered notable -- other than a brief publicity stunt I only heard of because Buck O'Neil trumped it. I agree that Eriotes' feat was cool, but his 15 minutes of fame are up; O'Neil, by contrast, is a genuinely notable fellow. RGTraynor 05:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --FrankCostanza 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it was a brief publicity stunt, and yes, the record only lasted about a week. But it received a fair amount of media coverage, and Buck O'Neil would have never broken the record if Jim Eriotes hadn't done it first. Eriotes certainly gave O'Neil, or the team officials who allowed him to do it, the idea. --Thoughtclaw 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Buck O'Neil and mention that it was his record which O'Neil broke. Eriotes wouldn't have gained recognition without O'Neil deciding to play again. As such, he's not notable enough to warrant his own article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the Buck O'Neil page last night after he actually played, and there is a mention of Eriotes' record in there.Dakern74 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Travislangley 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention in the O'Neill article is enough coverage. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a novelty publicity stunt and striking out on your only appearance is not a notable act. If he scored a home run or turned the game around or something, then I'd consider it notable. This isn't notable, this is pointless trivia. Paddles TC 02:39, 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 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun czar[edit]

I spotted this one from another AfD. Admittedly, the term has received some media attention, but just because Harvard gave the job a snappy name, I don't think it's a particularly noteworthy position. Perhaps it could be merged into Harvard University if people really feel that it's relevant. Personally, I don't. -- Captain Disdain 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 07:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Harvard University and redirect. I can imagine people looking it up, but it doesn't merit its own article at the moment. - Yomangani 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is simply a dictionary definition (which belongs in wiktionary) and the holder of that post at a particular university (which belongs in the article about the university, if anwhere). Mr Stephen 11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and my semi-rationale at the other AfD. --Kinu t/c 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jersey Devil 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mr Stephen. Paddles TC 02:35, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL players who have scored 8 points in one game[edit]

Trivial and NN listcruft, fails WP:NOT. Eight points in a game is not the NHL record (ten is), nor -- as with a hat trick -- is there any general sense in hockey circles of the same being a recognizable milestone as such. The article's facts are accurate and is well-written on its face, and I hope the editor turns his talents to the numerous hockey articles needing creation, but this isn't one. RGTraynor 05:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole lot more, just check out Category:Baseball records and you can find lots of them. And I never said that 8 points is a record in the article, I simply said it is one of the greatest single-game accomplishments in the NHL. So please don't delete my article because though it may be small, I put a lot of hard work and research into it. HockeyHead 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well ... as to research, it's simply copying off the second place listings in any NHL Official Guide. That aside, if you see other articles with trivial content, feel free to AfD them yourself! RGTraynor 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also reluctant delete per above. It might be something worth including in the NHL records article under a heading like "Most points, one game," though that article is currently a listing of career records, rather than game/season ones. Doogie2K (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its nice but you got to draw the line somewhere. What's stopping me from creating articles like Most assists by Left wingers while shorthanded. Like Doogie2k said, a single game record section in an overall NHL records article might be a better solution. That section should only list the actual record instead of a top 10 list. ccwaters 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The actual record, of course, being Darryl Sittler's 10 points against the Bruins back in 1976. (And I had to be watching that game too!) RGTraynor 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DMighton. Paddles TC 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are tonnes of useless lists on wikipedia. I would like to see all the lists of people that belong to certain religous groups (such as Lists of Jews, Lists of Roman Catholics and the like) all turned into categories and i would like to see lists of people from countries (such as List of Canadians, Lists of Americans, and the like) turned into cats as well. I mean, what value do those lists have when a category will do the same or better job? The list here in question does not stand alone very well (in my opinion) but could be turned into a category. The information contained in the list is worthy of note. I suggest merging this info into another article and/or turning it into a category. Masterhatch 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and expand. I like Doogie2K's idea of moving it to National Hockey League records. Certantly there are more somewhat obscure, but interesting records out there that could be combined into a catch-all article. Resolute 18:55, 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 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Fleet Sentinels[edit]

i think this page should be delted because several other pages have been deleted because they were vanity pages for clans this is one of them it is highly biased.--Hunter91 15:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no claims are made towards notability. Mako 05:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Mako. -- GWO
  • Delete, per nom. Rob (Talk) 10:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very biased--Hunter91 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinp23 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 July 2006.
  • Delete as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom and Gako. Their "assertion of notability" is very weak but just enough to stop it from being speedied. Paddles TC 02:28, 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. --JoanneB 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V. Alexander Stefan[edit]

Also nominated are:

V. Alexander Stefan is an American physicist who seems to be committing the faux pas of writing his own autobiography on Wikipedia and promoting his own publications at the same time. The bulk of the edits made to the above 5 articles have been from either Stefan1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) or anonymous accounts from the IP range of 66.81.0.0/16 whose edits almost never stray from the above 5 articles. This strongly points to Stefan alone writing his own articles on Wikipedia which has led to the article resembling a resume rather than a biography with blatant embellishments such as He is revered among his colleagues as "the master of the multiverse." Fails: Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines.

Further doubts as to his notability as a physicist are raised when attempting to review the references cited in the article. Google Scholar lists only one paper [8] published by his very own Stefan University Press. None of his papers seem to have been published in any independent peer reviewed journals. A Google search for ("V. Alexander Stefan" -wikipedia -site:stefan-university.edu) to exclude self-references only returns 64 hits. [9] Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and quite possibly Wikipedia:Verifiability due to a lack of independent sources referencing Stefan. (see below)

Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability on sections pertaining to Stefan's biography. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon does list 44 books for the author V.Stefan (though all of them are published by Stefan University Press). Stefan's novel Doctor Faustef is listed, but is currently unavailable on Amazon and no sales numbers are listed which raises the question of whether the novel is notable enough to have an article written about it on Wikipedia.

All five articles have massive conflict-of-interest problems since they all seem to be self-writen with the purpose of raising the profile of Stefan and his business interests of selling self-published books via his self-run online "educational institute" Stefan University. Fails: Wikipedia:Spam --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - per excellent documentation above for the entire V. Alexander Stefan collection of articles/templates. KarenAnn 10:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive merge Not sure Some of the physics articles from the 1980's do appear legit (i.e. in real journals). They are cited as "V. Stefan" so a search for "V. Alexander Stefan" would have missed them. A case can be made for retaining a single biographical article. Even so, it might be easiest to delete everything and start over. Phr (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Legitimate academics always use the same name for that very reason. Notability in their field depends the accessiblity of their work to others in their profession. KarenAnn 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You were right. A Google Scholar search for (author:"v. stefan") only in Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science returns 38 hits. So he may not fail Wikipedia:Notability (academics) after all though per Phr's recommendation, V. Alexander Stefan would need a start from scratch written by a 3rd person for it to ever work. I still can't justify any of the other articles though. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Anyone can write and publish articles. The question is, were they published in peer-reviewed jounals of his profession? Do others in his profession cite his work? KarenAnn 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journals themselves are quite respectable, citeseer is down so I can't check for cites there. I should try out Google Scholar but haven't yet. Phr (talk) 19:37, 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 10:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe.to[edit]

WP:WEB Non-notable gamer fan site. John Nagle 06:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Alexa traffic ranking 1,512,095 [10]. --John Nagle 06:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rob (Talk) 10:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 relevant results on google, both to the website itself. -- Steel 11:11, 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, although hoaxes are not speediable under current policy. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Against Swearing Association[edit]

Non-notable... Two google hits. (Can it be speedied? Haven't been around these parts for a while.) Mrtea (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the redirect be speedied as it is extremely unlikely. 68.39.174.238 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I'm pretty sure this made the blog rounds last year and got laughed at. --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX (or at least WP:V). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, if hoaxes can be speedied. I'm pretty damn sure it's a hoax: the URL for the website is "masavolvo", which makes me think it's South African: "ma se ..." (pronounced "mah sa", meaning "your mother's...") is a common preface to an insult here, and I can only assume "volvo" refers to vulva. Which means someone is no doubt being funny (and I love the humour), but it is not really debatable whether it should be in an encyclopaedia as a real organisation or not. Get rid of it. If it becomes a renowned and appreciated hoax, maybe it can come back in an article about hoaxes. Byrgenwulf 10:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE I do not feel that your evidence to support a deletion of this page is valid, therefore, a deletion would conflict with the rules and guidelines of the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. I suggest that you further review your accusations before making such rash decisions. This "masavolvo" to which you refer can simply be explained by the fact that it is MASA and Volvo. Two separate entities. MASA refers to the name of the organization while Volvo refers to the claimed sponsor. Byrgenwulf, you seem to be using your own opinion as opposed to true evidence to have this page considered for deletion. I can also assure you, Dhartung, that this page has never been entered into any blogs as a discussion prior to this. Also, the information on this article has much to do with the claims and stories from the website. It is sourced, and therefore none of you have any real grounds to propose deletion to this page. Brendand 8:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice try. It's "sourced" from a Geocities webpage. Which mentions nothing about Volvo (I clicked on all the links, listened to the sing-a-long, and had a good laugh). Maybe masavolvo is over-interpretation on my part (if not, I do find it funny), but what does this lot need money for? What projects have they undertaken? Why, if Volvo is giving them money, can't they even afford a couple of bucks a month for proper webhosting. I love the joke, I really do, but a free webhosting page which reads like a joke is not a verifiable source. Anyway, guidelines to deletion for vanity require third party sources; this page mentions none. Byrgenwulf 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how can you be so sure no-one has ever mentioned it on a blog? How many blogs are there out there? Do you read all of them? Byrgenwulf 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued on talk.
  • Delete --WP:BJAODN. If you don't believe this is a bad joke check out here. --ScienceApologist 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have heard this song. I do not see how it proves anything. It is a song which appeals to a younger generation. Makes sense? Does to me. Besides, that's beyond the point as we should be speaking of the Wikipedia article. Not a promotional song. Brendand 10:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, the website seems to have disappeared. Shame really, I was curious about the song. -MrFizyx 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE The website has not been deleted, the bandwith has been exceeded for the hour. Brendand 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I did get to hear some of the MASA "recordings". Very funny, but your joke doesn't belong in this encyclopedia, sorry. -MrFizyx 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Scientizzle's comments. Multiple links to one geocities site do not qualify under reliable source guidelines. If sources can be cited demonstrating multiple, non-trivial, independent media coverage of this group, that'd be different. Subject is non-notable. Scorpiondollprincess 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Google hits, both of which point back to the Wikipedia article? Delete as hoax, vanity, etc. Anville 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE Scorpiondollprincess, it cannot be assumed that the site is not a reliable source based solely on assumption. That has to do with the author. What is this about media coverage? What you say is completely opinionated and should not be treated as a factor to the deletion of the page. There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia with a link to a single page. And as for these "google hits". There is only one hit, and it does not even go anywhere. So why should that even be considered? I will answer that. It shouldn't. Brendand 11:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brendand, I shall preface this by saying that field theory in mathematics is not an area in which I am an expert. However, is there a reason you changed "the central concept" to "the hellocentral concept" ( [11] )? Is "hellocentral" a particular term in this field of enquiry, that I don't know about? I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of changing it back to normal English. Byrgenwulf 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brendand, please read "Please do not take it personally". What this article needs is multiple, independent sources. The group's own homepage cited three times is neither independent nor multiple. WP:RS contains guidelines on sources. Self-published sources (online and paper) contains guidelines on the reliability of someone talking about him/herself. I suggest independent sources be provided: has anyone written a newspaper or magazine article about this group? Have they won any awards? No one is trying to be unfair. But wikipedia does have guidelines on how to evaluate sources. Thanks. Scorpiondollprincess 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously, per above. Dark Shikari 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE Byrgenwulf, if you look at the history, my name does not appear. I am not sure exactly what you are talking about because I followed your link and that was the first time I have ever seen that page. This seems to be another hollow accusation...a common trend which seems to be going on today. Brendand 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brendand, you needn't preface every response with "do not delete" in bold. It achieves less than nothing. No, the editing history doesn't show your username, because the edit came from the same I.P. address (192.139.71.69) as your last two comments here, as well as a few edits in "swearing" and "profanity" etc. Being an I.P. address, it could be co-incidence, but I'm not so sure, myself. Byrgenwulf 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]

    • Comment Brendand, please do not "vote" more than once. It's fairly obvious that you've used your user account and the IP address 192.139.71.69 to vandalize several pages now--your last edit to this page was done by 192.139.71.69 and signed with Brendand. Quit playing dumb; don't create hoaxes; become a productive member of Wikipedia or leave, please. -- Scientizzle 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have had quite enough accusations for one day. This is a business computer on a network so don't start feeding me crap about how it could ONLY be me. Why don't you stop it with the unproductive accusations for a while, buddy. Brendand
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. —Caesura(t) 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of such an organisation sounds really nice, but unfortunately, for all the above reasons, delete. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete when we can't even confirm its existence. Travislangley 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. I've heard that the presence of a "keep" recommendation means it can't be speedied? Paddles TC 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for the obvious reasons. Can't believe it hasn't happened already. VoiceOfReason 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Willis (band)[edit]

I would've speedied this, but the article has existed since May 2005 - surely someone has already thought of speedy-ing it (???) - anyway fails WP:MUSIC DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 06:28, 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 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Sin[edit]

Allie Sin was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-23. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naughty Nati.

The subject is not notable for an encyclopedic entry in Wikipedia, per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Thus, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 06:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have articles about numerous other porno actors, so there's no reason to delete this one since we're keeping the other ones.--WatchHawk 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there are articles about other non-notable people, that have not (yet) been deleted, is not a good argument for keeping. If there are other articles about non-notable people that you've spotted, maybe we should nominate them for deletion too? Paddles TC 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles TC
  • Delete, unremarkable pornographic actress. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:33, 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 all. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Actors Guild Awards statistics: Most Wins Best Male and Female Television Actor-Drama[edit]

celebcruft DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of these as well DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - information is useful, but the thought of creating one page per category per award ceremony for something like this is scary. There's got to be a better place for this data. —XSG 07:21, 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 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Chambers[edit]

Non-notable school teacher.--cj | talk 07:03, 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 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat crackers[edit]

suspected hoax. unreferenced. editor who created article also made other suspected joke edits to other articles at the same time. Adz|talk 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a show that's being currently filmed but has already achieved high ratings can't be anything but a hoax. BigHaz 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystallized hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. -- Steel 11:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Fat Crackers" is actually a parody within the Australian sketch comedy program "The Wedge". It doesn't warrant an article of its own. Paddles TC 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this trash in here? Aeon Insane Ward 19:08, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar bowl[edit]

1 lump dicdef, 1 lump dab page and 2 lumps useless DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 08:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the new reasons given below. -- Steel 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. The Gecko 11:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we have Sugar bowl (A Series of Unfortunate Events) and Sugar Bowl, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a disambiguation article here. This is a disambiguation article, as stated above, albeit that it isn't wasn't in the conventional format for disambiguation articles. Deletion is not the cure for that. Keep. Uncle G 12:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And given James M. Rosenbaum (June 2006). "IN DEFENSE OF THE SUGAR BOWL" (PDF). Federal Courts Law Review., there appears to be plenty of surprising things to write about the humble sugar bowl, and scope for an actual article on them for this disambiguation (which should be a primary topic disambiguation) to link to. Uncle G 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appear to be several sugar bowls of historical interest, too. Uncle G 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Perfectly acceptable dab page.--Isotope23 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G.; the three meanings are reasonable enough, so it would be preferable to having a multi-part dab at the top of Sugar Bowl. Rigadoun 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created sugar bowl/temp which should end up at sugar bowl, with this article at sugar bowl (disambiguation), if the consensus is to keep. Uncle G 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination and keep as a dab page Good work. DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, changing my vote to keep. Not a bad job at all, you've got me convinced. -- H·G (words/works) 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep, I'll take those fixins after all. Voice of Treason 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Great job! Scottkeir 00:00, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Age (Rise of Nations)[edit]

Deprodded. This is gamecruft. WP:NOT a gameguide.--Chaser T 09:24, 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. Ben W Bell talk 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku Kyokai no Flower Mound[edit]

Completely non-notable and vanity article. Ben W Bell talk 09:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7: No claim of notability. --Huon 09:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, plus they even signed it at the bottom. Voice of Treason 09:44, 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 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard LaPorte[edit]

Was tagged for speedy but the same editor replaced that tag with an expand one. The article appears to be about a non-notable musician, no claim of significance. I came across this via a link from The Beatles. The other pages that link here are Come Together and The Trees. LaPorte was apparently a member of The Trees but that appears to be a non-notable band. I will notify the article creator of this discussion. I'd recommend the links be removed from the other articles if this is deleted. MLA 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No relevant Ghits from "Richard LaPorte" "the trees". OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick google search finds several other Richard LaPortes, all more notable than this one. Paddles TC 14:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Vinogradov[edit]

NN-bio, spam. Neither of these work are know to anybody. Delete or userfy abakharev 09:47, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Vinogradova[edit]

NN-bio. Delete or Userfy abakharev 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • [12]- She even has a biography on a TV site so she is quite a famous play critic and is also the head of the theater department.Abc85 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This link is her profile at Kultura (a federal TV channel), it confirms that she's the head of archive programming department. Conscious 11:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be a notable person: [13]. Conscious 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, what's the evidence that she's not notable? Rklawton 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. It is up to the author to provide the evidence in the article through appropriate references , not the nominator. Read:
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Subject is not notable. The fact that her employer posted a biography of her is irrelevant. WP:BIO requires "An independent biography." There's no evidence cited that she has received multiple independent reviews or awards for her work, contributed to the enduring historical record of TV personalities and/or theater critics, been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, etc. The burden of proof rests with the author(s) of the article to demonstrate (under WP:BIO and WP:V guidelines) that the subject is notable. Scorpiondollprincess 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd think a hundred Google hits in Russian is reasonably significant - especially when the hits are coming from the media who are quoting the subject. Rklawton 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the point is that the article needs to be referenced. I've gotten 3,500,000 hits on Google for an article name that was eventually deleted because all those hits in the end were referring to other things. You know how Google is -- you have to check out each link and see if it is significant or even relevant and not referring to another person or product with the same or similar name. KarenAnn 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - good point. I read through the first page of links and they were all relevant - as per my comment that many involved media interviews citing this person. Also not that lack of sources isn't a reason for deleting an article - it's a reason for editing an article (as opposed to "no sources available"). Rklawton 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-write to meet the WP:BIO/WP:V criteria. If not possible, then delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KNewman 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article provides no assertion of notability per WP:BIO. TV station staffers are not inherantly notable. --Wine Guy Talk 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think "head of the theatrical department" for TV Kultura is a very remarkable claim of notability. Theatre is a very big deal in Russia and it's pretty much the reason for TV Kultura's existance. So basically, she holds the key role in a major Russian channel, and the Russian news media comes to her for quotes. Rklawton 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this person does seem notable passes bio guideline Yuckfoo 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Kulishov[edit]

Most of the info (son of Block, spy) is unverified and most probably incorrect, otherwise NN-bio abakharev 10:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nevermind, it really just does blatently fail WP:V and WP:BIO. It can be remade when sources are found.–(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:09, 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 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Anfinagenov[edit]

NN-bio. Moskovsky pisatel here is a dacha co-operative. Progressive party - the co-operative-wide electoral union abakharev 10:11, 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, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the respective article talk page(s) to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

101 (Robot)[edit]

I am nominating all the articles in the "Category:Robot Wars competitors". They are all about individual contestant robots in Robot Wars (all, I think, are from the UK series), an undoubtedly notable TV programme. My contention, though, is that the robots themselves are no more notable than competitors in other game shows; ie unless they achieved significant fame outside of the framework of the show (eg Ken Jennings), they are not in themselves notable. None of them, as far as I know, is known to the average "man on the street", who had not watched the show; this is one acid test of their notability. I am sorry there are so many of them; if they are all deleted, obviously, I will nominate the category for deletion too. Most of the articles have not been touched for months; Hypno-Disc, one of the more complete articles, was last seriously edited in April and May. Most if not all have {{stub}}, {{wikify}}, {{verify}} and other such tags on them, again, many for many months. I can see a possibility of creating a Winners of Robot Wars UK article, with some content merged from the winners articles, but apart from that, I am not sure what a merge would achieve. Accordingly, I regretably (people have put a lot of effort into these articles, which, if I get my way, will in a sense have gone to waste) have to urge people to vote delete.

