Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete - vandalism, hoax page. Tyrenius 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kawamoto[edit]

Non-n actor. See [1] Mad Jack 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find nothing to verify the claims made by the article and it does not provide any sources for them. Without such information it would appear to be a hoax page. DrunkenSmurf 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did this go to AfD? It was going to be deleted in two days anyway. Delete, even if it kicks around another three days. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm wondering that myself Cfred. I was the one that prodded it originally. The nominator of the article removed the prod and nominated it for AfD saying "much, much, much faster way to do things". Metros232 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (#A7) per Aguerriero, and Mad Jack's evidence above. NN, possible hoax.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:55, 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 08:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bensalem Township School District[edit]

Irrelevant article about a school district; contains no useful information Bveale 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania - CheNuevara 09:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per CheNuevara. Catchpole 10:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there's nothing to merge. We have two sentences: one of them states the obvious (that the township has schools), and the other makes the unlikely claim that "Bensalem Township is often recognized by having a very diverse student body of many different nationalities" -- unlikely, because there are literally millions upon millions of towns and districts across the world that "have very diverse student bodies of many different nationalities", and it seems quite implausible that this one is actually considered particularly noteworthy (just 436 ghits for "bensalem township" diversity; the first one is about diversity of extreme sports, and the second one is for the sentence "The low level of diversity within the student population..."). — Haeleth Talk 10:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Touche. Redirect it, though, since someone obviously came looking for it. - CheNuevara 10:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it came up when I hit the random button. --Bveale 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above (Liberatore, 2006). 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per noml not notable. -- Whpq 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as per nom. Jefffire 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The article is an amazing two weeks old. With the same amount of effort as spent on this deletion process, it could instead be a much more interesting article that was worth saving. Brilliant. ;-) — RJH (talk)
    • Based on the current content I'm changing my preference to Keep. Thanks to whomever revised the page. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with RJH, needs attention and clean-up 65.122.138.194 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge per above. Wrath of Roth 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania. This doesn't need an AFD to do. Themindset 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. School districts are separate from municipal governments in most places in the United States and Canada, and in general warrant their own articles. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per RJH —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I didn't think it worth keeping as it was; I just thought thought it would have been just as easy to expand the stub as it would be to delete. But no matter. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. School districts are completely notable. The article has been rewritten using reliable sources, and still has room for expansion. Silensor 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. Czj 06:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please districts are very important ant article is being rewritten Yuckfoo 06:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If high schools are inherently notable, then school districts certainly are. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per CheNuevara. — Reinyday, 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor, school districts need not be nominated. Yamaguchi先生 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep school districts are obviously noteworthy.--Nicodemus75 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. relevant article about a school district per above. --JJay 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comment that school districts, just like high schools, are obviously noteworthy. There are people who don't want schools on Wikipedia. Capit 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. School districts are encylopedic even if their schools are not. Vegaswikian 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep^^ -- Librarianofages 02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge what ever school articles from that district to that article Jaranda wat's sup 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reasonable explanation has been provided to demonstrate how a school district is not notable. Bahn Mi 22:02, 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 09:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bautista[edit]

Non-Notable. See [2] Oh, and this [3] Mad Jack 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (lack of notability). Aww! Sorry, Mario, we flushing you down the drain Antares33712 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this isn't a vote, this is a speedy, thanks to Mad Jack's proof Antares33712 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, are we still voting even after the article's demise? Antares33712 14:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's the "Ghost AFD". Like that politician who died two days before the election and got elected. Mad Jack 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I love it :-) A real pick me up at work :-) Antares33712 15:55, 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 per WP:SNOW. No reason to keep waiting. Mangojuicetalk 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnums[edit]

Probable hoax. The screenshot included as a source for this article, which purports to be of a cnn.com article about this topic, appears to me to have been photoshopped. Unless cnn.com filled their article with spelling and grammar mistakes. Also, I can't find any evidence of the existence of this street gang or its supposed boss in a google search, outside of someone's poorly written personal webpage Xyzzyplugh 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Magnum, can't find such an article after search of www.cnn.com, WP:HOAX. Voice of Treason 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The screenshot, uploaded by MatthewSoprano (talk · contribs), clinches it. There's little need to check Google News for articles about Australian gangs (although I did that anyway — there aren't any). This is a hoax. The fact that an uploaded screen shot is given as verification, rather than a simple {{cite news}}, is highly suspect straightaway. But the clincher is that there are no such web pages on CNN by the URLs that can be seen in the screenshots, the URLs in the screenshots don't match the datelines of the purported articles (one is 2006, the other 2005), and the titles of the two screenshots differ and are well below the standard of literacy that one finds at CNN. Delete this, Image:Magnums.jpg, and Image:Themagnums.jpg. Uncle G 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree about the screen shot most likely being photoshopped. A search through CNN.Com based on the terms I could see in the article and about the "Magnums" itself didn't produce anything to verify it as being legit. 205.157.110.11 00:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per voice of treasonAdamBiswanger1 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That ain't no gang. Delete - now that's a gang. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Magnum. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no ascertion of notablility. SynergeticMaggot 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as a plural form of Magnum. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX, also WP:ORG Alphachimp talk 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typed address into browser, came up with a "Page not Found" message. Jrcoga! 03:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grief, can't hoaxsters even be bothered to use a spellchecker these days? Pathetic. — Haeleth Talk 10:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not hoax then OR - delete either way. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious WP:HOAX. Scorpiondollprincess 13:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a vengeance, per above. Doogie2K (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3 The fake screenshot makes this such an obvious hoax that I am willing to bet that it falls under CSD G3. Jesse Viviano 19:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD G3 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fake SS Yeah that screen shot has been photoshoped for sure,but I do believe their is a group called that,I'm from Adelaide and have heard about it in local papers about their graffiti ect..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Confusio (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi language[edit]