The articles that are being nominated are:

Batmanand | Talk 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as per nom. Robocruft. The creators can always get their own website or own wiki if they want to save their work. Bwithh 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Batmanand. -- Kjkolb 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Probably not notable enough for Wikipedia (but I will leave that for others to decide), however they could be transwikied to WikiKnowledge. I have no intention of coping all those articles over, however anyone else is welcome to if they wish. It would be a shame to waste all this work. Gerard Foley 00:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all VOIP. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some. As with Deadblow and it's subsequent AFD nom, I do not feel every combat robot should have a place in Wikipedia. However, champion or extremely popular robots should have a place. As per the Robot Wars article, Roadblock, Chaos 2, Razer, Tornado, and Typhoon 2 were all UK Robot Wars champions (and in the case of Razer, revolutionary in combat robot design as well as a Battlebots Rumble champion), and would thus be notable enough. Hypno-Disc and Pussycat were also at the high end of popularity and success and may also have a place. Arenacale 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also of note is that some robots were made into toys. Arenacale 03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the champions into Winners of Robot Wars UK per nom, with redirects, and possibly include a handful of the more notable non-champions (per Arenacale) in a separate section within the article. Delete the rest. Seb Patrick 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most notable bots to Winners of Robot Wars UK per nom. Please note that some, if not many of the articles may contain copyright violations from this fan site (Internet Archive copy, original site no longer online).--Drat (Talk) 08:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Winners of Robot Wars UK or List of Robot Wars competitors. The Battle Summaries should Die In A Fire. -- GWO
  • Merge to suitable entry as suggested above. Definitely don't delete, the reason I am here is because I came to look up the robot "Roadblock" after it came up in conversation in a forum, so it's entry here has proven useful.--Panzerb0y 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge all to List of Robot Wars competitors, or suchlike, with redirects. Wikipedia is not a TV review site, so a lot of the synopses will have to be trimmed. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Treebark (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saveall. this sets a dangerous prescident that whole catagories of pages can be deleted. pelpe have spent hours working on these pages and compiling these pages some articles have even deen through mediation and arbitration to get them in to the shape they are in at the moment.PLEASE SAVE ALL THE HARD WORK AND SAVE THESE PAGES.--Lucy-marie 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In the case of some of these pages though, people have simply copy/pasted the hard work of whoever owned that fansite I linked earlier.--Drat (Talk) 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will those supporting merge please specify exactly which articles should be merged ("most notable bots" is absolutely no help at all), otherwise, if I was closing the AfD and no-one seemed to have any idea which were worth merging, would be to delete them all and ask anyone who was genuinely interested in merging some of the articles to contact me to restore them into userspace. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, non-notable Fancruft. A careful merge of a few of these pages into a broader article per nom might work, but there's no need for so much intricate detail on every single competitor from a cult UK tv show. Battle summaries are especially unnecessary. Dbratton 04:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I personally have no idea which of these robots are "notable" enough to be included in a merge, and will leave that discussion to those who follow the show. Dbratton 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - brenneman {L} 10:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and create per GWO. The existence of Roadblock, Chaos 2, Razer, Hypno-Disc, and Tornado (and whichever one it was that pioneered SRIMEC) should be acknowledged but not as individual articles. MLA 11:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save All. All thses pages should be saved as it prevents a slippery slope from coming into effect. If these pages are deleted then t.v shows which are only verifiable by watching the the shows could be justifyably put up for deletion. I am well aware that some people on wikipedia do not believe that robots deserve whole pages on wikipedia as they are not real characters and have no backgorund. If this tact is followed then it is consevable that all fictitious characters on wikipedia should be delted as they have no real background. so I urge you to save all these pages and the hard work that went in to them to be created.--Lucy-marie 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure that the slippery slope leads to the Robot Wars article itself. A TV program is notable and verifiable by more than just it's existence and people watching it. The component parts of a program may or may not be notable, in this case I and some other editors do not think they are notable enough for their own article but they might be notable enough to have a collated article. However, the slippery slope could easily lead to George Francis (Robot Wars). The work so far is not currently wasted as it wouldn't be too hard to copy the information as it is now (prior to any deletion/merge) and take it to a new website or wiki. MLA 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some some of the robots are signifcant and notable in robot battle competition while the rest of the also ran competitors can be merged into the appropriate Robot Wars or Battlebots article. -- Whpq 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It's a good show but I don't see the reason we need articles for all the robots. Whispering 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm hoping to do some major work to the Robot Wars articles on here over the summer, but I think the best option with the incredibly jumbled competitor articles is to merge Roadblock, Panic Attack, Chaos 2, Razer, Tornado and Typhoon 2 into Winners of Robot Wars UK, merge other definitely notable but perhaps less successful robots such as Hypno-Disc (first fly wheel weapon, second in series 4) and Diotoir (covered in fur - 'nuff said!) into another article (Notable Competitors on Robot Wars UK, perhaps) and to delete anything that remains, such as Derek. CountdownCrispy 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Competitors on Robot Wars UK Afterwards, it is up to the editors of that page to determine which robots should remain, and which should be deleted. (Perhaps a table of all robots by series might be appropriate.) It might be necessary to create a couple of pages in the future, but for ease of closing this debate, I would suggest merging into a single page. Bluap 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some - per Whpq. Also, these mass deletions are getting out of hand. There's a heck of lot of difference between Razer and Psychosprout.--Nydas 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all until broken into smaller AfDs. The winners of the competitions are certainly notable, but I believe that some non-champions would also qualify. I really despise AfDs with a jillion articles nominated at the same time when it's very clearly obvious that the articles are different from each other and that some of the articles are much more notable than others. -- Kicking222 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- If no clear concensus is reached on what to do with these pages, I think they should remain and should not be put back through this cycle again as they were when no concensus was reached last time.--Lucy-marie 22:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, such a blanket deletion is not suitable in this case. Minor stuff should probably be merged into one article in any case, but this should be worked out on talk pages, not AFD. zoney ♣ talk 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Competitors on Robot Wars UK. They cannot really be considered ficticious characters as the robots were the cummulation many hours work by engineers and enthusiasts to take part in a nationally know competition that did give a degree of recognition in their field. Deletion would be to belittle the hard work of a competitor. Their name and acheivement/final ranking should be recorded and also links to the builders site (if they have one), but just one page should be sufficiant. The round by round ranking is probably unnessecary. Also, if it is copied&pasted from a fansite, does that not have potential copyright/attributation implications? KevinCarmody 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some, merge others. I figured this would happen. I reccomend the champions be kept in their own articles, but lots of others could be merged into a few lists (i.e. List of Robot Wars Finalists, List of Robot Wars Semi-Finalists) Lenin & McCarthy 16:39, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Gurnov[edit]

NN-bio, he ones as an employee of Yandex helped in the online interview with Putin, so what? Yandex and Putin are notable, the guy is not. Delete or Userfy abakharev 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Steel 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have another look through all this. -- Steel 11:18, 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 Mulan. Mailer Diablo 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A girl worth fighting for[edit]

Poorly written article about a song from the movie Mulan. The song is from Mulan, and the quote is correct. However the song itself is non-notable. The article adds nothing new, no citations given to back up claims in the article. Rob (Talk) 10:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Steel 11:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is badly written and needs to be redone but there is no way to argue that the song is not-notable. Compare it to thousands of songs listed here on Wikipedia. Like it, hate it, indifferent to it, it is hard to argue against the fact that thanks to the marketing accumen of Disney just about everybody is at least familiar with it. If that isn't notable for a song, then it is hard to imagine what is.Dipics 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; barring wikipedia and lyrical databases, I find 353 google results which is not definitive, but even with owning the soundtrack, the song has no apparent notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a song from a major Disney film. That's notable no matter how many google hits it gets. - Mgm|(talk) 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan - no salvagable content for a merge. None of the other songs from the film have their own articles, and only the most notable Disney songs that have seeped into the popular consciouness and/or been in the charts have one (eg. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Can You Feel the Love Tonight). ~ Matticus78 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan BrianZ(talk) 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan. Sorry, but while a lot of Disney songs are notable, I have trouble placing this one amongst them. If, at some future time, somebody writes an article that makes a stronger case for it, perhaps I'll reconsider that. GassyGuy 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan per above 3. The girl might be worth fighting for, but this article ain't. -MrFizyx 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Men are horrible, I mean Mulan. Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and pd_thor. Paddles TC 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Current article is pretty bad, but it is a valid thing to put in the search box, so a redirect is in order here, until a well-written replacement can be written. - Mgm|(talk) 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulan per above. -- NORTH talk 21:07, 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 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deviation Records[edit]

non-notable record company Travelbird 10:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same was said of American composer Frank Zappa "no commercial potential". There are countless other listings of "non-notable record companies" on wiki. Deviation records has its place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharporb (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Steel 10:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC, and reeks of marketing. POV problems could be improved by incorporating material from [19] or [20], but I'm not convinced these count as multiple non-trivial references. Paddles TC 13:27, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater[edit]

excessively promotional, redundant, notability marginal

The O'Farrell Theater is a strip club that is actually quite well known (at least locally); article doesn't cite references but some probably exist. It's best known for one of the Mitchell Brothers (founders/owners) shooting the other one to death in the early 1990's. The incident, and some info about the theater, is already documented at Mitchell brothers. I feel this article is excessively detailed about the theater's facilities and hours (WP:SPAM) and that the encyclopedia doesn't need separate articles about the theater and the Mitchell Brothers (the remaining one of them still owns the theater, I think). An attempt to trim back the article resulted in a revert.

  • Merge Conditional keep as nominator.-- Phr (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New edits make the separate article more worth keeping, but it's still excessively promotional in my view, needs to be de-adverted. Phr (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This club is the best (POV that many agree with) in California, and probably in US. It features the highest quality adult entertainment, most who visited it would agree. It's top-notch in it's industry. Strippers all over California just dream to work there, and many come from out of state (from Seattle, from Florida). I am not affiliated with the club and am not promoting it. I just feel that it deserves the separate Wikipedia article due to the club's exceptional quality. Or else all the articles in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Strip_clubs should be deleted the same way since they are of the similar nature.

  • Keep as original author.-- BlackAsker (talk]) 10:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, here's what Wikitravel says [21]:
"Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater, 895 O'Farrell. Tourists have flocked here for live, nude girls and dirty movies since 1971, when porn star Marilyn Chambers followed her performance in a Mitchell Brothers' film by becoming an Ivory Snow model. The venue is large, clean, and the biggest rip-off in adult entertainment this side of Paris. $40 gets you in the door, and the girls demand large tips for anything more. Avoid this over-priced, over-hyped tourist trap for the Crazy Horse on Market (next to the Warfield) or any of the clubs on Broadway in North Beach." Phr (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the other strip club articles do look dubious; however, none of them, as far as I can tell, already have separate articles about their owners. Any that do should probably be merge-able too. I'm ok with merging the content of the Mitchell brothers into the article about the O'Farrell theater instead of the other way around, if that helps. IMO, the current state of the theater article is still too much like an advertisement either way, though. Phr (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with merge all the way around. Agree that it looks a bit like advertisement. But I just created it few days ago, had no time to add to it. Give me a week and I will add a lot more so it will not look like an ad. BlackAsker 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The idea that you're going to add a lot more is not reassuring. The objection that led to this AfD is that there is already too much in the article. Phr (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment author's entire contrib history appears related to this theater. Phr (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is arguably semi-notable of itself as a local landmark: de-advert, then merge into Mitchell brothers, which is where truly notable story lies -- a Greek tragedy with added porn. Following the recent update of this article, I've now changed my opinion to keep -- there's enough here for a stand-alone article now, and I think it now passes the notability test. -- The Anome 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Where are the external reliable sources? I'm not seeing any, and until those sources are in the article, I believe it is appropriate to delete. Certainly seems notable on the face of it, but without someone important saying that it is, it's unlikely. Captainktainer * Talk 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Per the sources added to the article by Fireplace, I am changing my vote to a weak keep. I think the sources are somewhat borderline (particularly IMDB), but they're substantial enough to show notability, and they agree substantially on most details. More and better sourcing would be wonderful. Captainktainer * Talk 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As porn theaters go, it's a landmark. I added quite a bit of content to the page that reflects this. Fireplace 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia polices are below. Read these and then decide. KarenAnn 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable San Francisco landmark (albeit an infamous one). If editors feel the article reads too much like an ad, then modify it accordingly. 23skidoo 14:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a suggest to merge does not come to AfD. That's why we have {{merge}}, believe it or not. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD is because the merge proposal was made and contested. Merging is a frequent outcome of afd's. Phr (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but if you just want to merge, you can use the talk page to arrive at a consensus. Keep, btw, as apparently notable on its own and verifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo and after the added sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with the article. It is a visitor attraction and a landmark. Vegaswikian 05:57, 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 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priyank[edit]

In 21 he is The Missile Man of India? No google references for this guy. Hoax or bollock. Delete abakharev 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Made by a User:Priyankmani. No Google results as far as I can see. Vanity. -- Steel 10:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nice thought, though, that a 21-year-old could have thirty honorary doctorates...BigHaz 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Priyanking our chain. NawlinWiki 12:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any real doubt? --HellFire 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per all above, and thanks to NawlinWiki for the soda-spitting, keyboard-ruining laugh. :) --Kinu t/c 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BALLS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, arrant nonsense. ImpuMozhi 00:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Hoax and vanity. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:05, 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. Proto::type 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles on an Italian architect[edit]

This nomination covers the following three articles. (A fourth article, Teatro Sociale in Busto Arsizio, turned out to be a copyvio and has been handled accordingly.)

Was discussed back in October 2005 and kept, see the old AfD discussion. However, I do not think the basic premises expressed back then still hold. To me, this is a clear case of advertising and vanity. I get only 33 Google hits off-wikipedia for him. Being a member of some architects' society in Como, Italy and having built some building isn't enough for me. That's what architects do usually, after all, and there are thousands, if not millions more who have comparable achievements. Furthermore, the article has not improved since then; it's still completely unsourced, written in some variant of "Inglis", and the (nearly sole) editor is User:Geltrudi. Also note that the article at the Italian Wikipedia that was mentioned in the old AfD discussion does not appear to exist, see it:Daniele_Geltrudi, and a search over there also came up empty. Delete as nn-bio, vanity. Lupo 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to showcase some architects work. Mr. Geltrudi is free to set up his own web site elsewhere. Delete as nn, vanity, advertisement, showcase. Lupo 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks insignificant to me: Google brings up only 36 hits for +"L'idea di città" +moretti, some of which are on Wikipedia (includes some unrelated links), and even only three hits for +"L'idea di città" +geltrudi, all on Wikipedia. Delete as nn, vanity. Lupo 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nearly forgot: all the images used in these articles; if the articles are deleted, they are useless. Delete. Lupo 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator, vanity/advertising, non-notable. Paddles TC 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Geltrudi removed the AfD boxes from the three articles in question. I have restored the AfD boxes and left a comment on User talk:Geltrudi inviting Geltrudi to contribute to the discussion. Paddles TC 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, vanity/advertising. -- NORTH talk 21:16, 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 speedy delete as a straight copy of a copyrighted ("Elettra Software for Measurements Group©2004") web page. Uncle G 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GridCC[edit]

Pure advert. Entire material copied from the website given in external links HellFire 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam and possible copyvio. -- Steel 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Phr (talk) 11:18, 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) 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcoming Ignorance[edit]

This appears to be original research, and beyond possibility of redemption. -- JimR 11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - well said, that man. BigHaz 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to overcome boredom and being hopelessly OR. Eddie.willers 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Scorpiondollprincess 14:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified, probably original research, and written in a non-encyclopedic tone. --Gray Porpoise 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, ScorpionDP and Gary P. Paddles TC 10:09, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paysafecard[edit]

advertisement by fringe company Travelbird 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - good of them to mention that they're only big enough to employ 15 people. Makes the job a bit easier. BigHaz 11:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Only employing 15 people doesn't automatically mean non-notability. When it comes to intangibles like software, financial services etc. even a single-person company could be notable. Paddles TC 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mad failure of WP:SPAM WilyD 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice. I'd be inclined to keep the article if it was encyclopedic and NPOV, but this is simply spamvertising; deleting it and starting over would not be a big setback for someone writing a more suitable article. Paddles TC 10:07, 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 redirect to Ataraxia. Mailer Diablo 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ataraxy[edit]

Page appears to have originally been nn vanity corpcruft. Since 2005, repeated target of prankster/personal-attack vandalism. Neither the company nor its 'movement' produce any viable number of ghits or verifiable sources. There was a short lived version that appears to discuss some topic in Greek philosophy with the same name -- I do not have the background to know if that is appropriate and notable, but it spared this from a prod or speedy as attack. Serpent's Choice 08:01, 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 speedy delete --Pilotguy (roger that) 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dub Piece[edit]

I'm nominating this article, Dub Piece, for deletion on the grounds that it is non-notable. Specifically, I'm mentioning WP:WEB, and that it meets none of the three criteria. Aside from the hits on YouTube, there is nothing, in my opinion, that makes this article notable enough to have more than a passing mention in the One Piece article. HawkerTyphoon 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per HawkerTyphoon's nomination. --Charlesknight 07:23, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Fandango: The Movie[edit]

This entry (and associated online rumors about a Grim Fandango movie scattered around the Internet) leads back to one user who seems to be trying to propagate a hoax claiming this project is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja2ke (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sources other than forum posts and a lone blog (presumably created by that user) exist to confirm this rumor, leading most people to believe that the entire thing is a fake. See: [22]

  • Delete SPEEDY delete (just like the number 9). per nom and the same guy (presumably under a different username) keeps removing the deletion tag. Added: changed vote to speedy because:
  • so meh. 127.0.0.1 (contribs) (email) (block) 09:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the original threads at [23] and [24] and IP checks we carried out indicate that the rumour and source sites are coming from one person, so it is extremely likely that it is a hoax. --DotaJames 10:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to violate WP:HOAX. Thε Halo Θ 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it on the No. 9 before it gets anyone else's hopes up. I've said it before and I'll say it again - hoaxes severely damage the credibility of Wikipedia, far more than vanity pages do, and there should be a speedy criterion to account for them. In this instance, the Wiki page has actually been deliberately used to attempt to spread "authoritative" mention of an entirely non-existent project, and all that does is cause people to distrust WP. Get rid, as quickly as possible. Seb Patrick 11:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Boo on you for getting anyone's hopes up. Voice of Treason 12:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that this is a hoax almost makes me (a big, 200+ pound man) want to cry. Captainktainer * Talk 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if that Tim Burton quote can be properly sourced (which I'm sure it can't, other than that blog). --Canley 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, evidence suggests that it's a hoax. If it ever turns out to be a real project, we can recreate the article. IMDB doesn't mention anything about it at all, while Rotten Tomatoes only mentions it in the forums -- not exactly a reliable source. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remake if real. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. Without any verifiable sources, this seems to be a hoax. Surely there would be some Hollywood rumor site reporting on this if it were remotely true. It can be recreated easily if this changes. --SevereTireDamage 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete blatant hoax. Danny Lilithborne 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just wishful thinking, not an actual movie in development. Ace of Sevens 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wish it were true but there's no concrete evidence.  :( -- Solberg 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the information on this page was copied and pasted from the IMDB bio for Grim Fandango the game. Copyright violation? -- Wikipedical 22:58, 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. I am also recreating the page as a redirect to household, which seems like a Good Idea. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the household[edit]

No sources, No original research, hopeless etc. Created by the author of numerous AfD candidates. See also AfD's for Matriarchal marriage and Patriarchal marriage for closely related examples. Rklawton 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very clearly original research and inaccurate to boot. 205.157.110.11 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was an article about "head of household" as defined by the government on your taxes or something, maybe. As it is, no. So many unverifiable, unsourceable, speculative, and possibly blatantly wrong statements. WP:OR. --Kinu t/c 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claptrap. -- GWO
  • Delete as per nom - Whpq 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unsourced original research. --Metropolitan90 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Considered nominating it myself, but got too lazy. :) —Caesura(t) 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While this article is pretty hopeless, I feel like we really ought to have an article on 'Head of Household', or at least on the social structure of a household. It's an incredibly important term in modern and 20th-century American life. Head of household appears the entry for Household, which simply redirects the user to House, which has no information on the social structure of a house. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; suggest making this redirect to household, where any census, government, or economic definitions of households and their heads would appear to be most profitable. Smerdis of Tlön 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, unsourced claptrap. Who says all the children have the same last name as the person who makes the decisions? AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to household, which explains the use of the term by the U.S. gov't. That page has been tagged for expansion along the lines that Che Nuevara would like to see. Rigadoun 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Travislangley 21:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Household. --Pboyd04 01:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agent 86 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The common term is Head of household , where legitimate for comments on social structure, and Head of Household for legal definitions such as in (united states) tax purposes. This term might redirect once of the other articles are written. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 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-bio. Lupo 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul d. shoefield[edit]

Claims lots of notability, but obvious hoax -- one Ghit, for an Amazon review he posted. NawlinWiki 11:56, 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 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LeisureTime Network[edit]

Author removed prod. Has four links in the article to exactly the same web page with advertising and untimely news. Hardly any hits on Google. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. KarenAnn 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and spam. Most Google hits are generated by the site itself or its author. Fireplace 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and above. Jefffire 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Fireplace. Borderline speedy A7, no assertion of notability. Paddles TC 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's recently been rewritten by Draicone, removing the ad-speak.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that no changes have been made to the article since the AfD began, so the above discussion already takes into account Draicone's edits. Fireplace 04:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment According to the article's history, it was prodded on July 18th. Draicone reworked the article, and left this edit summary: (Remove delete tag: concerns addressed in wikification.) It was then sent here to AFD by the same user who prodded the article in the first place. I feel the spam concern has been for the most part addressed, which is why my vote was for keep.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:53, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Sympson[edit]

I tagged this as "potential vanity" a couple of weeks ago, the author removed the tag, somebody else has twice prodded it and both times the prod was removed. So as deletion would be contested I have brought the article here. There is nothing notable in the article and fails WP:BIO my vote is delete.--Richhoncho 12:30, 19 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicca[edit]

I did not prod the article, because it is my feeling that it would be a contested prod. Vicca apparently only weakly meets WP:PORN BIO, having only performed in around 70 films, although she is a Penthouse Pet. The article contains absolutely no reliable sources after having been around for a year, with at least two active contributors adding and removing text from the article, and after having had a request for citations up for several months. There is no verified assertion of notability (even the Penthouse Pet bit is unsourced, though presented in another article), and no reliable source for the information presented (IMDB is not acceptable as a reliable source). It's my belief that in its current form, the article should be deleted; however, I think there's room for community discussion, so I brought it here. Captainktainer * Talk 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw nom On the basis of the extensive sourcing provided by AnonEMouse I hereby withdraw my nomination and provide my congratulations for a job well done. Captainktainer * Talk 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. If we can't work on revising the article to include verifiable and reliable sources, then the present article should be deleted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She may only weakly meet WP:PORN BIO but she still meets it. Also as I keep reminding folks WP:PORN BIO is not official policy so shouldn't be taken as gospel. There are lots of articles that sit around for months and even years without improvement yet are still kept. 23skidoo 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It shouldn't be taken as gospel, but given the sheer size of the porn industry, we need to have a standard for inclusion. Around 100 films (plus or minus 10 is a good figure) is a very decent standard. The biggest problem with this article is the lack of reliable sources - where are they? I've looked (still trying to bleach out my mind from that search) and have not found any. As for the claim that "we keep worse articles, so we should keep this one," that is an argumentum ad mediocritum, which is a very weak argument. Those other articles should probably be deleted as well, unless they're cleaned up to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Captainktainer * Talk 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment/Question. Where are the other articles in question, so that we may tag accordingly (whether for deletion, cleanup, or revision)? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are hundreds of them. I'm not talking about Pornstar articles, but articles on many different topics. Start with old stubs and work from there. In any event, my vote for Vicca is based on the fact that IMO she passes the notability bar set by WP:PORN BIO, guideline or not. 23skidoo 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe source for the claim that she was the December 98 and 2001 Penthouse Pet would likely be the respective issues of Penthouse. Fireplace 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as being a porn star and a Penthouse Pet meets WP:PORN BIO. That she was one seems reliable, per IMDB and the 2001 video blurb. They may not be reliable sources per se, but the fact is easily verifiable per Fireplace. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In that case, what about the rest of the article? Verification of the fact that she's a Penthouse Pet would give her a mention in the List of Penthouse Pets - which she already has. Absolutely everything else in the article is unsourced, if you discount IMDB (which we should, although I will concede that it is acceptable for providing information on the movies she's been in). At present, there does not seem to be enough information on her from reliable sources to leave this as anything but a perpetual stub, unless the contributors to the article would like to provide sources. Captainktainer * Talk 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ye of little faith. I added 3 articles and interviews (of varying quantity and quality), with a few minutes searching, and will add more. They will never be The New York Times in terms of reliability, mind, but they won't be nothing either. There will be sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that the sources should be footnotes. Otherwise, a very good job so far AnonEMouse. If I may also comment... it's pretty pathetic that it took an AFD to have the article sourced. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Here's the problem... One of the sources doesn't even borderline qualify as a source under WP:RS - lukeisback.com seems to be a blog. Excalibur Films doesn't seem to qualify either. I've seen that Spectator article before, and that may or may not qualify as a reliable source. I'm not of the opinion that it does, but I'll leave that to others. Captainktainer * Talk 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • (2) LukeIsBack.com is the site of Luke Ford, "Porn's Gossip Columnist", "the most hated man in porn", etc.. While I entirely agree the organization and HTML of his site is lacking, the substance of the site is notable, mostly for the guy's dedication. He's a published author on this subject ("History of X", others), and has been doing "porn journalism" for a living for years. He can be (and has been, in print, see the article) compared to the Matt Drudge of this particular industry. He's a fairly reliable source, which can be shown, ironically, by the fact that he has been sued by porn stars several times over the years for revealing information they didn't want to be revealed. For this case, however, his article on the star is fairly skimpy, admittedly. As for the others, what can I say that I didn't say before with the "not New York Times" comment? Porn just isn't a subject that lends itself naturally to peer-reviewed university study. However, given there is no serious controversy about any of the issues dealing with the subject, I think they should suffice. Note that 90% of our articles that are not about porn don't have cast-iron quality references either, that doesn't mean they have no verifiable references and should be deleted. Write articles about porn, and your sources are going to be porn magazines, there is no way around that - but even porn magazine published articles are not blogs and forum posts. (1) I had to run after posting the 3 refs, I entirely agree they should be footnoted or otherwise cross-referenced with actual facts in the article, and even more should be added, but give me a bit of time to do that, please. (Or feel free to help, of course, I don't own the article.) I even think there are more sources that can be added; however this should be enough to make people vote Keep to give me that time. Note that I was not an original author of the Vicca article. (0)Aww, Joe, I'm blushing. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with the previous comment that she is verifiably a pornstar and all movies are listed on IMDB. Also I think that there is a wave of attention to the porn-related articles recently due to some kind of bias. I keep coming across some other articles that are very marginal and unnotable, but noone deletes them and here interest is only caused by porn-attribute. BlackAsker 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Then what is stopping you from nominating them for deletion? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment because I believe in the value of information and knowledge and would rather keep them if they have any relevance at all. Obviously people who nominated for deletion Vicca article are not this way. BlackAsker 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Be very, very, very careful about accusing people of being biased; I perceive in your comment a not-very-thinly-veiled accusation of bias on my part. I brought this article up for deletion for the reasons stated in the nom. You may feel free to examine my contributions if you believe that I am somehow biased against porn actresses (some of my votes in recent AfDs will surprise you). In the meantime, there are systemic problems with this article that do not look like they will be remedied anytime soon. Captainktainer * Talk 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation BlackAsker, please don't take this the wrong way, but I believe you've missed the entire point of the nomination. The main reason for the AfD was because the article did not have valid sources (and no one came up with them, despite repeated calls by myself and other editors on Talk:Vicca to get the piece sourced). The AfD is to delete the article in its pathetic, unsourced form (and that's putting it fairly mildly); it's not about the inclusion of Vicca herself, but the uncited article itself. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comment above and IMDB content. From WP:V: Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made.. IMDB seems like a fine source for movie titles and cast lists. Further, each title is individually verifiable on, say, dvd websites. Fireplace 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, obviously. There is a serious level of delusion at work here. IMDB is a much more reliable source than Wikipedia. Submissions are moderated, as anyone who uses these resources knows. Here it is catch as catch can and political, witness Joe Beaudoin's view of certain porn stars. He's made himself an editor and he has a personal hobbyhorse. Vicca was a major contract porn star with VCA and nearly Penthouse Pet of the Year, among other things. I finally grew tired of jousting with the personalities here, who never did answer my repeated questions about the technical issues of properly posting and discussing and so forth. Meanwhile, I look at many other entries and see nothing like the contentiousness generated by a couple insiders. Elihu1951
    • Comment We aren't allowed to quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, either. Your comment that a Wikipedian in good standing has "made himself an editor" is strange, considering that the point of Wikipedia is for everyone to be an editor. As for your questions, your talk page and the talk page of the article are filled with useful links and offers to help- offers to which you haven't responded. In the meantime, the article is filled with statements unverified by reliable sources, which have been asked for time and time aagin. Captainktainer * Talk 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whew, mostly done I think. If anything, I overdid the references. She meets two of the WP:PORN BIO criteria, with an AVN award, not to mention the relatively unusual combination of porn and academic potential. And, frankly, while the Google test is justly deprecated in most of these cases, believe someone who looked, she has a LOT of different sites and articles dedicated to her out there. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AnonEMouse's work in getting the article sourced has addressed my concerns on, well, sourcing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she meets the porn bios now and was in penthouse Yuckfoo 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes, lovely. It's now boring, missing key sourced information, and contains one or two fresh inaccuracies. For example, she is not a "pornographic actor." I hope the crank who made a federal case out of this is very happy. Oh, yes, IMDB is far more esteemed for accuracy and non-crank behavior, as it is moderated and relatively checked, than this monstrosity. And certainly far more people look for entertainment-related information to the Internet Movie DataBase than to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elihu1951 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorists have won[edit]

Little need of this in a encylopedia. Not notable neologism article Aeon Insane Ward 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, one of the more long-lived and notable memes. Article even provides links and sources. Voice of Treason 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I strongly disagree. First of all, the article is strongly sourced, which is the most important bit. Second, the references section more than establishes notability- a dedicated editorial in the Houston Chronicle, a speech at the Emmys, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for crying out loud. It's entered the modern lexicon, and as such is notable- and verifiable. Captainktainer * Talk 13:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep - it's a highly notable neologism, with good references. WilyD 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an easily-recognised and commonly used phrase, which has become part of our culture Lurker 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think phrases like this are encyclopedic. Is one of at least hundreds of English language cliches and analogies that have attained common parlance in the history of the language. If the article is kept then it needs a major clean-up as it is very POV at present and not at all reflective of the meaning in the UK. MLA 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the phrase has no meaning in the UK, why mention it? You wouldn't expect American interpretations of the word Chav in that article, do you? Anyway, the phrase, because it is a political propaganda tool, has much, much more notability, importance, and relevance than your garden variety neologism. hateless 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hi, sorry that's not what I meant at all. The meaning in the UK currently relates most strongly to the aftermath of the July 7 terrorist attack on London and is related to the belief that life must continue as normal and that we must not give in to grief or fear despite the risk of terrorism. It is an attempt to evoke the no-surrender blitz mentality and so has resonance in the UK. This should be reflected in the article if it stays as it is at odds with the apparent US interpretation. MLA 07:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known phrase, though I've always heard it as "The terrorists will have won." Kirjtc2 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the will comment and would suggest a title change if the article remains. MLA 10:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Captainktainer's comments. Article is well-sourced and establishes notability. Scorpiondollprincess 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep notable part of 9/11 aftermath. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like shutting down AfDs --DragonWR12LB 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't believe no one has said If we delete this article, the terrorists will have won. WilyD 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced and well-written enough. I've no problem with cliches and phrases on Wikipedia if they're written like this. --Canley 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per obvious. hateless 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- phrase has been used repeatedly by various notable figures. Besides, if the article is deleted, the terrorists will... well, you know. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep –(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- violates WP:NOT. NN-Neologism. While the phrase is well-known in commmon parlance, it doesn't hold any particular meaning other than in the context it's spoken. As such, it's not encyclopedic. Morton DevonshireYo
    • Comment Could you please explain which portion of WP:NOT is violated? Nothing specific even in the indiscriminate collection of information portion is violated. The fact that it has entered the common lexicon to the extent that it has puts the lie to the claim that it is non-notable. In addition, your statement that it holds no particular meaning other than the context in which it is spoken makes very little sense- what bearing does that have on whether the article is verified and notable? Captainktainer * Talk 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[25] Morton DevonshireYo
        • Comment I see that, but it doesn't fit under any of those particular named criteria. At no point does it say that we shouldn't cover widely used and controversial elements of the language; the closest we have to a guideline on that matter is WP:NEO, which this article meets very nicely.Captainktainer * Talk 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but I would hardly compare this to chav in terms of notability. GassyGuy 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is extremely well sourced and NPOV. The phrase is of iconic notability, similar to the Featured Article Read my lips: no new taxes. 205.157.110.11 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very well known phrase frequently used in film, television, print, et cetera. RFerreira 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is definetly a national meme. It's become so cliche that it's become a joke around the country ("If I can't buy this sportscar," he told his wife, "then the terrorists have won.") All the same, it might be an article to keep an eye on, as it could become a target for POV'ers of all stripes. Pat Payne 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is well-sourced and phrase is very well-known and much parodied and referenced (in the United States at least). --Paul1337 20:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul1337 and others. --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must say I am impressed with what this article states and is very informative. however I must stress that this will be a target for POV and needs to be monitered.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bar box[edit]

Appears to be a work of fiction. I can find no connection between 'bar box' and the suggested activities (seached google etc.). I'm no prude, but I believe this article to be a work of fiction. Rob (Talk) 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any relevant Google hits support this (and you could be sure something like this would appear on the Internet!) - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless i can see some refrences. And i dont mean dirty refrences.–(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a hoax, or someone's wet dream; I can't find any evidence of the term. Paddles TC 22:56, 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 delete. Proto::type 10:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Borg[edit]

Previously speedied as making no claim of notability. User:Sam Sloan recently poosted on Usenet that he has re-created every chess player article of his which has been deleted. There is not much here to establish the importance of the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete NN and was deleted before. Aeon Insane Ward 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Meets CSD G4: [26] MER-C 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Circumstances have changed, and page content differs quite a bit from the previously deleted version. Previously, he was just a candidate amongst others for the office; now indeed he has been elected. Borderline noteable as Vice President of FIDE, completely unnotable as a chess player. It seems that his election came as a surprise. (See the extlks I added.) Lupo 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is claimed on usenet that this author is being singled out and everything he writes removed. Looking at this article, I can't see any justification for deletion. I am inclined to think it may be a personal vendatta of someone that is doing this. Drkirkby 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think being a VP of FIDE or president of a national chess federation (especially a minor federation) reaches Wikipedia's standard of notability all by itself. They are just functionary positions. We don't have articles about vice presidents of the NBA, which is a much more famous organization than FIDE. And organizations like the Malta Chess Federation are so obscure that even an article about the organization itself (much less one of its functionaries) would be of dubious notability.