Non-notable programming language, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE (Assuming a programming language counts as software). Can't find any record of this in a google search. The author of this article has listed some sources in the talk page, but they consist of wikipedia articles and one portugese blog, no reliable sources Xyzzyplugh 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also remove "Pi language" section of Hello world program in esoteric languages. —Caesura(t) 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable programming language. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete else if WP:NN; else if WP:V; end if. SynergeticMaggot 02:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to brainfuck. Phr (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't find a single reliable source to verify that this language is anything beyond a figment of the author's imagination. Do you have any information to indicate that this topic is notable and verifiable enough to include in another article? -- Caesura(t) 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's in the proper spirit, or something reasonably close. Brainfuck hasn't exactly taken the world by storm either. My suggestion: stick a brief mention of Pi into the Brainfuck article, delete the Pi article, and leave it up to the regular Brainfuck editors (who probably aren't reading this afd) whether they want to keep the Pi mention or not. (Actually, I see there's already a wikilink in brainfuck under "related languages", so just change the wikilink to an external link, and again, leave final disposal up to the brainfuck editors). Phr (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yow, I just went to add this link and I see there's more than a dozen wikipedia articles about equally obscure brainfuck variants. I think they all need to be merged into one or two articles. Phr (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Already changed the reference links in Wikipedia to external links. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Thotypous 14:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes sense. Alex Pankratov 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WIkipedia is not an instruction manual or an indiscriminate collection of information. Alphachimp talk 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, unless some sources for this subject can be found, in which case merge. Google searches for the term didn't come up with anything relevant, which is unusual even for the most obscure languages formulated with computers. -- H·G (words/works) 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Google finds no results, and the Esolang page is a copy of the Wikipedia article made by the person who suggested it as a reference (not that it would be acceptable anyway). To be honest, it should probably have been created there (and not here) in the first place, though there may be license issues with moving it now. - makomk 09:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect per Phr. Themindset 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I like to merge, all that seems to exist of this language is a piece of python code dumped on wikipedia. It doesn't even sound as though it's intelligible to code in Pi, merely convert from bf. Anyone tried the code? It may not even work. Delete. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Kitia 00:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a language, just a way of formatting brainfuck to make it more incomprehensible. Why not just encrypt the source if that's your goal? - Richfife 00:08, 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 nn-band. — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket_Whoop[edit]

Seems like an experimental page, not known well enough to have a page, does not conform to WP:MUSIC ParalysedBeaver 00:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexaroid[edit]

WP:NOR, WP:OWN - this article is a short essay about sex robots in anime. It is signed by the original author. There are some "hmm that's interesting" facts, but zero sources cited. BigDT 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self published and no other source to back it up. 205.157.110.11 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - old article; per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. And to think, I thought this was just a plot device in the manga Doll. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates WP:NOR Alphachimp talk 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Plus, only 265 unique Ghits, which has to be a new low for words with "sex" in them. -- H·G (words/works) 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy this for the time being; though I don't think this is entirely worthless, and could be referenced. Suggest that it ought to be merged with gynoid or fembot; I suspect that fembot is the most widely understood word, and those two articles probably ought to be merged themselves. A noteworthy concept; the art of Hajime Sorayama is focussed on this. Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. +Fin 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Smerdis of Tlön —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A blatant violation of WP:NOR. Moreover, it has only about 250 google hits as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom R.E. Freak 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with fembot per Smerdis of Tlön. — Reinyday, 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rickie Lee Tanner[edit]

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. His biography makes his accomplishments sound a little better than a normal speedy candidate, so that's why I'm bringing it here. His article sounds so professionally done because it is professional done by User:2TManagement who appears to be his publicist. 33 Google hits for him, nothing notable as far as I can see. Metros232 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn and also vanity by virtue of the probable identity of 2TManagement as a publicist, as mentioned by Metros232. AdamBiswanger1 00:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby of the Stars: Second Generation[edit]