    If Borg actually does something notable sometime, then we can put up a new article. Phr (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To Drkirkby: there's no vendetta; Sloan has put up several dozen articles on Wikipedia (some of them wildly inappropriate) and only half a dozen or so of them have been deleted, either for non-notability (campaign biographies of obscure chess people who were running for FIDE office, speedied for copying from the campaign web sites) or ridiculous attack articles full of baseless charges (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch). Other articles of his that were full of nonsense (see the edit history of Edward G. Winter for example) have been cleaned up by other editors, and Sloan refers to that as "vandalism". Please try to understand what you're dealing with before coming to Sloan's defense. Susan Polgar's recent remarks [27] might give you an idea. Phr (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it does look like User:JzG is going through Wikipedia cleaning up a lot of Sloan's edits, mostly for good reason (link spam, etc.) and this AfD is part of that cleanup. I still don't see a vendetta since I don't think JzG and Sloan have had any direct conflict. Sloan has really been a problematic editor at times. Phr (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

My name is Włodzimierz Holsztyński (to avoid any suspicion of an anonymous action). In my opinion the wikipedia posts should be adorned by a weight parameter, which would make it easier to search both for the relevant and irrelevant information. On a scale from 0 to 1000 (one thousand), biographical posts about Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, Galois, Niels Abel, Riemann, Poincare, Hilbert and Einstein would have weight 1000 (one thousand, the max). The weight of a biography on Geoffrey Borg can be maximum 1 (one), granted that it is well researched and well written. Then I would vote for keeping it (providing that weight=1 would be attached to such a post). But there is no need for a sloppy version of an article of such a low importance and quality. To be specific, the article doesn't say since when Geoffrey Borg is holding any of the mentioned positions. This should be clearly stated (and not left to a reader's deduction process). The information about Geoffrey Borg being a FIDE VP, and about his candidacy for the treasurer post, is a confusing combination, which should be clarified by an explicit description of what has happened.

To allow this kind of junk on Wikipedia creates a danger that ninety or more percent of entries will be equally poor, rending Wikipedia unusable. Certain minimum should be assumed even with the understanding that an article might be improved later on.

Let me stress that my view is constructive; I consider wikipedia to be a (potentially) outstandingly useful source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.66.34 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Włodzimierz is a regular participant of the Usenet chess politics group (Sloan-related Wikipedia issues often spill over to there) and follows chess stuff pretty closely, but he's obviously new to Wikipedia for purposes of determining consensus. I do think his assessment of the article is pretty good. Phr (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Yellow Group PLC[edit]

Corporate advert for nn company. Rob (Talk) 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rewrite. It just scrapes in on the notability guidelines because the article claims that it is listed on the FTSE 250 (I doubt that, ticker symbol is BYG.L if anyone wants to verify). I agree that it reads like an ad, however we can get rid of the cruft and replace it with an infobox and listing information. MER-C 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article passes WP:CORP as above. Article is a stub is a terrible argument for deletion. WilyD 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does indeed seem to have been recently added to the FTSE. It was added in the FTSE 250 quarterly update by User:Noisy, and the official page he cites verifies it. A rewrite would be helpful, though. Rigadoun 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD and Rigadoun. Hopefully it will be improved over time. Paddles TC 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article passes WP:CORP as above. Golfcam 02:59, 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 redirect to Space Shuttle Enterprise. – Avi 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Constitution[edit]

Not needed. All information is already in Space Shuttle Enterprise Cjosefy 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Space Shuttle Enterprise. Everything about the article outside the title seems to be cloned from there. Voice of Treason 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. I learned something new today, but a redirect would serve the same or better purpose. Captainktainer * Talk 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as per above comments. Scorpiondollprincess 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect a different shuttle taking another's place-OK, but a mere name change certainly does not need its own article. --Canley 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect contents are redundant with Enterprise article.--J Clear 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect I think this artical should be deleted only if someone searching for this artical is redirected to the Enterprise artical. Red1530 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all above. Paddles TC 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as redirect, interesting factoid and plausible search term means it should stay, but only as a link to Space Shuttle Enterprise. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Enterprise and protect. --Joffeloff 17:53, 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 redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XHDL-FM[edit]

I think this article may be unsalvageable. It appears to be an automatic translation; I started by trying to wikify it but I just couldn't. No offence intended — it may just be my lack of imagination! The only alternative I can think of is just to keep the top line. Other people's thoughts would be much appreciated. talkGiler S 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but delete the automatic translation material which is very likely copyvio and start over. 23skidoo 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending serious help. I'd also like to know who the Network Hot Chili Peppers are. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the clearly superior article at Radioactivo. The call letters (which I just added from es:Radioactivo 98.5) indicate that it is indeed the same station. Rigadoun 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rigadoun. Google search reveals it is the same station, though it looks to still be broadcasting under a different name: [28]. Yomangani 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rigadoun and Yomangani, no merge. Paddles TC 22:41, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shango (of Shangistan)[edit]

hoax, no Google hits Travelbird 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • just because there are no Google hits, doesn't mean it's a hoax. References to the newspaper stories are true, I think it would be unfair to delete this entry so hastily. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Explorer2000 (talk • contribs).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied. Lupo 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazamuelsson[edit]

hoax by user:‎Deleteityourself, no sources or Google hits Travelbird 13:49, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyaline oxide[edit]

It appears that there is no public record of this chemical compound. A search of Chemical Abstracts, a chemical database from the Americal Chemical Society which aims to collect scientific references to every chemical compound made, turns up no results for either "hyaline oxide" or "hyaline". The reference cited in the article is from the journal Microgram, a publication of the US Drug Enforcement Agency. The journal's website says that archives are permanently unavailable to the public.[29] So the article hyaline oxide is not verifiable and therefore subject to deletion according to Wikipedia policy. Delete. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google scholar and ISI also give no result.--Stone 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)--Stone 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax. (Or maybe just some weird misspelling.) Any extant chemical would be mention online somewhere. eaolson 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and the links indeed suggest a hoax. --DrTorstenHenning 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't exist. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, I don't believe this is a hoax or misinformation, just something that's been reported only in a non-public venue. --Ed (Edgar181)
  • Delete, much as Wikipedia should appreciate the liberation of 'hidden knowledge' (if it's real), verifiability comes first. …I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of "non-public publication". Femto 10:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:V. (As an aside, referring to the specific contents of a specific classified publication by someone who has reference to it is usually a violation of that classification, at least without specific approval by one of a number of named government officials. There were about 23 when I last had a clearance, with the most recent list probably being in Executive Order 13292.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this really "classified information" (which, I understand, has a specific meaning with actual laws and things) or just a journal that isn't available to the public? Police uniforms and badges aren't available to the public, either, but they're not classified. eaolson 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article presently says "classified journal". Unless that has a technical meaning I'm not familiar with, I would expect that to mean a journal which legally "publishes" classified information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's talking about its use as a bioweapon. The Microgram article is different. But it's a trivial quibble; I was just curious, above. eaolson 21:28, 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 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodTea For Cancer[edit]

Article about a tea party that raised AUD70. Not even a little bit notable. Mr Stephen 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Australia's Biggest Morning Tea" is a notable annual fundraising event, and does deserve a mention on Wikipedia (which it already has on The Cancer Council Australia's article), and it's been covered by the mainstream media, so it's verifiable too. A small group of 10 individuals doing their part for it, while commendable, is most emphatically neither. ~ Matticus78 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 people? Raising $70? It's only the first year, people. Let it grow, and it may be an exercise noteworthy for an encyclopaedia. But for now, delete. Natgoo 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too bad it can't be speedied.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mako 03:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Matticus78. It could be merged into a couple of lines of the article on the wider charity fundraiser, if anyone writes an article about it. Paddles TC 22:38, 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 Userfy to User:Confalone. – Avi 05:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confalone[edit]

Vanity article written by Confalone (see article history). No hits on Google. Fails WP:BIO, WP:VANITY, and WP:V. KarenAnn 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a vanity article. --Porqin 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete per nom. If kept, besides the obvious cleanup it should also be renamed to "Pat Confalone". Paddles TC 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's obvious this guy is a notable scientist and there are 100s maybe 1000s of Google hits on his name (nom must have spelled it wrong or something). AAAS Fellow shows peer recognition of notability. Nominator does some good work, but comes up with quite a few wacky noms here that are gotta-keeps. VivianDarkbloom 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom Massmato 16:10, 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD G4, and already deleted by User:Uncle G. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory W. Brahmin[edit]

This is just the deleted article Greg Brahmin under a new name. The linked discussion clearly explains why it was deleted. When you have 2 google hits on someone's name, one of which is a Wikipedia article and the other of which is a list of AfDs, its a no-brainer Lurker 14:12, 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 keep. Ifnord 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glifted[edit]

Non-notable band. --BradBeattie 14:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and so tagged; band with no claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:MUSIC, a band is notable if it "[c]ontains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Hum is notable. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete on verifiability grounds. Where are the sources? With an appropriate source or two in the article to provide verification, I will gladly change my vote to Keep on notability grounds. Captainktainer * Talk 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withdrawing vote. I can't in good conscience vote keep - I feel the sources are a little too flimsy, and I'm suspicious of the notability of the record label. However, I also can't in good conscience vote delete - the article is' sourced, somewhat, and I'd rather articles be cleaned up and expanded (if possible) than deleted. So, I'll bow out. Captainktainer * Talk 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verified at AllMusic and by their label. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The AllMusic link is broken now fixed by Justin (I looked it up anyway; the entry is very sparse), and the information on Wikipedia for Parasol Records is sparse on info. Anyway, this sort of thing should really be in the article. Captainktainer * Talk 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated. Do I have to do EVERYTHING myself? :) PT (s-s-s-s) 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Che. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have written the nominator asking for a nom withdrawal. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Justin --Peephole 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIBEL[edit]

Article on non-notable group and their antics on YouTube and some self-produced (apparently) DVDs. Googling for "British Idiots Behind Enemy Lines" (their full name) returns just three results; two from YouTube and one their own website, so any of the information here is highly unlikely to be verifiable. Was prodded as such and prod removed by author citing the addition of photographs as evidence of their existence (which I'm not doubting - it's those all-important third-party sources that are lacking here), so sending for procedural AfD as usual. ~ Matticus78 14:22, 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. Punkmorten 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Menks[edit]

"Cohabiting companion" of one Warren Buffett. Absolutely zero claim of notability made anywhere aside from relationship to the notorious entrepreneur/philanthropist. Delete if not speedy A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: relationship to a notable does not make one notable. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CheNuevara's comment.--Victoriagirl 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After her picture and name appeared on the Yahoo newsphoto page two days ago, I wanted to know who she was, and how her bond to Buffett was known to people. Wikipedia answered without gossip or noise. As his charity may cause his fortune mean a great deal to people outside his family, it's worthwhile to know how his closest relationships work. --Crid 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is part of the description of Warren Buffett. rmellin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.194.213 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete no assertion of notability. There are plenty of precedents that being married to someone notable does not render a person notable themselves. I'd tag it for speedy (A7 db-bio) if there hadn't been any keep "votes". Paddles TC 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is not notable in her own right, and is already mentioned in the article on Warren Buffet. If she does something useful notable in the way Melinda Gates has, the article can be re-created. --Wine Guy Talk 22:36, 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 [30] as a copyvio.--Chaser T 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Chakra Meditations[edit]

Original research. Copyright is asserted. My vote would be Delete Dipics 14:57, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of software licences[edit]

There are too many licences to go around here - how do we discriminate? Do we include zlib as well as MIT? Do we include every Microsoft EULA with even a tiny change? I just can't see this article ever being complete enough to be useful without being gigantic. Ruaraidh-dobson 15:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also the discussion at Talk:Comparison of software licences. Uncle G 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point, but I see software licensing as a topic in which a comparison is needed. Keep. --Snarius 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needed or no, Wikipedia cannot have an article without cited sources to demonstrate that it is not original research. To address the arguments put forward on the article's talk page, please cite some sources to demonstrate that people have compared software licences and that this article will not require original research. Uncle G 17:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on Condition that only notable/ fairly common license types are compared. Knowing Is Half The Battle 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because any comparison will be misleading. Compatibility of two licenses is dependent upon the interpretation of the license by the copyright holder. A collective work covered by two licenses may or may not be distributable, and this article cannot reliably shed any light on that situation. -Russ Nelson RussNelson 22:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are assuming one particular sort of comparison, namely that of saying whether one licence is legally compatible with another. Please read our comparison of filesystems. Legal compatibility with one another is only one of the ways in which software licences could be compared in an article such as this. We could compare them by publication dates, by authors, by whether they have had approval by various organizations (such as the FSF, the OSI, and so forth), (possibly) by how many softwares are licenced thereunder, and by other criteria. comparison of filesystems should give an idea of how an article such as this could be written.

      The major question is that of sources. Do sources exist from which such a comparison article can be written? A comparison article that comprises a table with two columns, "FSF approval?" and "OSI approval?", can definitely be written, using the sources that this article already cites. If we have no sources on the matter of legal compatibility, then that doesn't mean that a "comparison of" article cannot be written. It only means that the comparison article cannot have a "X compatible with Y" matrix.

      The real question to address is whether the aforementioned table is better placed in list of software licenses. Uncle G 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please these are helpful comparisons and verifiable too Yuckfoo 19:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clorinde[edit]

Nonnotable art "movement", I'm not sure I even see a claim of notability here. NawlinWiki 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure whether this is an art movement or a NN band. Page perhaps should be a redirect: Clorinde is a variant spelling of Clorinda, who figures in Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered, Monteverdi's Il Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda, probably more. Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SergioB. Paddles TC 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way. Maybe some people should check out the contents of the web site link and see with their eyes what people from Clorinde do. Art is not only Michelangelo and Shakespeare is also unknown individuals working hard on their little spare time to contribute to Human Culture 100% unprofit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clorinde (talk • contribs)
    • The question is not about the artistic merit, but whether the movement is already notable enough to warrant an article. I'm an artist, and I hope my art has some merit, but neither I nor my art is notable enough to warrant a WP entry. In the future, who knows? But WP is not a crystal ball for predicting future notability either. Paddles TC 14:34, 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 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netcot[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. —Caesura(t) 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is not advertising. It is a site history page that is under construction.Horizonsperson 15:59, 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 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Grinder Productions[edit]

Small company created in June 2006 that hopes to do some things. Zero hits on Google. Fails WP:V, WP:NN, WP:CORP, WP:VANITY. May be a sandbox page that got loose. KarenAnn 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing in the article provides any source of notability. I can't find any sources myself either. DrunkenSmurf 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. Article fails many notability tests. --Porqin 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -- that article may set a record for misspellings per sentence. NawlinWiki 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paddles TC 14:43, 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 deleted under CSD A1. Xoloz 04:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergh[edit]

Dicdef/etymology of non-notable neologism, could transwiki to Wiktionary if verifiable but unencyclopedic; prod and prod2 removed. Rigadoun 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete In my opinion, we can assume that those "assertions of notability" ("Worldwide Useage") can be taken as nonsense, given that the article says something like "[it is used by Linton and his mates]". At the very least this is a neologism or a thing made up in school one day. AdamBiswanger1 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Richhoncho 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note After reading the article carefully, I can't help but think that it is just nonsense, and as I mentioned above, something made up in school one day. So, I have tagged it as {{db-nonsense}} AdamBiswanger1 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't quite patent nonsense, as that term is defined under CSD G1. However, I will speedy under CSD A1, because this article is lacking context (at least, context grounded in reality.) Xoloz 04:11, 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 delete. Punkmorten 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorre[edit]

Pokëcrüft DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no need for an article to give very detailed information about a place in a game. Pokëcrüft per above. --Porqin 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It seems unlikely that there will be anything to say about this place that would not be more useful in the article on the game that features it, and there's certainly nothing here now that's worth keeping. Note that the spelling even differs from that given in the Pokemon Rangers article; if this is kept, one or the other needs to be changed to whatever the canonical spelling is. — Haeleth Talk 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Pokémon regions. The game which features the region has only been released in Japan, so I'd imagined a wealth of more info surfacing afterwards. Highway Batman! 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and others. Paddles TC 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look, all of the other articles on Kanto, Hoenn, and Johto, are on the site fine. We just don't know anything about this place. Give it time, wait till it's released in america, and expand on it! Even if it gets removed now, I guarentee it will come back with more information. Toastypk 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Also, how could it be cruft if it's just one sentence? XD[reply]
  • Delete Incomprehensible to people who don't already understand it, useless to those who do, and not a notable topic. Also per Haeleth. GassyGuy 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pokémon Ranger. It's all but a redirect now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pokecruft of the smallest dimension. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No info. This can be recreated when more info is available. The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 05:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not pass WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:26, 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 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch & Pet Supply[edit]

Advert. Cleanup is not worthwhile, since it is not exactly notable either. recommend Delete HellFire 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (this was deprodded without comment; I was the prodder) per nom. --ais523 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, advert. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles TC 14:23, 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 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talifan[edit]

This article was speedy deleted under G5 after a transwiki to Wictionary. Wictionary subsequently deleted the article. A DRV consensus determined that, failing a transwiki, the article deserved a hearing at AfD. Personally, I don't see why the article was transwiki'ed as it is in the first place, given its content, which is broader in scope than a dictionary entry would be. This matter is brought to AfD to determine if the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - apparently fails WP:NEO (as an aside it appears it was never put into Wiktionary so it might survive if it is transwikied). Yomangani 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it isn't in the transwiki log, Talifan is in the wiktionary deletion log. It got over there somehow, and was deleted. Xoloz 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this term looks like a term that is confined to a few blogs and message boards. BigDT 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I served as a mediator for this article [31] when there were problems with the external links. There was a lot of confusion about what belonged, what didn't. If Wictionary doesn't want it, delete it. It's not going to improve anytime soon, it's a neologism at best. Tsetna 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main reasons why this article should be deleted have already been mentioned: Among other things it violates the WP:NEO and it's extremely limited. Edit: The article also violates "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", see WP:NOT.--SincereGuy 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a definition at best, dicdef or neologism, either way I don't see it meeting WP:NEO or WP:NOT. It's had its fair chance at Wiktionary too, but seems they didn't want it.
  • Delete Only Star Wars fans who know about Karen Traviss's alleged butchery of and extreme minimalist retcons within the SW novel franchise would have any familiarity with the term. E. Sn0 =31337= 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this a neologism (at best), but it is an insult used almost exclusively by a small circle of people. JimRaynor55 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An obscure neologism, rejected by wikitionary to boot.Beryoza 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beryoza and selected others. -- NORTH talk 21:22, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McIngvale[edit]

Delete. NN bio.- CrazyRussian talk/email 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not many Ghits, but one of them is a CNN transcript. Notability is still borderline, but I'd err on the side of caution by keeping. Paddles TC 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Paddles. CNN has interviewed her as well as Good Morning America, Inside Edition etc., couple of newspaper articles as well. Borderline, but I'll keep. --Wine Guy Talk 23:17, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada and three other parties[edit]

I am nominating List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada along with the following related pages for the same reason:

These are unencyclopedic lists with little objective criteria. Who is a “celebrity” and what constitutes a “link” is largely subjective and gives rise to a serious POV problem. While some “celebrities” may be easily “linked” to a party (i.e. performed a benefit concert), there are serious problems verifying who ought to be on this list, short of checking their wallets for party membership cards or spying on them in the ballot booth. More or less listcruft. Agent 86 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Usgnus 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they all seem to be valid. Ardenn 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Change vote to delete Ardenn 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They just seem to be there for no reason. And, as said can't be verified. And it just seems to be almost propaganda ("Hey, look who suports this party!") -Royalguard11Talk 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "links" invites abuse Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Could also qualify as Original Research. Resolute 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Difficult to verify and determining who is (or isn't) a celebrity is subjective. This is unencyclopedic. Also note: List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party. Lists of this type all suffer the same problems and should be treated equally. Scorpiondollprincess 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominated here. Ardenn 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good idea to nominate them. If I had known about them, I'd have included them. What confuses me is that you've pretty much cut-and-pasted the reasoning I've used for this AfD into the new nomination, but have commented "Keep" in relation to this one. Is the other nomination simply a technical nomination? Agent 86 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. I honestly think that the lists should stay. I think they're pretty notable, and have valuble information. Ardenn 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, and some of the entries are wrong. CJCurrie 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --NeoChaosX 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 23skidoo 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and reasons given in other such lists' AfDs. -- H·G (words/works) 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of OR and subjective, isn't it? Let's see: Sarah Harmer and David Suzuki are on both the NDP and Green lists. Some of the people listed have been successful or unsuccessful electoral candidates for the parties in question, which is just redundant with other articles we already have. Although she's widely perceived as a Dipper, I've seen television interviews with Margaret Atwood in which she's defined her own politics as Red Tory — although it obviously doesn't follow that this would make her a Conservative now, there most certainly isn't any strong "public record" of her being a primarily NDP-associated figure. Meanwhile, other figures with Red Tory links, such as Leslie Nielsen, are assumed to support the Conservatives on the basis of having been PC supporters 20 years ago. Other people, e.g. Jim Cuddy, are assumed into lists based on family connections, despite there being virtually no record of whether Cuddy shares his brother's political views or not. Frankly, it's an unencyclopedic mess that's delete-worthy, IMO. Bearcat 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the American articles. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above and same reasons as in the equivalent US articles. Paddles TC 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons mentioned above, and because the title refers to "Conservative Party of Canada" but many of the "sources" in the article refer to provincial PC parties. --Skeezix1000 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Bucketsofg✐ 20:33, 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. Punkmorten 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spikestrip[edit]

Fail WP:MUSIC - after careful sifting through google results, all I can come up with is myspace and faceparty hits (with the exception of the official site) DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless someone can produce some reliable sources, even street press articles. Paddles TC 14:22, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarnath gowda[edit]

Article is vanity/advertising/spam or...Vanivertspam? Prod removed by author as well Wildthing61476 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Author has removed AfD tag numerous times. Wildthing61476 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Reads like a vanity page, also reads like an advert in parts, and the creator has removed the AfD tag several times. JD[don't talk|email] 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the multiple reasons as per nom. --DrTorstenHenning 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say that it's a db-bio CSD candidate, but there is a shred of an argument for the "first foreign lawyer licensed in Michigan" being notable by Wikipedia's standards... at least enough of such an argument that I think it should go through the AfD process, rather than being speedied. -Harmil 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Only just avoids being a speedy candidate. Paddles TC 14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:VSCA. Just misses a speedy, though. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:04, 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. WP:HOAX and fails WP:V --Madchester 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornograph[edit]

Nonsense, though not patent enough for speedy deletion. --DrTorstenHenning 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a nn product that might not exist. AdamBiswanger1 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. This has been speedied a few times before, but lets have the AFD complete so there's no question at all of ever allowing recreation. If anyone is remotely tempted to consider keeping this, check out the alleged picture of a pornograph that accompanied earlier versions of the article. -- Fan-1967 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete take your pick; unverifiable, unsourced (reliable), nonsense, hoax, Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide, possible neologism. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX and WP:V. The only source provided ("Emily Chesley Reading Circle") yields Ghits describing the site as "parody and humor," and "hoaxes, pranks, practical jokes, frauds, tricks, and other forms of deception." Wikipedia describes the site as "a group of Canadian writers who have perpetrated a hoax." Hardly a reliable source. Scorpiondollprincess 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moeron above. Additionally, I'd like to state for the record that I thought of this pun ages ago. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I'd like to state for the record that "graph" as a suffix has nothing to do with audio, and a pornograph, if it existed, would draw pornography, not play audio from it froma wax cylinder. Geoffrey Spear 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd buy that for a dollar... :) ~ Matticus78 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because wikipedia needs this article. 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Jimjones5
  • Delete Says nothing.--Kitia 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added sources and picture. I just added some sources and a picture. I hope this keeps this well-written article on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjones5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I bought a computer and signed up for AOL just to find out about the pornograph. Please don't delete this page. It will make me sad :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famboy111 (talk • contribs) (Third edit from new user.)
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seriously concerned that there might be a movement of Anti-Semetic editors out there who are constantly trying to delete, revert my edits and harass me on my talk and user pages. I don't know if all of the voters here fall into that category, or if they have just been tricked by the racists editors who have been bothering me for a week. Please change your mind and let this well-written article live. Thank you.Jimjones5 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making false accusations of racism is as bad as racism itself. That you would do such a thing in defense of a pathetic, lame joke like this article tells us a lot about what kind of a person you are. Fan-1967 22:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as WP:BJAODN. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obvious prank or hoax. No sources cited. Not funny enough for WP:BJAODN. We don't need an article on the Teleporn, either, although I see we have one on Electric organ. Why don't any of the youngsters believe me when I tell them that in the nineteen-fifties every car radio had a built-in vibrator? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is too bad this cannot be speedy deleted. RFerreira 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Obvious prank by troll editor (eg, edited Thomas Edison article to call him the inventor of the pornograph). Sheesh. Delete Image:Pgraph2 jpg.jpg and Image:Pornograph.gif at the same time. -- Infrogmation 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as obvious hoax, if WP:SNOW never applied anywhere before, it definitely applies here. -- H·G (words/works) 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Absolutely blatantly fails WP:HOAX, page created as a prank. I think this is definitely worthy of speedy deletion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. These types who think the whole Internet's against them leave me fit to be tied. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The pornograph is a real device. As I recent college grad, I can honestly say that I have used the pornograph on numerous occasions. I have especially used the pornograph at ritzy college parties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriiik (talk • contribs) . (First edit from new user.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Marudubshinki. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Voltres[edit]

Non-notable and unsourced fancruft whose source appears to be SuperShadow, a well-documented source for false Star Wars information. EVula 17:21, 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 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Tutt[edit]

non-notable Victoriagirl 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Three Ghits [33] for "Jeff Tutt" + "This Instrument Skin", one of which is Wikipedia. Has been exhibited at least one gallery in Vancouver, but I've found no evidence of further notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ohnoitsjamie. Paddles TC 14:14, 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 deleted by Marudubshinki. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Orcron[edit]

Non-notable and unsourced fancruft whose source appears to be SuperShadow, a well-documented source for false Star Wars information. This topic has come up on Wookiepedia, and they didn't want it either.[34] EVula 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If it's not good enough for WOokiepedia, I can't imagine how it would be appropriate here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 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 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moskovskiy Pisatel[edit]

  • del. It is not a settlement. It is a group of dachniks that live in a certain village of Alyokhnovo without any particular notability. The persons listed in the article are currently strongly voted for deletion as well. `'mikka (t) 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Mikka has just beaten me by one minute's margin—I was in the process of listing this for AfD myself. Geo-locations are inherently notable, dacha co-ops are not. There is nothing particularly interesting or notable about this one to warrant keeping it—it's one of tens of thousands similar co-ops in Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KNewman 18:46, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murphin[edit]

While my gut tells me this should be speedied, neologisms technically aren't speedyable. I prod tagged it, but the prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscimony[edit]

Hoax? Zero hits in Google for the word. Phyletic gradualism does not seem compatible with The Theory of Oscimony presented in this article, contrary to what the article says. (I think) ??? KarenAnn 17:51, 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) 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves of Fortune[edit]

Non-notable short stories, prod removed by author Wildthing61476 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is my article listed for deletion? Could you please advise me of this before erasing it? This is an article on a series of stories I have written, they are original material and are not copyrighted by any fashion, the article had a descent length and I hope to expand on it further in the future. Please tell me what's wrong with it so I may correct this? I checked my main page and found the notice about solicitation which this is not, it is a reference for any who wish to read my stories, and it will be incredibly disheartening to have my hard work of putting this up deleted without discussing it. Please keep my article up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrifterTWolf (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 July 2006.
  • Comment: well that explains it right there. Wikipedia is not a place for Orginal Research. Sorry. SynergeticMaggot 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and response to above comment - The problem is that the information is not verified (which is the absolute #1 requirement of Wikipedia), and that there's no reason to believe that these stories are important. If they're widely recognized as important, where are the critics with commentary on your work? Where are the Amazon sales ranks for paper-published versions- or, failing that, the huge number of Google hits for electronic-published versions? Until there are enough sources available that we can discuss it from a Neutral Point of View, there's no way we can have it on the Wikipedia. I would recommend moving this information offsite to, say, Geocities, or to the furry Wiki on Wikia (the name of it escapes me). For that matter, we are discussing why it should be deleted- that's the purpose of AfD. Captainktainer * Talk 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — WP:OR failing WP:N, WP:FICTION, WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Alias Flood 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete self-published fan fiction does not belong on this website. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Alias Flood and Captainktainer. The article itself admits that the stories are not well known, which should be sufficient cause, even ignoring the vanity aspects. Paddles TC 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiFur. not notable enough for Wikipedia, but should be fine for WikiFur. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give Wikifur more credit than that - not sure they will let it in given that the article itself states:"At this time there have been no art or writing contributions to this series as it is not well known." Bwithh 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per nom. Bwithh 07:04, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedley Alley[edit]

Unsourced and - ahem - not entirely neutrally worded biography of a dead man. No indication that this is particularly notable compared to other similar dead men. Seems entirely generic to me. Just zis Guy you know? 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep appears to be a notable murderer. NawlinWiki 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some murderers are notable. Can you show me why this man is notable as a murderer? --FloNight talk 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was relying on the article statement that this was "one of the most horrific crimes in the history of Shelby County, Tennessee." (Shelby County is Memphis, a major metro area), as well as having had the death sentence carried out. I'll go with the consensus on whether those are enough for notability. NawlinWiki 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement, like most of the rest of the article, is unsourced. A notable murderer would be someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Harold Shipman. All executed murderes get a few years of "Smith not dead yet" stories in the paper, but almost all of this is related to the process of appeals, not to the murderer themselves. Just zis Guy you know? 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that all people convicted of murder and executed do not need articles. Delete, unless someone can show a reason that this person is notable. FloNight talk 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Subject is the the focus of regional and national news stories in Nashville News, The Tennessean,Tennessee Independent Media Center, Eyewitness News (WPTY TV), WBIR TV News, WREG TV News, The Nashville Post,CBS News, MSNBC,WVLT TV News, and The Jackson Sun (just to mention a few). A google search seems to yield plenty of multiple, non-trivial coverage of Sedley Alley's crime, trial, appeal, and execution. Scorpiondollprincess 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for someone to have an article. In this case I'd say the reason for the coverage was the crime not the man. Rape is a notable topic, capital punishment is a notable topic, people involved in them are not automatically notable. Dalf | Talk 07:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I enjoyed this article as it was well written and some of the content was unusual. Also, as ive just noticed, he has been featured in many publications. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scorpiondollprincess. hateless 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as fitp. Eusebeus 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He committed a capital crime and was sentenced to death for it. The case has received a reasonable amount of coverage. Keep and clean up. Capitalistroadster 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what makes him notable. Are we going to create an article for every person executed for a crime? I'm sure there is a WP:NOT for htis some where, though even if not as I said I don't find this especially notable. Dalf | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Flonight. Paddles TC 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scorpiondollprincess. The man is scum and I could have happily lived the rest of my life never knowing about his horrific crime (and I'm sure there will be other Wiki-readers who will feel the same) but, unfortunately, it is notable. Agne 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been an enormous amount of news coverage regarding the crime and his execution. Unfortunately the only place on the web to get a good synopsis of the story is Wikipedia. Other websites, such as answer.com have the info, but they are only copying Wiki. The crime was notable (one of the most horrific in Shelby county history), the execution was notable (only the second one in Tennessee in 45 years), and the fact that there are still questions about his guilt or innocence is notable. The DNA evidence was never tested, and the Shelby County prosecutor's office still refuses to hand over the evidence for testing. Also, the crime was a major part of the book "Journey into Darkness" by John Douglas (former FBI profiler). This is a good article, and it will continue to evolve. Martylunsford 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Martylunsford. Hebron 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LG VX8100[edit]

Do we need articles on EVERY outdated cell phone ever made? This article is useless. Perhaps if it was about cell phone firmware it may be somewhat usefull, but c'mon. Aspensti 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I would probably support this information in a larger article covering the entire VXx000 series much like the RAZR article, because together they are very popular and in-use, at least where I live, they've been the primary promotional give-away phone for Verizon Wireless for a couple of years. but as it is it looks like the tons of entries in Category:Motorola phones. Even citations for the "known issues" would help make this viable. But as it is, not good. --SevereTireDamage 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or alternatively merge (with any other similar articles) and redirect into a single article covering all models of LG's phones. Paddles TC 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was very useful for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.233.117 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haggai Katriel[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; being on trial for taking part in a protest does not make one notable. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article can always be recreated if his academic work reaches WP:PROF stage, or if the trial becomes a landmark case. Paddles TC 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost speedy, as I don't see a claim of notability, but perhaps not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AP Psychology[edit]