This is fancruft. Google search turns up 0 results, and a video game fan fiction created by a fan on a fan forum doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CSD A7 or WP:NN to me. Also violates WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. I originally PRODded the article, but the IP that's been editing the article promptly removed it, so I put it up at AFD. Green451 00:27, 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 09:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer[edit]

delete as per notability, poss. vanity page Chris 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fail WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SynergeticMaggot --Brad101 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article does state it's importance. I have seen many articles less "notable" kept —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a de-POV/advert cleanup, but Gitomer appears to be notable. "Jeffrey Gitomer" gets 400K+ Google hits and this book ranks #196 on Amazon (1 of 15 there). -- Scientizzle 07:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep. The Little Red Book of Selling is in Amazon.com's top 200 sellers. His ezine alone has 80,000 subscribers, and he has a syndicted column in print. A Google search for his name in quotes returns over 400,000 hits, the first 40 of which (at least -- I didn't look any farther) are all relevant to him. This person is clearly notable. - CheNuevara 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep the guy is as annoying as hell but unfortunately he is notable. He is almost a fixture at any sales convention/seminar (especially in the insurance sector).205.157.110.11 11:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if the article is cleaned-up and verifiable sources are cited to back his notability has top 200 seller and syndicated columnist (as per CheNuevara). Scorpiondollprincess 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems ok as a profile of an author— Preceding unsigned comment added by GuBu (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep as per but needs citations.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability established by CheNuevara. Themindset 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CheNuevara. Gitomer's syndicated column appears in numerous business publications (as noted in the article). A cleanup or similar tag is well in order, but a deletion is not. Agent 86 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CheNuevara and Agent 86. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although if sources can't be provided, some text needs to be removed. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CheNuevara, and clean up as needed. Yamaguchi先生 22:21, 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 09:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Girl[edit]

Does not assert enough information. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)d[reply]

  • Delete. I was about to vote speedy keep because AfD is not an expand tag, but I can't find any hard evidence that this album exists. Searching has turned up several different release dates (2003, 2005, 2006...). Nothing on Amazon. Furthermore, the artist only barely makes it under WP:MUSIC for being signed to a notable record label. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and NN -- Alias Flood 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, per nom. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alphachimp talk 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. That Girl she isn't! --Brad101 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's on a major label, and the album has been announced. I found this MTV link in the 4th google result, too. I personally wish she were That Dog. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and carry off to the dump. An unreleased record by an artist who has never released a record. WilyD 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies. If her album does well, perhaps this can be recreated. Scorpiondollprincess 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, "crystal ball" doesn't apply here, as the future event is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it does for we dont know if this album or artist will become notable.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The artist is already notable for having a charting single. As the song is going to be on this album, apparently, the album gains nobility because of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment if you can cite verifiable sources on this album's future notability, I'd consider changing my position. Likewise if you can cite sources on where and how well the single charted, I might be persuaded to change. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies. Note: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" and "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." A yet-to-be-released debut album is not notable (and conceivably could be shelved and remain unreleased). As others have mentioned, this can be recreated after the album is actually released. Scorpiondollprincess 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've already linked the MTV listing for her, which verifies the album on top of her website. That fulfills the WP:NOT requirement in this case --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can be remade when more info arises.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff, clearly notable enough for a wikipedia entry. Amazinglarry 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat Dpv 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until a verifiable source arises that proves the album is notable. --Gray Porpoise 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only isn't there a verifiable source that she charted a single, there is a verifiable source that she didn't chart a single, here. Sorry, but that makes the song, the album, and the artist non-notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aguerriero. Non-notable, should not be on Wikipedia. --Tuspm(C | @) 21:45, 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 close - people, stop running around process unnecessarily. There appears to be no article on this radio station on any Wikimedia project ([4]) so it is not a speedy candidate. Listing this page on WP:PNT is sufficient for now; if no one translates this in 2 weeks, we can propose/nominate its deletion again. Kimchi.sg 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Radio[edit]