This is just an blatant advertisement for commercial online courses -- nothing else. Links list prices, etc. Fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP and I'm sure some others. KarenAnn 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated before in May: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Psychology. --LambiamTalk 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy keep, are you insane? The article is part of a series of articles describing nationally standardized high school courses. Nor is it an "online course": the College Board does not actually provide any courses for students. It doesn't list any prices, or anything of the like, and I don't see what part of it is "spam". Dark Shikari 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questioning the nominator's sanity is not an effective way to win her over to your view. It's rather incivil, as well. Frankly, there were reasonable arguments both ways in the last AfD. Though the nom could have been better researched, it's not out of process.--Chaser T 19:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Strongest Keep possible. There is one link that doesn't go to the College Board... which makes the test. The other link adds helpful information - an appropriate single link for the external links section. The article itself breaks down the content of the test, scoring, and other information pertinent to the test. Does not fail the single test available in WP:CORP, which is C1 under "products and services." The sole portion of WP:SPAM relevant is the first criterion, and I see no evidence of that. Are you certain that this is the article you wanted to nominate? Captainktainer * Talk 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. College Board is "a not-for-profit examination board" and not a commercial organization. The Advanced Placement Program has legitimate notability. It's not part of a for-profit corporation, but rather "a program that offers high school students the opportunity to receive university credit for their work during high school." Further arguments in favor of keeping are archived from the last time this came up for AfD. Granted, that's not a precedent saying it can't be nominated for AfD again -- but I think some valuable remarks were made in favor of keeping. I don't see that this violates WP:CORP or WP:SPAM. Scorpiondollprincess 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, I just spent the last 10 minutes registering on that site and looking around (after I got my verifing emil) and all I saw was junk and a bunch of advertisements and something trying to download a program on my computer. Plus bulletin boards with more ads. There was nothing informative in my field {psychology) but if people want that kind of thing on Wikipedia, then I withdrawn my nomination. KarenAnn 19:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this junk-ladened website is not The College Entrance Examination Board that provides standardised testing services (like entrance examinations to institutes of higher education. Don't confuse the two. This is some commerical copycat named company called College Board AP, which is piggy backing on the reputation of the College Entrance Examination Board (which would never have anything to do with a site like this). KarenAnn 19:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see that you have confused this site with The College Entrance Examination Board. That is what PsychologyAP has cleverly done - piggybacked on the reputable organization. Do some research on Google and find out what the The College Entrance Examination Board really is. It is not this site. KarenAnn 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KarenAnn 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So could you then provide a link to the real College Entrance Examination Board? All my Googling leads to collegeboard.com, whİch clearly claims to be the same organization as referred to as "College Entrance Examination Board". --LambiamTalk 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'll happily consider changing my position if this really is commercial spam. I'm afraid I'm still not seeing it, though. The first external link cited ( AP Psychology ) here is the same as the external link cited on College Board (where the first sentence says this College Board is the "College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB)"). When I Google "The College Entrance Examination Board" the first thing that comes up is "www.collegeboard.com/". Am I overlooking something? I'd definitely oppose WP:SPAM, but the external link I'm seeing at AP Psychology seems to be the legitimate thing. Scorpiondollprincess 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep AP Psychology is part of the well-known AP curriculum offered in high schools throughout the country. I looked at the article and don't understand the nominator's complaint about commercialism. NawlinWiki 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is part of a very notable educational system. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - O.K. This is the truly obnoxious site I register for Course-Note.org which is the last link at the bottom of the page. The other link CollegeBoard.org seems reasonable. If the last link were removed Course-Note.org it would be a big improvement. I just want Wikipedia to be a class act. But as I said before, I withdrawn my nomination if that is what is wanted. KarenAnn 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Yep, that was a spamlink, and I have deleted it, along with similar spamlinks in four other AP subject articles. KarenAnn, do we still need this afd? NawlinWiki 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response No, we don't. I withdraw the afd. I'm not interested in deleting articles that people want. KarenAnn 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really looks like a speedy keep anyway. --LambiamTalk 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep AP Psychology is one of the most well-known of the AP courses (at least to the extent of my knowledge). Isn't it much more plausible if you remove the offending links instead of deleting the entire article? --physicq210 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable, remove the spam. RFerreira
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Kelm[edit]

non-notable professor Eusebeus 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of notability and no sources attesting to notability. BlueValour 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assertion of notability is made in the original article (excavated Timnah). See also Amihai Mazar, LMLK seal, and Tel Batash. On Amazon, see the 1995 book,Timnah: A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley; the book was reviewed in the following publications: Journal of the American Oriental Society 118.3 (July 1998): p440(1); Journal of Biblical Literature 117.2 (Summer 1998): p339(3); The Catholic Biblical Quarterly v59.n2 (April 1997): pp352(2); and the Biblical Archaeologist v59.n4 (Dec 1996): pp246(1). As expedition director Kelm published final reports for the Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem: in 1997 for Timnah (Tel Batash), and further finds in 2001. [35] Also articles like: "Escape to Conflict: A Biblical and Archaeological Approach to the Hebrew Exodus and Settlement in Canaan". Biblical Archaeology Review. 18.6 (November/December 1992), 8, 10; Kelm, George L, Mazar, Amihai. "Three Seasons of Excavations at Tel Batash—Biblical Timnah," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 248 (1982): 29-32. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prof. Kelm will always be an important figure in the history of Biblical archaeology for having been co-director at Tel Batash.--Funhistory 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like he passes WP:PROF. Paddles TC 13:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another inappropriate nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the addition of the publications this is now a clear keep. BlueValour 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a clear keep without the publications. You don't get to be Professor Emeritus of Archaeology without having published something. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph N. Hall[edit]

Non notable person. I certainly have nothing against User:Joe n bloe, but I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia. --Ktdreyer 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article created by its subject. Hall wrote a highly regarded book Effective Perl Programming. I am happy with the article on the book being on here but don't feel the guy himself is notable enough. BlueValour 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on what I find, this subject does not satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above. Paddles TC 13:20, 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 all. I will userfy the content for User:MisfitToys before deleting. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Libertarian Party[edit]

Violates WP:NOR, WP:POV and they are unencyclopedic lists with little objective criteria. Who is a “celebrity” and what constitutes a “link” is largely subjective and gives rise to a serious POV problem. While some “celebrities” may be easily “linked” to a party (i.e. performed a benefit concert), there are serious problems verifying who ought to be on this list, short of checking their wallets for party membership cards or spying on them in the ballot booth. More or less listcruft. Technical nomination based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada. --Ardenn 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Too difficult to provide verifiable proof of party membership and too subjective to establish "celebrity" status. Scorpiondollprincess 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per me per nom, especially given that the reason given here is exactly the same reason I nominated four similar articles on "celebrity links" to Canadian parties. Agent 86 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these pages are really not necessary and speculative. Cuñado - Talk 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for vagueness. Gazpacho 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --NeoChaosX 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given by the nom. 23skidoo 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Noting a subject's ties to a particular party or philosophy is certainly welcome on his/her page, but lists like these cause all sorts of problems and are overpoweringly difficult to keep in line with WP policy requirements. -- H·G (words/works) 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Usgnus 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; vague and unencyclopedic listcruft. It's perfectly valid to discuss a celebrity's political views on their article, but a list is pretty pointless and doesn't give much context in cases of dispute (such as, say, a celebrity who's supported different parties at different times based on the political circumstances of the day, which definitely happens — for example, David Letterman is a prominent example of someone who's gone on record as saying that he's voted both Democrat and Republican at different times.) Bearcat 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per above.--Jersey Devil 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Bearcat; I've long wondered about these articles, having once considered undertaking to clean up and source each (with, to be sure, an eye toward objective standards), but have concluded that, even as it's often possible to source names (notwithstanding that, as Bearcat well notes, many individuals could appear on both lists), it's eminently impossible (or at least inconsistent with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NOT) to determine who is a celebrity. Joe 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reason as the Canadian ones. -Royalguard11Talk 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete The lists provide interesting and useful information and should not be deleted. 12:51, 20 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.58.62 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all per nom, Scorpiondollprincess and Bearcat. Paddles TC 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply because the case made for deletion is so weak. The notion of celebrity is quite well-defined, and the articles on the Democrats and Republicans provide links as verification for everyone included. Also, both articles seem to have been through and survived this process before. The Bruce 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete* Great info, useful, helpful. Fun to look at! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny Drunky Gal (talk • contribs)
  • Keep & Improve Cite sources, build refs, mind policy guidance on biograhies of living persons. Poor content does not mean delete, it means improve... --Ssbohio 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete These lists provide very interesting information about a particular subject and should not be deleted, but enhanced to stay within Wikipedia policy guidelines. User:Jack C. Alexander 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC). Not a valid vote, sockpuppet. Ardenn 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC) *Do Not Delete There are no solid pieces of evidence to suggest that any of these articles violate Neutrual point of view or any other major Wikipedia policy, they certainly appear straight, fair and balanced and should not be deleted on those grounds. User:Mark Parchezzi 3 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Not a valid vote, sockpuppet. Ardenn 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.75.7.152.96 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone who said Delete Mad Jack 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles were started with the criteria that those listed be party members (based on either running for office, party activism or personal statement), but the titles were changed because contributors believed that was too restrictive and hard to verify. Now, of course, the attitude is the opposite – that the criteria should be more restrictive, and that party membership should be verified. I was never in favor of including individuals with more tenuous connections to the various parties, but other users believed that was a useful component of the lists. If decision is to delete, please userfy articles under my page to allow for data retrieval; these are reasonably old articles with substantial contribution histories. MisfitToys 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John da Cunha[edit]

These obituary articles are always tricky. The guy has obviously done some good things but he never made high court judge nor was actually in charge of a major project. Few Google hits, here. BlueValour 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - fair point but he was only an unqualified junior counsel and doesn't get a mention in the main article. BlueValour 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There had to have been hundreds, if not thousands, of junior counsels at Nuremberg, so I don't think that does it. The rest of the article shows a successful lawyer who rose to a judgeship. Based on Template:CourtsEnglandWales, I really can't tell whether High Court Judge, one step above a county judge, is a high enough level to make all its holders inherently notable. Perhaps someone more expert in British law could offer an opinion? Fan-1967 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this guy didn't make high court judge in any case. There is an even higher level called a Law Lord. Some high court judges are notable by means of chairing notable enquiries, writing books or presiding at notable trials but they are not notable in their own right.
  • IANAL but ... He was a Deputy High Court Judge, which I think means he was a Circuit Judge who on occasion deputised at the High Court. I would say that a High Court Judge is automatically notable but that a Circuit Judge is not. There are 17 High Court Judges in the Chancery Division, 64 in the Queen's Bench Division, 19 in the Family Division, and six in the Technology and Construction Court. Meanwhile there are hundreds of Circuit Judges. David | Talk 23:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh - an AFD! I am honoured that someone is reading my obit articles :) I refrained from writing an article on this chap in June, when an obit was published in The Times, but could not resist when The Daily Telegraph published one too. I agreed with User:Dbiv that a High Court judge should automatically qualify as notable (they are the top 100 or so judges in the UK, and all have been eminent lawyers), but this person was only a circuit judge - a more junior judge, of whom there must be many hundreds, most of whom are not very notable at all. (Yes, a deputy High Court judge is a more junior judge who occasionally sits as a High Court judge.) However, this particular person was involved in Nuremberg and other post-WWII war crimes trials (albeit in a junior capacity, like Anthony Marreco, who I also wrote up recently - I have no idea how many people were involved in the British delegation). He was also involved in detention without trial in Northern Ireland, a member of the Parole Board Appeals Tribunal and a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Just about enough, I would say, otherwise I would not have bothered. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ALoan, and thanks for that useful discussion of the issues. David | Talk 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's tons of stuff much more deserving of deletion. Williamb 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing techniques[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide to mountain climbing. It is not an indiscrimintory collection of information. It is not a soapbox. The article is not encyclopedic. Hbdragon88 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would tend to agree Hbdragon88. goofyheadedpunk 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, could you suggest a way of changing it to be acceptable and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines? Jshurak 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this article different to glossary of climbing terms? Is there anything to say in general about the techniques listed in Category:Climbing techniques that warrants an overview article distinct from climbing? Uncle G 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are definitions. This article is a how-to guide, something which (if I understand correctly) is generally not allowed. For instance, WP:CVG doesn't allow walkthroughs to be posted on video game articles because that is of no interest to the casual reader; interested and advanced players will go to GameFAQs or someplace else to get that info. I think that the same reasoning should apply here: okay to define some common terms, but not to actually give tips and a how-to. Hbdragon88 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the difference between this and a glossary of climbing terms is that these are terms that have to do with technique.
    • i.e. Belay Device will not appear in this article. Jshurak 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone not familiar with rock climbing terms would not know what to look for in the glossary of climbing terms.
    • Say someone needs to write an article on climbing techniques (for health class or a term paper or something like that), this person would essentially have to read every single definition in the glossary of climbing terms to find which pertain to techniques. Jshurak 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not a how-to guide to rock climbing.
    • A how-to rock climbing guide would include when to use these techniques(something which has been removed from here.)
    • A how-to might also include proper rope usage or how backstepping is very useful in conjunction with the side pull to reach a high hold. Jshurak 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this article I had the idea of a glossary in mind. Jshurak 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with glossary of climbing terms. A small amount of description of when a technique is used doesn't make this a HOWTO. A comment in American football explaining that people tend to punt in 4th-and-long doesn't turn that into a strategy guide... -- GWO

I don't think the most recent changes constitute techniques. They seem to be more forms or types of climbing. An overhang climb is not a really a technique as it is a type of route. I think the old page should be reinstituted. Jshurak 13:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect Climbing_technique could use improvement, but predates and is more encyclopediac than this one. Sanbeg 16:20, 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. On numerous occasions, community consensus has shown that the subject is not yet sufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver/2006-07-12, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver (3rd nomination), all of which resulted in deletion. This article should not be recreated unless and until it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. Editors are, of course, welcome to nominate for deletion any other article wherein the subject also does not meet this inclusion criteria. — Satori Son 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bitweaver[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Bitweaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Advertising; also note the page was previously deleted for this reason. See archived debate. Also, User:Lsces clearly states the user creating the article is a contributor to the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamminBen (talk • contribs) 2007-12-13 10:56:38

    Comment Historic material is no longer relevant. bitweaver is no more 'blatant advertising' than any other article connected to List_of_content_management_systems since there is *NO* commercial interest in this open source project, deleting it should also flag TikiWiki - on which the revised article is based so as NOT to fall foul of the content rules - and every other article on the same list page. MORE REALISTICALLY - the REAL commercial advertising should be pulled?

    The original article WAS modified and I see more KEEP in this list that delete anyway !!! Lsces (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, promotional, no independent sources. Yes, these rules apply equally to non-commercial projects; sorry you didn't find that out before creating the article. If TikiWiki is just as bad it should be deleted too. --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment ???'no independent sources' - independent links have been included. UNLIKE TikiWiki !!! Lsces (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The deletion review is for people to discuss Bitweaver. For the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't matter whether other articles are in violation of the rules. If you feel that strongly about TikiWiki, you need to raise it as a separate discussion under Articles for Deletion. JamminBen (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Over the last year or so I have been trying to USE wikipedia as the single reference for both historic and current information. This action is being hampered by the LACK of certain key elements when following links. TikiWiki is just one of a dozen links that already EXIST in wikipedia, my user page links to several more, and over the Christmas period I was hoping to spend some time tidying up several articles on my own web sites to ensure that linking is consistent. So are you telling me that for wikipedia to be consistent I should flag EVERY page that provides the same information as this one to be deleted simple so that wikipedia provides a consistent blinkered view of the world? I am having similar problems with PHPEclipse which is an essential part of the development of PHP projects using the Eclipse_(software) and predates the commercially backed PHP_Development_Tools project. SIMPLY killing pages in isolation is the problem here ESPECIALLY when those pages are needed to fill the gaps in the information provided by wikipedia? So rather than trying to HIDE historic material that someone does not like is isn't it more important to provide a complete independent view. If there is something in this article that is not independent PLEASE identify it so that it can be changed, and be consistent in supporting the rapidly changing history of software both commercially and open source. Lsces (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment All I am saying is that this debate is to discuss whether or not the Bitweaver article should be deleted. If you feel that TikiWiki should be deleted it belongs in a separate debate. It is not a question of whether people "like" (or "dislike") certain pages, if notability cannot be ascertained, the article risks being flagged for deletion. Plain and simple. You have stated your position, please let some other people come in and add their views. JamminBen (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have indented all of the comments so this debate is easier to follow. Lsces, you haven't voted yet. If you wish to vote, please state either Keep or Delete with a reason why - see Dhartung's comment above. If you have any further replies that are not a vote, please indent them correctly. Otherwise the debate is very difficult to follow. JamminBen (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I say kill it. Why bother continuing to try to put meaningful information into Wikipedia, when it's policies a) are not evenly applied and b) make no rational sense in the context of its own structure much less the real world. Better to let it go on with gaps and dead ends in information, when google will likely be happy to host the information at their Knol project. Answering a critique of an inconsistently applied policy by suggesting to take up the matter on a case by case basis (that would only result in more irrational deletions) is a pathetic evasive response. In addition, this "independent sources" requirement has no rational basis. Here you are moving to delete documentation of an open source non-commercial project, meanwhile corporations which own any number of media outlets can have any sort of information qualify for publication on wikipedia simply by having that information published in their own subsidiary. Great policy, that really works. Please tell me to take it up with central command at wikipedia. That will really help. Disclosure, I am a bitweaver contributor but putting up this page again was not my idea and i think we're just wasting our time with these people. User:wjames
    Wjames, you got the point. Why to loose time with wikipedia fights. Bitweaver should only be for those, who deserve it! ;)--Kozuch (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep For all the reasons stated above including the fact that independent sources HAVE been included in the article - as requested - and additional independent sources have now been added Lsces (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a user of bitweaver and want to keep this page.--Kozuch (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete with knife. Punkmorten 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Roselli Knives[edit]

    Promotional for Roselli Knifes with link to his website and link to an enthusiastic review. Advertising. KarenAnn 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
     Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Paddles TC 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete per nom, although Kaustuv's cleanup, it should be noted, improved the article dramatically, such that it now conforms to WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and, I suppose, WP:RS. Various Google searches ([36], [37], [38]) yield divergent results, but most relevant returns appear to be to commerical websites; whilst the fact of such returns doesn't categorically dispose the question, it presents WP:V concerns and evidences a lack of notability. Joe 03:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:43, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zatch Bell! Saga Event List[edit]

    A completely unnecessary page for the Zatch Bell series. Sufficient information is available in the character articles without having a page with blow-by-blow events of the anime. Plus, the creator has a history of messing with the formatting of other Zatch Bell articles. I vote delete. Danny Lilithborne 19:47, 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 and protect from re-creation. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Terminator 4[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This movie doesn't even have an IMDB profile (the link provided is not T4). EVula 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Previous AfDs:

    1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination)
    3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (3rd nomination)
    4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (4th nomination)

    I'd recommend we put some tag on the talk page about how it should not be recreated until such time that there is substantial evidence that it will actually be made. EVula 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support this suggestion. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - have speedy tagged with request for namespace protection. BlueValour 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - speedy and protection - sorted. BlueValour 20:12, 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 to bomb it. Punkmorten 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Z-Bomb[edit]

    Probable hoax, nothing on Google for Z-Bomb virus; looks like someone's joke website. NawlinWiki 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as outright hoax. The file extension of this supposed virus is ".pwn". I think that says enough. ~ Matticus78 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional a little digging around with a hex editor reveals the "virus" file on the website is in fact a .zip file containing a few short text files ("Welcome to the Z-Bomb. Can you find the three secret messages?"), and an assortment of further nested .zip files, which ultimately contain a load of larger (7Mb) files containing the letter "z" over and over again in plaintext. A load of timewasting rot, in other words. ~ Matticus78 20:37, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kjs mum[edit]

    Article is about a non-notable comedy show on MySpace. Getting tired of replacing the deletion tag I put on the article that is removed by the author, so sending to AfD Wildthing61476 20:03, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ladedaism[edit]

    Unsourced joke "philosophy" that I can't believe has stayed on WP for over a year. NawlinWiki 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Guess the occasional one slips through the net, then doesn't get unearthed for a year because nobody searches for it and it links to nothing else. Ah well. ~ Matticus78 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:V. No sources. Probably WP:HOAX or at least WP:OR. Scorpiondollprincess 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, good catch! At the same time I will recommend people to check out Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, which contains many garbageous "articles". Punkmorten 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention plenty of articles in need of wikifying and other attention (I just now overhauled a decent but unformatted and uncategorised article I found there). ~ Matticus78 21:51, 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 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Misha Henckel[edit]

    nn figure, verging on vanity page Eusebeus 20:47, 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) 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Samurai Edge[edit]

    This was prodded, but user REexpert44 (talk · contribs) deprodded it with the comment "its a good article keep it...", so...