Delete as non-english speedy tag removed by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Delete speedy tag take off by creator. Article not in English.--Jersey Devil 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if this is on another Wikimedia project. Otherwise, close and send to WP:PNT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. As not english. I have restored the tag. Alphachimp talk 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete with fire --Brad101 03:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-d per nom. SynergeticMaggot 04:15, 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} 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benefiber[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Prod removed by author without comment. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be an ad.--Jersey Devil 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete --Brad101 03:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN/vanity/ad/spam -- Alias Flood 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ad, but without prejudice to rewriting, as this is a fairly notable product. I'm sure a decent article could be written about it, but this isn't it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find a few references to this in Middle Eastern newspapers - given the language exchange level considerations and such, I would recommend people give this serious consideration before voting. I'm going to decline to vote because I'm not sure how reliable these sources are ... see for example this: [5] WilyD 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in no way advertising for a fiber thing. I saw it on tv, looked for an article on wikipedia to see what it was, but then there wasn't so I looked on www.benefiber.com to see what it was and wrote a wikipedia article. You guys are so mean. I'm a teenager, why would I advertise for some sort of fiber thing? Did you read the article? It has nothing advertising, and if it does, please just tell me to remove the words. I was just trying to be helpful by making an article on something you don't have, even if it is a stub. Look, it's real, http://www.ask.com/web?q=benefiber&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir thats a web search on it.
    • It just looks like spam, which dozens of articles worth of show up every day. It's an easy assumption to make, because spam articles rarely say SPAM across the top. WilyD 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Um, it's Benefiber. It's advertised nationally. It's distributed by a major company. If you have a problem with the article contents, edit it, put up a cleanup tag, do whatever, but delete Benefiber? GassyGuy 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, criteria of advertisement for the afd nom has not been met. The article in no way reads like an advertisement. And I agree with gassyguy on pointing out product notability. -- Whpq 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -Fails WP:CORP - stores are full of products like this one. An article could be written on the general topic of fibre and the pros and cons of buying commercial products versus eating correctly. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a place to look up products you see advertised on T.V. Google is for that. KarenAnn 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you feel the criteria for advertisement has not been meet, then check out the article's footnotes. KarenAnn 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Check out the page history. Unless you think WilyD is the one advertising it, then I believe those were an established user's good faith attempts to flesh out the stub which, when put to AfD, had no footnotes or mentions of Oman. GassyGuy 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment allow me to assure everyone I'm not hauking it, I'm merely an astronomer and a game store owner, I ain't sell the stuff. I'm somewhat concerned that we're deleting an foreign product because there are few english references, and it's hard to find references for places where they use very different alphabets. I was just trying to give it a chance to get past WP:V, the supreme arbitor. WilyD 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The product is advertised on US national television, you can buy it at CVS, RiteAid, Grocery Store etc. It is in no way some sort of foreign thing. --Yshoulduknow 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would still make it foreign, but I guess would indicate a strangeness I can't find American references, only Arabian ones. WilyD 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you haven't looked. www.benefiber.com and an ask.com search: http://www.ask.com/web?q=benefiber&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir Yshoulduknow 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I prefer to use reasonably reputable sources, which is why I went for newspapers. It's just some foreign fibre suppliment. I'm not too concerned about it. Just didn't want to delete an Arabian proeduct because I don't speak Arabic. Mais, c'est la vie. WilyD 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a noteworthy product, In the USA it's hawked by Paul Harvey several times a week on the radio. Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hestitant Delete as per KarenAnn. I've heard of this product but this could products notability could likly be covered elsewhere until it expands and warrents its own article.–(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable product as mentioned above, Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very well-known product, I see ads for it all the time on TV. I honestly can't figure out why this article was marked as spam/advertising...it's only a few sentences long and those sentences simply state what Benefiber is, it doesn't look like the typical spam article at all. Amazinglarry 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - I see advertisements for this product on TV constantly!! It has several radio ads to boot and is available for purchase through thousands of retailers. It should and can be expanded. Srose (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We have time, this article looks as if it can improve. As far as I see this article has asserted it's importance. Lets see what wikipedia editors can do! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This WIkipedia editor just improved the article by deleting a spam link from it... is that what you had in mind? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing a users "vote" from Speedy Delete to Keep is EXTREAMLY poor form! Especially when the change is by the article's author! [6] Reverted the page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops sorry, I thought she was saying the people saying speedy delete failed. I was trying to make it easier, because if it were as I beleived, it would mean keep. Geez, sorry. There goes my chance at wikipedia, you'll probably ban me and stuff...
  • Comment: It is definitely poor form, but you should not let it persuade your vote. The content of the article and the actions of its creator are completely separate things. Czj 06:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, no evidence presented that the product is important. It's nothing special, it's just guar gum with an spiffy name. I suppose a redirect to Guar gum, which already says everything that needs to be said about Benefiber, might be reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no prej. Ste4k 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a product advertised on American television. Ryūlóng 06:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable product, not an ad. Czj 06:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy... clean-up. Clearly an ad in its original form, if it can be cleaned up and the advert-talk removed, there's no reason it shouldn't be kept. Notable product.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Delete. I am fully convinced by Dpbsmith's argument below. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I misspoke. I did mean that the company offering the product is at at least somewhat notable. Thank you for the correction.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1. Guar Gum is not advertised on TV 2. Benefiber is available in a pill, chewable tablet, and powder. 3. Guar Gum in its natural form cannot be used in food or drinks. Yshoulduknow 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot be used in food or drinks? Nonsense. Guar gum is a common ingredient in processed food. Sometimes I believe it's just called "vegetable gum." Just a second. Let me take a look in my refrigerator. How about cottage cheese? That seems like the sort of thing that might use it. Cabot Vermont Style Cottage Cheese. Ingredients: Cultured, pasteurized skim milk, milk, cream, salt, grade whey, nonfat milk, modified corn starch, natural flavors, potassium sorbate (to preserve freshness), guar gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum, citric acid, lactic acid, polysorbate 80, enzymes. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's not advertising then you better follow WP:V. Massmato 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, I do not understand how it is advertising. Have you looked at its current state? Also, I have very good sources and references listed such as the product's official website, and the manufacturer's official website. Yshoulduknow 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Unless the person voting keep and clean up does it right now. Capit 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete My original keep sentiment was expressed because I was quite sure that Benefiber could be expanded into a decent article. Looking at it again in its current form, it looks like I was incorrect. I'm surprised that there's so little available out there, but such seems to be the case. Perhaps redirect the page to Novartis. GassyGuy 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for expanding it, but please tell me what I should add. I have reworked the page, re organized it, I've done everything. If it is deleted, I will simply re post the article as it is in it's current form, which is not advertising. Yshoulduknow 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A deleted page shouldn't be recreated without reason. If you really want to fix up the page, Yshoulduknow, I recommend looking at the article for Bayer for comparison. You can use that as a basis for expanding the article, if possible. Make sense? Happy editing. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you vote Keep if I did that? I would just need help with pictures, I don't know how to put them there with the source and everything. Yshoulduknow 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted for keep, but maybe some of the folks above would vote keep if it was fixed up. As Mattisee says below, though, it's not about the lack of pictures, it's about turning it into a strong article, with good, verifyable links, and information that would be found in an encyclopedia. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless Yshoulduknow gets busy right now and cleans it up -- and the problem is not pictures. It's following WP:V. Better have a look. Mattisse 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citrucel is a redirect to Methylcellulose, as it should be. Metamucil is a substub. No evidence has been presented that any these products have any particular importance above and beyond being fiber supplements. Metamucil, Citrucel, Benefiber are not cultural icons. They are not famous in this history of advertising. They do not figure in novels. They are not the topic of song lyrics. They have not made mainstream news. They are all particular brands of generic fiber supplements. None of them is signficantly different in health effects from any other. There is nothing much to be said about any of them except to echo dubious marketing claims that one particular kind of fiber has a somewhat different texture, flavor, and spectrum of GI side-effects from another. I.e. one particular person may find that one product gives them more gas than another, or may prefer the slimy texture of one or the gritty texture of another. There is nothing substantial for these articles to be about except to echo commercial promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per very clear explanation above by Dpbsmith for those who have not looked at Wikipedia policies pertaining to this issue cited in entries supporting deletion. Listerin 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Coredesat. The only references on the article right now, are advertising sites. If it could be shown that there is literature about Benefiber in other mainstream non-medical publications, that would make it more notable, but otherwise, I think that this is best as a sub-paragraph in some other article. --Elonka 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone should also look at Metamucil and decide if that should go, too. --Cheesehead 1980 13:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:08, 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 broken beyond repair. Concerns have been raised regarding sockpuppetry which I find to be credible. Please feel free to open a new deletion discussion for this article at any time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Bradford (professor)[edit]