    This is wholly unencyclopedic plot summary, written from the (in-universe) perspective of a fictional custom pistol. The article fails to give any reason why this pistol is particularly important, and it's not really an important plot device in Resident Evil 3 (which is the only game I've played in which it appears). I don't see how this is encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be made encyclopedic or how any article could benefit from a merge.

    Bonus problem: the article fails to mention what games it's talking about, other than mentioning the Resident Evil series (with its dozen-plus games) as a whole in the first sentence.

    There is relevant precedent in this AFD, in which two lists of weapons from the same game series were deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This item appears in Resident Evil: REmake, Resident Evil Zero and Resident Evil: Nemesis. The term "Samurai Edge" does not define the weapon to readers and must be elaborated. The glossary decription is far too brief and narrow, not to mention wrong. We shouldn't make articles for every weapon in every RE game, but this weapon is a staple piece. Information mentioned above by MIB is already available in the main article from which the Samurai Edge article branches and the addition of said information would merely be a repeated effort. A merge would be appropriate, however, this is impossible as all viable pages have been deleted. Gamer Junkie 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This info is already available elsewhere. We don't need endless retellings of every game's plot from the perspective of every single character, place, and object. This is just a retelling of a tiny portion of a few games' plots from the perspective of a fictional firearm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The glossary entry being incorrect is evidence that it should be corrected, not that the Samurai Edge article should remain on Wikipedia. EVula 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per page being a duplicate of information elsewhere. Whispering 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fancruft gone wild. If the glossary definition is wrong, correct it. The trivia comparing it to real weapons is just that, trivia. It's a fictional gun. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per reasons explained in nomination. Crazysunshine 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of famous hotels[edit]

    I'm proposing that we delete this article as an unmanageable hopeless spam magnet. The whole idea of having a list of famous hotels is inherently both problematic in terms of neutrality and of verifiability. Just today I've removed an entry of a hotel to be built in Kuwait! There already exists a Category:Hotels which should be able to play this role. I recently proposed some guidelines for the notability of hotels which have not yet generated enough feedback for me to claim that they represent any kind of consensus but per AfD precedents hotels that have no claim of notability beyond their actual touristic purpose should only find a place on Wikitravel so the ones that end up with articles (and hence in the category) should be famous at least in some reasonnable sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs)

    • Delete. There is no article on Famous hotels, because Famous hotels is not an encyclopedic topic; in general there should not be a "list of X" if there is no article on X. There are no criteria for inclusion. No references are cited at all, and almost none of the entries say anything to indicate that the hotel is actually famous. This list does nothing that would not be done better by a category. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. Inherently flawed, entirely lacking in objectivity, clearly contrary to WP:V and WP:POV. Agent 86 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "Fame" is entirely too subjective and volatile. AdamBiswanger1 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I think there is some hope of being able to write down reasonable criteria for "fame", but until that's done, there shouldn't be a list like this. Any standard of "fame" should be considerably higher than "notability". Also see discussion on talk page. Phr (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete violates WP:NPOV on its face. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thanks to whoever it was that signed my unsigned nomination. Also I want to point out that while this debate is going on, I will go through the list and create articles for hotels that have a legit clame to fame but do not currently have their article, such as Hoshi Ryokan. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update on comment A few articles need to be created to replace the lost content from the possible deletion. For some reason, the japanese hotels on the list seem to have an above average verifiable notability. I'll turn the links blue as I go along. Please feel free to help! Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 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 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Red patange[edit]

    I have this one pegged as a hoax. Ghits showed no other entries besides WP, a search of "Patange" and "Disease" did come up with an author and expert on dermatoses called DV Petange! Articles on fishing, including the entry for Roosterfish didn't mention anything relevant to a skin disease. So, I am listing here in case there is an expert in the house. --Richhoncho 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I am not an expert on the subject, however, I've tried to find holes within the posting. It appears that the University of Rozbierać and Artiz Graaf don't actually exist from what I can tell. It looks like that this is a pre-Satchel Cohen hoaxer edit. Of course, I could be very wrong, but it appears to be a hoax. Yanksox 21:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I've found Rozbierać it's a Polish verb for undress, [[39]] I think this article is well and truly "uncovered" as a hoax. --Richhoncho 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; hoax. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No such disease - it's a hoax. Cybergoth 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete. Google shows nothing for Treponema sanctifii or Pez gallo sickness.--Anchoress 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete soon before it gives us whealts. --JWSchmidt 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete. Bogus. "Patange" is not a disease appearing in medical literature; try www.pubmed.gov if you'd like to check. - Nunh-huh 08:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nothing on the World Health Organization's site either, even though it was mentioned prominently in the article. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete hoax. --Kjoonlee 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiki Carter[edit]

    WP:BIO WP:BAND Zero hits in GraceNote and IMDB. 55 in Google. John Nagle 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Article was used as a basis for notability for the band article Dancing Light, which was deleted per AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Light. (That article was then re-created, deleted again, and is currently protected against re-creation.) The subject of the article may be locally notable in the Gainsville/Tampa FL. area. --John Nagle 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentSources are being added as per the original notices request. Please review the sources as they are added. Every citation was either written about Kiki Carter, written by Kiki Carter or mentions Kiki Carter in the article. It is an exhaustive list to add, and am still entering citations. Am new to Wikipedia, hope I am doing this correctly Do not believe this belongs in the WP:BAND category as subject is equally if not better known for her activism. Subject has appeared in the national media as an activist (Good Morning America,national publications, radio, etc.) and local and regional media as a musician. So not sure which category this would fall in and your help would be appreciated. --Eaglefeather11 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources should be linked, so they can be verified. It would also be better to remove duplicate links (i.e. many links to Gainesville, FL, and repeated links to same few Wiki articles about various newspapers). Would also be better if claims about notability weren't buried under so many minute details. Sanbeg 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Weak Keep and clean up if the bit about being a whistleblower in the 80s can be verified and cited following WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not sure the references list at the bottom works as it is; new editors may want to refer to WP:CITE for help on this. (A sample tip--your best bet will be third-party sources; articles by the subject may deserve listing under "External Links" but don't meet WP:RS standards for sources.) Also refer to the WP Manual of Style. -- H·G (words/works) 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment have been working to better reference & support notability. Using a footnote style. Eaglefeather11 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, This is all I'm going to do for now with the possible addition of some other references. If you decide to keep the article, great, maybe I'll work on it a little more after that decision is made. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this article. Hope I have addressed the issues presented on this discussion page. Eaglefeather11 14:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, appears to have plenty of coverage. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Seems to be notable in parts of Florida; is that enough?--Runcorn 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Sort of maybe locally notable. --John Nagle 20:47, 19 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, the following is quoted from Wikipedia:Notability (people) "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." including: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage" and "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Article also meets Verifiability test and Expandability test. Eaglefeather11 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, I don't understand the problem here. This person has a significant amount of press coverage. Since it falls within Wikipedia guidelines for notability, it should be kept. Lentupuru 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Seems to well exceed Wikipedia criteria, looks like a keeper. Indigirl 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please person is notable no need to erase this one Yuckfoo 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Japanese observations of American Isolationism before at 1941[edit]

    Original research, nearly incomprehensible, and too narrow a topic anyway. NawlinWiki 21:38, 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 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Someplacesomewhere[edit]

    Prod and Prod2 removed by creator. Advert for non-notable web forum. Google hits (about 200) almost all from website itself and a few from non-notable forums. Fails WP:WEB. KarenAnn 22:07, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Teeny Weeny, the Tiniest Hot Dog in the World[edit]

    Article is not very encyclopedic, nor does it provide any deal of information. -- Wikipedical 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - AfD is not cleanup. OK, the article needs work. But it's not in violation of any policy. You should withdraw your nom, this should be speedily kept, and next time, just spend the time it took drawing up this AfD to do some editing on the article instead. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Cleanup can include AfD even in the absence of a 'policy violation' - the point being that, sometimes, an article cannot be sufficiently encyclopaedic to warrant inclusion. This article falls in to that latter category, IMHO. Eddie.willers 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Published in a widely published and circulated magazine, so meets notability standards. Information seems to be sufficiently provided. And people's ideas of what is and is not encyclopedic widely vary. This shouldn't be penalized for not having WikiProject Teeny Weeny editors ready to come in and overwhelmingly vote 'keep.' ;-) — Mike 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy, and Teeny weeny Keep - Comic in widely read magazine. of course keep, or merge into Nickelodeon Magazine. andrew 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep and hope that the article will be improved. Matchups 20:14, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homogeneity[edit]

    This article seems to be totally unintelligible to some mathematically astute WP editors, I have serious concerns about the history of edits of this article (some major contributions by 'Cruise' or 'David Cruise' and links to external sites which mention 'D. Krus') In its current state, the article is quite possibly OR, and fails to give any sensible definitions of the concepts it claims to be about. Madmath789 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional keep I'm not an advanced math guy, but the history suggests that this has been taken seriously by a number of editors and expanded. It would be good to get a statistics expert to take a peek at it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete it sounds like an application of Homogeneous space to stat but my statistics classes weren't that good and they were a while ago now. --Pboyd04 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have moved the material that WAS at homogeneous to homogeneity and redirected homogeneous to homogeneity, and moved what WAS at homogeneity to homogeneity (statistics) and added a cleanup tag. That that is how the material should be apportioned among the article titles is obviously required by simple common sense. So a question arises: Should this AFD tag be put on homogeneity (statistics)? I've only superficially glanced at the material; it appears to be one of those things used in statistics applied to psychology that are better-known among statisticians in psychology departments than anyone else. More later... Michael Hardy 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confused issue Hmm - I think that has somewhat muddied the waters, and I am not sure that moving an article in the middle of an AfD discussion was best thing to do. The material which I think is utter gobble-de-gook, and which caused the original AfD is now at: homogeneity (statistics). I am a reasonably competent mathematician, and have taught statistics for many years, but this article seems to be almost meaningless pseudo-maths, and has already been described by other editors of maths articles as "whacky" and "... like abracadabra ... ". What is the next step? should I tag homogeneity (statistics) as AfD? Madmath789 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment probably simplest to withdraw this AfD and start a new one for homogeneity (statistics). The two current votes could be copied across. I generally agrees with Hardy that Homogeneity should be a disambig page or a redirect to one. --Salix alba (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep following discussion here and on my talk page it seemed simplest to withdraw this AfD and list a new one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogeneity (statistics). The current content of Homogeneity is now an uncrotriversal disambig page. --Salix alba (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep This is now a sensible page - All the questionable material is now covered by a new AfD. Madmath789 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, although I'm not sure it's speedy, as there are a number of non-withdrawn delete votes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I believe the non-withdrawn votes were for the previous version of this page - which was moved to homogeneity (statistics) - maybe the votes should have been moved to the new AfD, since they are not really applicable to the new (and sensible) homogeneity article? Madmath789 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep the new disambiguation. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedily deleted by CambridgeBayWeather as a repost. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Innit[edit]

    Nothing more than a slang dictdef, if that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete - it was reposted and deleted twice before. I'll go add a speedy tag. Fabricationary 22:32, 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 22:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of characters in Super Smash Bros.[edit]

    Redundant, all info contained in the main page for Smash Bros. (I merged them already). Nick 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. There's no point in separating this list from the Super Smash Bros. article -- it's not like that one is so long or complex that the list is in any way detrimental or something. -- Captain Disdain 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This content shouldn't be in a separate article. Thanks Kangaru99 for merging. --Ktdreyer 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close as a redirect or merge page history. If the articles were merged, the original page history can't be deleted per GFDL. -- NORTH talk 21:30, 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 Redirect to Tony Hawk's Project 8 with a proper apostrophe ('), not a quotation mark (’). - Bobet 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Hawk’s Project 8[edit]

    reads like advertising text, and it's about something that doesn't exist yet. wikipediatrix 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *Ludicrously strong keep and clean up The game, while perhaps not having an official title, certainly exists. The game was announced at E3, and if you go to any video game web site, you'll find a preview from said show, not to mentions screenshots and videos. The article is certainly terrible, but as with any article, that can be fixed. -- Kicking222 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ludicrously strong redirect (speedy redirect?) per Capt. Disdain, although I'm not completely sure how the article titles are different. Either way, this should just go to the non-suck article. -- Kicking222 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It took me a moment to figure that out, too. The secret's in the apostrophe -- the real article has a " ' ", whereas the crappy one has a " ’ ". If you look very carefully (you may need to increase your font size...), you can see the difference. Wikipedia doesn't differentiate between the two. (It's more than little unlikely that someone would go through the trouble of using the wrong one as a search term, since I'd imagine that most keyboard setups spit out the real one by default, but what the hell, redirects are cheap.) -- Captain Disdain 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er. I meant to say that Wikipedia does differentiate between the two, obviously. Brain fart. Sorry about that. -- Captain Disdain 16:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant Keep these stupid games just keep coming don't they. Gamespot article here [40]. --Pboyd04 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. That's like saying every article about a product that isn't out yet should be deleted. This article just needs to be cleaned up. TJ Spyke 04:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Tony Hawk's Project 8. This article is just a pretty awful version of the real thing. (Also, I don't think it reads like advertising text, actually. Not unless quality standards of advertising text have just disappeared when I wasn't looking. I mean, "The game apparently (this hasnt been released but from trustable sources) is about Tony Hawk[.]" Ad copy editors all over the world probably go into convulsions looking at that...) -- Captain Disdain 07:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Tony Hawk's Project 8. I have no idea how this (the weird punctuation thing) happened, but since it happened, we might as well redirect it so it doesn't happen again. -- NORTH talk 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverse redirect Since an admin will probably close this anyway, we may as well get this right and use the version with the apostrophe.--Chaser T 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WHAT THE WORLD TEACH[edit]

    Reposted content that was deleted in accordance to the deletion policy. Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete. Deletion logs show this was previously deleted twice today alone, under WP:CSD#A1 and under WP:CSD#G1. As far as I can tell, it still has both of those problems, and shows no promise of improvement. However, I don't think this needs to be here, it was already nominated for DB before nominated for AfD. -- H·G (words/works) 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as above -- Alias Flood 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:03, 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 Deleted. Esteffect 01:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indalian[edit]

    Neologism worthy of speedy delete. However, a PROD tag was removed and so here we are. ImpuMozhi 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete. Per above. Neologism, google does not even recognize the term. ImpuMozhi 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Neologism -- Alias Flood 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete nn neologism.--Jersey Devil 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep There are at least three (3) known Indalians at Yale. Therefore, there will someday, within the relatively near future, be an Indalian president. And I promise you, when President Bhargava takes office, she will not forget this insult. You will not even get daily meals at the northernmost prison camp in Siberia. It's not too late--change your vote and the Indalian president will show you mercy. AdamSolomon 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: This is surely a joke? Please do not confound the vote here. ImpuMozhi 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete nn notable unverifiable neologism.--Ávril ʃáη 18:31, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    McGill First Year Committee of Council[edit]

    Non-notable organization at McGill University. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimnate collection of information. Ardenn 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete or Merge and Redirect - As someone who is heavily involved with SSMU and McGill politics in general, I can tell you that FYCC is entirely non-notable for its own page. It is a committeee of SSMU, and has no claim to notability outside of that. If anything, FYCC merits a mention in the SSMU article, but certainly not its own page. My guess is this is a vanity by someone on the exec, either way, totally NN - 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm_shef (talk • contribs)
    • Delete per nom. Probably should also delete SSMU for the same reasons. Kidbrother 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete per nom (verges on speedy per {{db-club}} - A7). Agent 86 00:37, 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. - brenneman {L} 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverse Cunningham[edit]

    The text and the premise are rampant violations of WP:OR. Since an official set-in-stone definition of this contrived made-up neologism can never be conclusively proven in any reference work, it's a dumping ground for anyone to stick any info they feel might belong there (however tenuously). wikipediatrix 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as neologism and WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, 15 unique Ghits, none of which were relevant. Bollocks indeed. -- H·G (words/works) 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either rename or merge back into the original Chuck Cunningham syndrome article, where no one ever had a problem with it although that article was getting too long. Since this sort of thing happens with TV shows all the time, I think it's relevant and encyclopedic in some way.

    I have some good faith problems with this nomination. Wikipediatrix has been engaged in a heated argument on the Chuck Cunningham syndrome talk page, arguing that no one knows what it is (although 13,000 Google hits would seem to demonstrate otherwise) and that therefore it should be renamed (despite no good alternatives being available). Is this nomination just a way of trying to gain some advantage there? There are a few other descendant articles (Lazarus Cunningham) whose titles might need work but don't really fit in to the main CCS article; I don't see though that they merit deletion. I really wonder if Wikipediatrix is trying to get the whole thing deleted; his her rather abusive language (either "contrived" or "made-up" would make the point alone) in the nomination tends to suggest that.