This was originally tagged as speedy here as non-notable and attack. I removed it as invalid. It was then prodded here as non-notable, non-publc and author requests deletion. I do not know if User:YHoshua who created the article is the same as the anon who has been tagging it. I am listing here with no comment to keep or delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: There have been several comments left here by one off accounts etc. Groggy Dice has done an excellent job of laying out the problems and possible sockpuppets. He left the information on my talk page and with his permission I have copied them to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/William Bradford (professor). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't been the one tagging it, but I am the creator and would vote to delete the article. I don't think the professor warrants his own page and, perhaps most important, he would like removed. Therefore I vote for deletion.--YHoshua 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. The absolute minute that anyone provides sources in the article or on AfD to provide verification that Fox News (not FrontPageMag, as that publication is of borderline notability and no reliability) frequently interviewed and then covered this guy, however, my vote will change to keep. When you put your face on national television repeatedly, you are a public figure. We don't delete articles because they're inconvenient for the person being written about; to do so would encourage the writing of hagiographies and that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep On the basis of the extensive work done by Groggy Dice, providing reliable sources that attest to the professor's notability, I have reconsidered my position. The professor is a notable public figure and became embroiled in a parallel to the Ward Churchill case, and was commented on several times by figures of note. I think it's time to give the contributors who are putting time and effort into this article a chance to fix it up and bring it into line with Wikipedia policies. I can't, in good faith, recommend the deletion of this article at this time. Captainktainer * Talk 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Delete. This guy isn't a public figure and the author wants it deleted. Easy call. Wiki shouldn't trifle. Vote to delete. The author wants to delete and the subject is not notabel. Jonswift 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete requested by author. -- Alias Flood 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as requested by author. Delete Even without such a request, seems like a non-notable subject per nom. -- H·G (words/works) 03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tagged with {{db-author}}, since the article creator wants it gone. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy removed, others have made substantial edits to the article. Kimchi.sg 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I searched on Google for '"william bradford" tenure', got 15,700 hits[7]. Adding "fox news" to the terms narrowed it down to 305 hits[8], which included left-leaning blogs crowing about how Fox's poster boy turned out to be lying about being a Desert Storm veteran, Green Beret, and Silver Star winner [9] [10], which led me to their media sources: [11] [12]. On Fox News, all I found was an O'Reilly article[13] and two guest listings for John Gibson[14][15]. The article as it stands says nothing about his military record claims. I looked through history, and found that it had been in the article at various points, then taken back out. The last time, IP 130.94.134.250 took it out[16], then nominated for speedy as an "attack page,"[17] starting this whole process. Not sure if this controversy is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Groggy Dice 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Sounds like the kind of smear job that both parties were trying to use against Bush and Kerry. Either way he's a nobody and not worth any attention. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonswift (talk • contribs)
    • Jonswift, please do not edit other user's comments. I already identified the blogs as "left-leaning," if you consider them "far left," say so in your response, rather than editing me in a way that makes it look like I called them far left. If anything, my post about them being blogs was misleading, because the first two articles were actual media articles I found through the two blog listings. Your action has led me to check your user contributions, and your only contribs are to this AfD. I hope you aren't coming to this discussion with a predetermined POV. --Groggy Dice 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Groggy, I'm new and didn't understand the etiquette. My apologies. Jonswift 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete attack guise is real tough to clean up, don't let it hang around long enough to regret it. Ste4k 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Delete. My husband Jens and I live in Florida, and I have known Bill for 15 years. Jens served with him in Bosnia and elsewhere, and I greatly doubt he would have ever spoken with a reporter about his military background. Jens still can't tell me much of what he did or where he went, and my guess is the reporter was misinformed by someone else about Bill's background and then had to blame him to cover her own you know what. Whether you think Bill deserved tenure or not, it isn't beneath a university to dirty someone's reputation in order to gain leverage, and my husband and others I've talked to think that someone from the university probably fed the reporter misinformation so they could blame Bill for it later. Something really horrible happened to Bill and his wife 5 years ago which is how and why he left the Army, and it would make him a very sympathetic person if he could talk about it. Whatever the case, it was a tempest in a teapot and it is long since over. Bill is out of teaching and is now working in insurance in New York or New Jersey. Wikipedia policy is not to include bios on living people that aren't notable. This man and his family deserves his privacy and for this article to be deleted. Barbara
    • Barbara, editing other users' comments is considered bad form on Wikipedia, especially when it changes the meaning of what they say. Don't change "turned out to be lying" to "had allegedly lied" (which was what the articles were saying, not me personally). Don't change me from saying "not sure if this controversy is notable enough" to "this controversy is not notable enough." If that is your opinion, you make your own case, don't make it look like I'm making it. This sort of thing only serves to push me towards voting to Keep. --Groggy Dice 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, Groggy Dice. You are correct to admonish me. I admit to being a little emotional on the subject, because I know Bill and I am upset that he was treated badly. I hope you will maintain your delete vote :) Barb P.S. What does "Groggy Dice" mean or what is the origin? I think there is a bar by that name somewhere.
    As a "grognard," I've rolled a lot of "dice." --Groggy Dice 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens is a Squad Leader fanatic--sometimes I lose him for a weekend to that damn game. Barb Definite delete. Author and subject want it deleted, and the subject is obscure and unimportant. Also it looks like a personal attach. Zvonimir
    • HOLD ON! Are all of the last few voters actually reading the article? The ironic effect of the heavy pro-Bradford edits is that it makes it hard to see how the article can be seen as a "personal attack" piece. It describes how he "graduated summa cum laude," received various degrees and honors, "served at the War Gaming and Simulation Center, National Defense University, Fort McNair, Virginia, and was an advisor to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shalikashvili," "authored numerous law review articles," and "was named a Dean's Fellow in recognition of scholarly excellence." The controversy is a section at the bottom, and gives as much space to Bradford's charges as to his opponents'. All mention of the military record issue has been removed, which appears to be the sore point. While the controversy's result may have been one-sided (his resignation), Wikipedia's coverage of it is not.
    There needs to be an actual discussion here, not just taking claims at face-value that he's non-notable. Maybe both "author and subject want it deleted," but the only real reason the author's given is that the subject wants it deleted. He hasn't said why he created the article in the first place, and why he apparently thought the subject was notable then. Has everyone read the articles from the Indianapolis Star[18] and Inside Higher Ed[19], or did my mention of "left-leaning blogs" lead some to not look closely? I mentioned that one Google search I ran got 15,700 hits, which contains a lot of false positives, but would normally be enough for people to explore the possibility that he might be notable. I've come up with a more selective search[20] that gets 800 hits. That's not a huge number, but enough to normally make some people think he was notable enough, and others to waffle.
    I also turned up a copy of one Dean's Report (Google cache)(original PDF) which on p. 36-38 lists his recent accomplishments of 2004. It describes several papers he'd published or presented, a couple of positions he'd been appointed to, and notes his appearances in the media. Many of these are local, but also cited are NPR Morning Edition, Fox National, John Gibson, and Radio France Info. It says that he was interviewed by the Charlotte Observer, Spokane Spokesman-Review, the Associated Press, the Daily Tennessean, and the Atlanta-Constitution. At the end, it say that he was nominated for the "American Bar Association Law School Division Henry J. Ramsey, Jr. Award for Diversity." He may want his privacy now, but if he failed to achieve Wikipedia-level notability, it was not for lack of trying.
    Also, another thing we should consider is what to do about Florence Roisman#Controversy and the mention of the Bradford incident there. Again, it was edited to delete earlier references to the military record aspect (diff). If we decide this incident really is non-notable, maybe we should remove all mention of it there as well. --Groggy Dice 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see that this is someone who needs to be an entry in an encyclopedia, virtual or otherwise. In my estimation, a person ought to be notable or important in some extraordinary way to merit inclusion, and I just don't see that this is the case here. I think it is especially true if he is no longer even a professor, and therefore being described incorrectly by the entry. The fact that the editing history reveals so many conflicting/contradictory bits of "information" makes me even less willing to give any credence to the article in any form. If both the subject and the author desire deletion, my opinion is that they should have the final say.Owmyeye 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (Note: Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place initially). Owmyeye 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have some valid points, but overall I disagree with them. George W. Bush also has a "conflicting/contradictory" editing history, but that's not grounds for deleting his article. In fact, controversy can be an indication that the subject is notable enough for people to care about. If Wikipedia adopted a policy of deleting articles because partisan edits made them unreliable, controversial topics by the thousands would go. As for the subject wanting the article deleted, I believe that should hold NO weight. Everyone has warts, and as someone else has pointed out, the writing of articles cannot be held hostage by its subject. That's the Daniel Brandt precedent. Suppose Charlie Manson decided he didn't want to have a Wikipedia article, somehow convinced the entry's creator, and argued that they should have "final say" and that he was "no longer even a cult leader!" (Though we don't know for sure that Bradford wants his Wikipedia entry deleted, that's what YHoshua says, but he hasn't come back to the discussion to elaborate, and we haven't heard from Bradford directly.) Back to notability. I would agree that he may not be "extraordinarily" notable, but that's usually not the standard applied on Wikipedia, and the more I've dug into this, the more I'm leaning to the view that he's notable enough. Now that I've seen a photo of him, I do recall him being a guest on cable news. If a Wikipedia entry for Bradford had been created before mid-2005, before this mess blew up in his face, I'm sure he would have been pleased. And at that time, I'm also sure he would have taken umbrage at a move to delete it on the grounds that he wasn't notable enough. That's the tragedy here: here is someone who eagerly sought notability and had the gifts to achieve it, now forced to seek obscurity. He had remarkable achievements, but was undone by the need to claim still-more remarkable achievements. --Groggy Dice 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. He fails WP:PROF. Regardless of whether or not he wants to delete the entry he doesn't meet notability. His credentials are nothing special for a tenure-track asst. prof. The controversy is essentially local -- this happens all the time where someone is denied tenure and claims he has been discriminated against based on race, sex, polical affiliation, sleeping with the dean's daughter, etc. Some of them have been discriminated against, others have not. Some win, most don't. He probably had a little more than his 15 minutes of fame because there are groups who like to push the point of view that conservative faculty are discriminated against. I see nothing beyond local interest. If he becomes a poster child for the Student Bill of Rights, then we can revisit the issue. Right now, he's simply just another relatively anonymous former-assistant professor. TedTalk/Contributions 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ironic that you would mention being a poster child for the Student Bill of Rights, because David Horowitz was one of the biggest backers pushing this case at a national level. I just Googled "student bill of rights", and the top result was "Students for Academic Freedom." That site created a special page just for the Bradford case[21], featuring seven articles from Horowitz's other site, Frontpagemag. (At the end of some of them, Horowitz gets personally involved in the correspondence.) Another page on that site, covering everything related to Indiana University[22], lists those articles and an eighth, a hosted Indy Star column[23] (written by the same journalist who would eventually question his military record. The combination "william OR bill bradford" "david horowitz" gets 475 491 Ghits[24]. --Groggy Dice 07:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definite Delete. Looks like third parties with political agendas used this former professor for their own purposes, but inherently he doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for notability as a professor. He was a useful tool for about 5 seconds. And Barbara's comments make a lot of sense. Finally, the author himself wants to delete the article, and it may well be that he regrets having written something that he knows has unfairly treated the subject. Delete. Silvestre
    • "Silvestre," he himself wanted to be "used" and actively sought to enlist those "third parties," which milked the case for a lot longer than "5 seconds." David Horowitz's Frontpagemag gave the case at least two months of heavy coverage, and he mentioned it regularly in his appearances. Even after Bradford's downfall, an excerpt[25] from the introduction to his new book (focusing on Ward Churchill as his poster "anti-child") makes a mention of Bradford's case. "Barbara's" story would actually make this case more newsworthy than the mainstream version. As for the author realizing that he had "unfairly treated the subject," I think it would be a good idea for everyone to view his original version of the page, since the current version has been so heavily watered down. --Groggy Dice 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definite KEEP I think it's time to admit to myself that I've decided to vote keep on this article. Having my comments tampered with has led to dig far deeper into this matter than I ever expected to, and what I've found has convinced me more and more that this is a keeper. Also, I've come to realize that some people are drawing their conclusions from the current state of this article, which differs greatly from the original version. I'm going to do what I probably should have done a long time ago, and re-edit the page to resurrect an earlier incarnation. Don't jump on what appears to be a steamrolling bandwagon- look very closely. --Groggy Dice 17:25, 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 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vancouver Russian Community[edit]