    I don't see how this "definition" can never be proven (and how do you "prove" a definition anyway?): A character is suddenly introduced into a TV series without explanation, yet treated as if he or she has always been part of it. Is it any less clear-cut? Any fan of Space:1999 can't argue that's not what happened with Tony Verdeschi, and didn't happen with Maya. Ditto with Sondra Huxtable. I am not familiar with many of the other shows listed, but assuming the information given is correct it meets the definition. I really have no idea what Wikipediatrix is talking about when he she says it would be a dumping ground for any information anyone wants to put there, or even what he she could be talking about.

    I really think both of the above editors might want to reconsider their votes. Daniel Case 18:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, Wikipediatrix is a "she". My error. Daniel Case 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your speculation on my motives is not only wrong but unnecessary.
    Trying to pre-emptively forestall debate here will not help your argument. I really think you should defer to other editors as to what your motives might be because you cannot be an impartial observer of your own behavior.
    I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the fundamental WP:OR problem of the article speaks for itself. I have never made it a secret that I oppose all of these articles you speak of, and others like Lazarus Cunningham and Cousin Oliver, all for the same reason: these articles begin with a contrived TV-show-related concept that is based on making an Original Research observation about a TV show, and then, like some sort of a parlor game, readers try and think of TV shows that (supposedly) fit the pattern described by this non-existent "syndrome". Since there can be no true fixed definition of these "syndromes" to turn to in matters of dispute, the article will endlessly be a dumping ground for junk data, opinions, fancruft on a colossal scale, and WP:OR. I'm sorry you say you don't understand what I mean by that, but I've stated it in the plainest English I know. wikipediatrix 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OR shmo-R. The fact that there are or will be potential problems with an article should not deter us from including them if they are notable enough to be discussed among television fans. Articles about individual secondary schools are vandalism magnets; we include them anyway. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider the virtual certainty that if you somehow succeed in getting all these deleted, and win us all over to your side and we never speak of this again, it will be recreated by some well-meaning new editor, and then you'll propose it for deletion again, and then it'll be protected and we look foolish. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There can indeed be ... we wouldn't have jump the shark by your standards if Jon Hein hadn't written a book and started a website where most of that fancruft can be hashed out (and that's a much more nebulous definition than these, IMO).
    Do not insult my intelligence by pompously claiming I don't understand you. I do realize encountering actual counterarguments can be troublesome. If you're upset that this little discussion has increased the likelihood that this will result in "no consensus" and the article will be kept, then I'm sorry. But what you're doing feels far too much like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me.
    Perhaps your energies would be better spent creating websites devoted to these phenomena so that we could have independent sources and better places for the OR. Daniel Case 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I have just now restored my post after you inserted your own text into my own, which made it difficult for others to discern which comments were mine, since you left floating pieces of my comments unattributed. Please do not alter my discussion page posts. wikipediatrix 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I signed all my insertions, I don't see how it was that difficult to distinguish what was mine and what was yours. If you really felt it was that difficult for others to do so, you could have added indications that the post was yours. I responded separately since you raised multiple arguments and I wanted to make it clear what I was responding to so that further dsicussions and comments, especially if others want to add something, do not require jumping around the page and creating confusion.
    Needlessly playing the victim does not help your case. Daniel Case 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's stick to the point. I don't see that there is any element of OR to this article - it merely describes a known phenomenon. I can also make no sense of the objection that the definition cannot be "proven" - in fact this is a bit like complaining that there's no OR! The same could be said of any article about non-empirical phenomena (there is no "proof" of a definition of Google_bomb for example, but it's a valid article). It's also quite clear what the term does and doesn't describe, so I don't see how it can be a dumping ground for irrelevant information.

    I couldn't rightly say for sure that it's not a neologism though. - do

    Who are you? Please sign your post. And in response: Google Bombs have been the subject of hundreds of articles in news media such as Slate, CNN, Wired, MSNBC, etc. Find me a CNN story about "Reverse Cunningham". I dare you. wikipediatrix 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep or, alternatively, merge with the Cunningham article. I'm not sure how the originator of this RFD defines "original research", but the term "reverse Chuck Cunningham" and/or "Chuck Cunningham syndrom in reverse" appears on number of other reference sites, including answers.com, reference.com, about.com, and jumptheshark.com. Wikipedia is certainly not the first, much less only, place where this type of continuity problem is discussed. Kutulu 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge with the Cunningham article. If the Chuck Cunningham syndrome is original research, how is it that most of TV-watching Western world knows what it is or understands what the term implies after ten seconds of explanation? And if the Chuck Cunningham syndrome is valid, then what else do call its reverse except Reverse Cunningham syndrome? proteus71 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a connection between original research and a reader's ability to understand something after having it explained to them. I think if I made up a bogus "syndrome" article called Fried Bacon syndrome and applied it to any TV show where characters ate bacon, the average reader would understand that too. But that doesn't mean that my "syndrome" had any validity. Even if my "syndrome" became a popular meme and people started mentioning it in their blogs, that still doesn't make Fried Bacon syndrome any more real. Nor would it automatically infer any validity to anyone who made up Reverse Fried Bacon syndrome one day in school. wikipediatrix 15:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you created Fried Bacon syndrome and applied it to any TV show where characters ate bacon, you would find three things occuring: your contributions to Wikipedia on the subject would be deleted without discussion, you would find that people looked at you funny whenever you brought it up in conversation, and you would find that people would go out of their way not to talk to you. I don't mean anything personal by this — this is just what happens when you start talking about a topic that those around you do not believe exists. I've seen it happen when someone brings up ghosts, bigfoot, Scientology, etc., in a group that is not even remotely well disposed to these subjects. To make up a syndrome based on a false observation would produce similar results. You cannot spontaneously create a concept on an arbitrary basis and expect the culture to agree with you as if they were sheep. However, if you applied a logical (or at least catchy) name to something that everyone knows exists if only in vague terms, then there is a chance that the name might stick. The Chuck Cunningham Syndrome (CCS) existed as a name & concept before it appeared as an article in Wikipedia to desribe phenomena that likewise existed before Wikipedia. It has at least one major variation, a reversal, with examples found throughout decades of television history. The article on the subject contains none of the chaos that would ensue if a cabal of contributors had faked up a concept and tried to shoe-horn it into Wikipedia through falsification and brute force. Clearly, Reverse CSS exists just as CSS exists. Maybe it's the name that rubs you the wrong way. If you have another way to describe the phenomena in a manner that you think better adheres to WP:NOR, please let us know. I am against this information being deleted, but I am not against it being renamed or rewritten. proteus71 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For this to remain a Wikipedia article, the term "Reverse Cunningham" must actually be used by a WP:RS (unlikely, but not impossible), or very obviously prevalent on the web. (If another term is also used, then a descriptive term might be used for the name of the article, and "Reverse Cunningham" might redirect to it. I don't think this particular term is even used among serial drama fans; but, even if it were, a redirect to CCS or whereever it ends up would be appropriate.) Furthermore, the content of the article (at the time of nomination) consisted primarily of a list of examples, which is clearly WP:OR.
    I can see your point for merging. In fact, I think it's a good idea. However, the reason WP:NOR exists is to prevent single, isolated opinions from being represented as fact. Now, consider the case where someone writes a book and claims, "I had a private meeting with the late such-and-such celebrity or political figure. No one else was present." Because of this person's credentials, his or her book gets printed; so, we have what WP considers a reliable source even though we have only the word of the author. Compare that situation to this, where several thousand independent witnesses watch the same TV show and note that some new character is being treated as if he or she had been around from the beginning when this was not the case. How exactly is this original research in the sense that it is an isolated opinion? Are not several thousand independent witnesses better than a single witness, whether or not he or she can get a book published? (And we are talking about independent witnesses, not members of a cabal attempting to rewrite history.)
    WP:NOR exists to stop people from writing about controversial subjects as fact or their own personal theories as truth. The "policy in a nutshell" states:
    • Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.
    CCS is all over the web. Since RCCS is not, your point to merge the two articles is well taken. However, RCCS is a subtype of an existing concept, so with a little rewriting (calling it "a type of reverse Chuck Cunningham Syndrome", for example), there should be no problem.
    • Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
    No position is being advanced, and noting that a TV show has introduced a new character as a previously existing character is merely stating the obvious. It is not taking idea A and idea B and synthesizing them into idea C. Providing an obvious, conspicuous example of a concept does not constitute original thought. I also searched WP:NOR for admonitions against lists or lists of examples and didn't find them. Could you point me to the clause you're referring to?
    proteus71 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WPVI-TV Personalities[edit]

    Was large and hard to manage, pared it down to current list, but it is now redundant with WPVI-TV. Most other TV stations have lists of their personalities on the main page and I basically did this and created the individual articles. Pressure Thirteen 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete You seemed to have come up with an elegant solution and one that gives some unity to the televison articles! It makes more sense if everyone gets the article on the station page and has links to the individual bios. The old page was a bit clunky to maintain! Kramden4700 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Was always list-cruft and since all the names with links to bios are on the main WPVI-TV page it makes that more encyclopedic and really cleans things up. This page is now redundant. Wrath of Roth 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This AfD is related to the AfDs for WCAU Personalities and KYW-TV Personalities. Tinlinkin 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert/merge non-notable biographies (My discussion also applies for KYW-TV Personalities and WCAU Personalities.) While you think your life would be easier separating the various people from the personalities page, instead, it may get worse if this AfD goes through. What Pressure Thirteen has done is broken up split the page into its constituent people. The trouble is some of those people are currently not notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. Those articles may be ripe for deletion, perhaps even speedy deletion for vanity. For example, Amy Freeze (which I picked out at random) is a meteorologist. Sure, she is one of 20 women in the world to be a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist. But her article could be thrown out because it might be construed as vanity. (This doesn't mean that I support deleting the article, and I will not AfD it.) If she ends up being deleted, I bet you'll regret breaking up the original article.
    Most reporters are even lower on the totem pole of notability. People such as Lu Ann Cahn, Steve Bucci, Drew Levinson, and John Rawlins (reporter). Nothing against them, (and again I will not suport deletion before this AfD is closed) but those articles do not assert notability, and you are more likely to battle AfDs for these kinds of articles (collectively or individually) IMHO. Even if they are stubbed, I feel they will not achieve notability to be sufficient as bios.
    I am from New York City, and my comparable TV stations to the Philly stations are WABC-TV, WNBC, WCBS-TV, and WNYW among others. When you see those articles, and other stations for other major markets, there are many redlinks for reporters, sports reporters, anchors, and meteorologists. For WABC-TV, Scott Clark, Sarah Wallace, Bill Evans, and Steve Bartelstein have been with that station for a long time and contributed a lot, but they don't have articles yet. It's not that the articles can't be created, but no one has come up with an assertion of notability on these people yet. I am not an expert on the TV news industry, and I would not want to be responsible for creating those articles, especially if the source is from the station's website. (This is also a reminder of copyvios.)
    "Hard to manage" and "clunky to maintain" are rather weak excuses for deleting this article. I don't think there is another alternative to this article, and merging it into the parent (in this case, WPVI-TV) would be counterproductive. The article serves a purpose. Perhaps you may have trouble with its format, maybe you need to become familiar with the Wikipedia interface, I don't know. But from what I've seen in the past edits, the article structure actually seemed to do well.
    I suggest most notable anchors would be deserving of their own article. The others (reporters, sports anchors, meteorologists, etc.) have to be on a feel-by basis for separate articles, but they would be appropriate for this personalities page, which is separate from the station article.
    Here is example of this page before it was divided. Tinlinkin 10:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert/merge non-notable biographies as per above Tazz765 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a suggestion: Eliminate this article, as "Personalities" really is an inaccurate description and degrades the fact they the people are journalists and not entertainers, create two new pages with capsule bios, WPVI-TV Anchors and WPVI-TV Reporters while keeping the list on the main WPVI-TV page to have a one stop place with the list of former station employees in the full context of the station article. This would be a more accurate categorization of the talent instead of the generic and inaccurate "Personalities". A side benefit is the pages would be smaller and make vandalism easier to spot. Hell', I'll even do it. Kramden4700 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • May work, but a word of caution, though. The Philadelphia-area stations are the only ones I see that have pages that give such attention to local reporters. That may not be the norm in Wikipedia. Then again, I'm not involved in creating broadcast-related articles. Tinlinkin 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see how this could be considered an encyclopedic topic. A handful (and a very small handful) of people on that list have some very limited notability. The rest are just TV-cruft and many of the articles listed there would be candidates for speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson 07:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete List-cruft and TV-cruft. Pressure Thirteen also created all sorts of articles about these non-notables which will be send for speedy deletion per CSD-A7. Buckner 1986 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Buckner JianLi 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Buckner. Crabapplecove 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Cabled Substitution 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Buckner. Rekarb Bob 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Buckner. Ifnord 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Crufty, very crufty. Adam 1212 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above, no merge either. Something must be done about all these non-notable local TV personality articles. I know, delete them all. None of these people are at all notable, except for the ones that worked at the network level. Enough with the local parocialism! Cheesehead 1980 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KYW-TV Personalities[edit]

    Was large and hard to manage, pared it down to current list, but it is now redundant with KYW-TV. Most other TV stations have lists of their personalities on the main page and I basically did this and created the individual articles. Pressure Thirteen 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete You seemed to have come up with an elegant solution and one that gives some unity to the televison articles! It makes more sense if everyone gets the article on the station page and has links to the individual bios. The old page was a bit clunky to maintain! Kramden4700 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Wrath of Roth 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This AfD is related to the AfDs for WCAU Personalities and WPVI-TV Personalities. Tinlinkin 10:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert/merge non-notable biographies See WPVI-TV Personalities. Here is a sample version of the KYW-TV Personalities page before it was divided. Tinlinkin 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert/merge non-notable biographies as per above Tazz765 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a suggestion: Eliminate this article, as "Personalities" really is an inaccurate description and degrades the fact they the people are journalists and not entertainers, create two new pages with capsule bios, KYW-TV Anchors and KYW-TV Reporters while keeping the list on the main KYW-TV page to have a one stop place with the list of former station employees in the full context of the station article. This would be a more accurate categorization of the talent instead of the generic and inaccurate "Personalities". A side benefit is the pages would be smaller and make vandalism easier to spot. Hell', I'll even do it. Kramden4700 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see how this could be considered an encyclopedic topic. A handful (and a very small handful) of people on that list have some very limited notability. The rest are just TV-cruft and many of the articles listed there would be candidates for speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete List-cruft and TV-cruft. Pressure Thirteen also created all sorts of articles about these non-notables which will be send for speedy deletion per CSD-A7. Buckner 1986 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have removed the speedy deletion tags from these articles as they do not match the A7 criteria, which specifies that there must be "no remotely plausible assertion of notability" - which cannot apply to a TV "personality", even if they and the station is little known. Cheers TigerShark 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok but they should be proded as uncontroversial deletion candidates, no? I mean are we going to have 50 separate debates? (And I really mean 50). Pascal.Tesson 18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that done? Kramden4700 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Use {{subst:prod|(reason)}}. You can look at WP:`PROD for the details. Pascal.Tesson 00:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note There is a multiple related articles AFD page at wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell which contains the anchors listed in this article. JianLi 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Crufty JianLi 06:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. This list makes sense to have in the station's article; it doesn't need broken out. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Crabapplecove 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Cabled Substitution 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Rekarb Bob 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without merge. Ifnord 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Crufty, very crufty. Adam 1212 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above, no merge either. Something must be done about all these non-notable local TV personality articles. This is about the fifth one I voted on today! Cheesehead 1980 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WCAU Personalities[edit]

    Was large and hard to manage, pared it down to current list, but it is now redundant with WCAU. Most other TV stations have lists of their personalities on the main page and I basically did this and created the individual articles. Pressure Thirteen 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete You seemed to have come up with an elegant solution and one that gives some unity to the televison articles! It makes more sense if everyone gets the article on the station page and has links to the individual bios. The old page was a bit clunky to maintain! Kramden4700 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per above Wrath of Roth 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This AfD is related to the AfDs for WPVI-TV Personalities and KYW-TV Personalities. Tinlinkin 10:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert/merge non-notable biographies See WPVI-TV Personalities. Here is a sample version of the WCAU Personalities page before it was divided. Tinlinkin 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revert/merge non-notable biographies as per above Tazz765 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a suggestion: Eliminate this article, as "Personalities" really is an inaccurate description and degrades the fact they the people are journalists and not entertainers, create two new pages with capsule bios, WCAU-TV Anchors and WCAU-TV Reporters while keeping the list on the main WCAU page to have a one stop place with the list of former station employees in the full context of the station article. This would be a more accurate categorization of the talent instead of the generic and inaccurate "Personalities". A side benefit is the pages would be smaller and make vandalism easier to spot. Hell', I'll even do it. Kramden4700 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My inclination is to delete all of the bios that don't assert encyclopedic merit; failing that, merge them into articles such as those suggested above by Kramden4700 and delete this article. Individual reporters are usually of questionable notability; I only found this AfD after having deleted a few of their articles without being aware that they were part of a larger picture (as a side note, if consensus leads to a merge and you need my help with undeletions, drop me a line and I'll be glad to do what I can). Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see how this could be considered an encyclopedic topic. A handful (and a very small handful) of people on that list have some very limited notability. The rest are just TV-cruft and many of the articles listed there would be candidates for speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete List-cruft and TV-cruft. Pressure Thirteen also created all sorts of articles about these non-notables which will be send for speedy deletion per CSD-A7. Buckner 1986 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it and any other similar TV-cruft. Crabapplecove 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Cabled Substitution 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it per above. Rekarb Bob 15:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Do not merge, do not collect $200. Ifnord 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Crufty, very crufty. Adam 1212 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above, no merge either. Something must be done about all these non-notable local TV personality articles. I know, delete them all. Cheesehead 1980 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_19&oldid=1081095773"