    Delete as it is non-verifiable, borders on original research. The content has been added to since the speedy tag was removed, but the article is not salvagable into an encyclopedic entry. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete What is notable about an ethnic group within a particular city? Has there been riots? Discrimination law suits? Some sort of "event" that has had an impact on either the city or the culture? Nothing in a Google search has shown any notable events. 205.157.110.11 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom --Brad101 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Agent 86 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 02:43, 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 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    VAN Forum[edit]

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

    The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Klopfenstein[edit]

    Delete as a total vanity page. The article ws created by Drbrucek. Claims of nobility, but nothing sighting verifiable sources, just his blog. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyler Dumont[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable host of a local public access TV show; Vanity or Advertising. Prod was deleted without comment. Only google hits are related to this local show and the indicated website. No information is verified. TedTalk/Contributions 01:41, 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 Speedy deleted per CSD A1/A3. Xoloz 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Odyssey Online[edit]

    Delete as non-notable failing WP:WEB. The article asserts it's own non-nobility. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete nn/vanity. The author wrote This article does not need to be deleted [26] on the article itself.--Jersey Devil 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Players of Odyssey Online are contributing information to the pages, that's why I put "Does not need to be deleted" We are trying to get the pages in good running condition to avoid deletion. Please give us some time. Thank you for reading. - ImmortalKaine

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of German military bases[edit]

    This is actually a list of American bases in Germany. As such all the information is already included in List of United States Air Force bases and List of United States Army bases. Hence this list is completely and utterly redundant. -- Koffieyahoo 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Odd titling; this is a worldwide encyclopedia project.--Chaser T 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either delete or turn it into a list of militray bases run by the actual German military. --Pboyd04 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as redundant and unclear, or rewrite per Pboyd04. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite so the list contians German military bases —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The few (overseas) bases Germany has are more like camps, certainly not intended for permanent settlement, so there should be no need for an article on those. --DrTorstenHenning 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete List-cruft. Wrath of Roth 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename to indicate contents. A list organized according to different principles is useful in addition to the lists Koffieyahoo cited. Fg2 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Listcruft. TedTalk/Contributions 05:15, 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 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Denovan Films[edit]

    Publicity ---Nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximini1010 (talk • contribs)

    • Delete The company has no indication of meeting WP:CORP and is in the process of making it's first featured film. Hopefully the nom will expand, as "publicity" is not really a reason.--Chaser T 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Chaser. SynergeticMaggot 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Chaser. NawlinWiki 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Apparently "Cinema actually is a "total" art, entirely including all mediums of image and sound that could contribute to the material of a film." I will cheerfully vote to burn any and all articles that include bollocks like this. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 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 Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingsleigh Nobbs[edit]

    unflattering vanity page, possibly libellous, should be speedily deleted Thomas B 02:15, 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 08:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An Excellent Picture of Yolanda (2007 film)[edit]

    I am proposing this article for AfD because it is an example of the dangers of crystalballism: the information available on the internet for a proposed 2007 Woody Allen film does not, in large part, match the information to be found here. Some of the information in this article originally matched a film to be released this summer by Woody Allen, entitled Scoop (that information, I must note, has since been removed; but its original presence in the article gives the impression of very poor research on the part of the author). A good deal of the rest of it, including the title, cannot be verified, since no references are to be found in the article. A search for the title brings 0 ghits. Charles 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Totally unverifable and crystall-ballish. Let's face it, the guy is so secretive about his projects that a huge percentage of the rumors circulating about them are based on lies and misdirection that he deliberately spread. When it comes to a Woody Allen movie, you really have to wait almost for the release to even have a reliable title. Fan-1967 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as an unverifiable picture of a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Zero ghits? Possible hoax. Gummy bears inside my crystal ball. SynergeticMaggot 07:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Charles. Gwernol 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete is this a spoof? Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If it indeed is true, add it then. Until then, nope. R.E. Freak 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Once WP:V is possible, recreation or deletion review may be pursued. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unverifiable crystalball predictions. It has no place on Wikipedia. TedTalk/Contributions 05:17, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dadabase[edit]

    This was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadabase. The only reason I'm bringing it here instead of zapping it myself is because this has a few assertions of notability the previously deleted version did not. If they can be cited, this can be kept only if it is cleaned up. Otherwise, it should be deleted. No opinion. Grandmasterka 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Pretty insignificant presence in Vancouver. Nice piece of listcruft at the end of the article. Agent 86 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. No real presence on Google--not seeing anything that could be cited that would meet WP:V and WP:RS. And I'll take Agent86's word on their presence in Vancouver. -- H·G (words/works) 04:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:NN. Also, if anyone wants to slap on a speedy delete tag, its fails under g-4 of WP:CSD. SynergeticMaggot 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already explained why I didn't delete it myself as that in my nomination. Grandmasterka
    • Delete. Assertions of notability, yes. Verifiable notability, no. A search of Grove Art Online yields no results - if anything art-related is notable, it is in there. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. From what I can gather by looking at 100-150 google summaries, it is a clothing store in Vancouver with an art gallery in the back. It has gotten some local buzz, but not enough to be notable. TedTalk/Contributions 05:27, 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 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads[edit]

    Stinks of original research and POV with a sympathetic tone. --Ardenn 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Looks neutral and factual to me. Very important turning point in the election too. We did not make that up. Kirjtc2 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Saying Weak Keep. On Wikipedia. This article is waaayyyy too much, and needs a severe copyedit and pruning, but certainly merits retention. A {{cleanup}} tag really ought to suffice. In Wikipedia. Agent 86 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These ads played an important role in the flow and outcome of the 2006 election. Resolute 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least as important and notable a bit of election advertising as this classic; these played a very significant role in defining the tenor and the outcome of the Canadian federal election, 2006. I'm not making this up; I'm not allowed to make this up. (And I hereby propose a moratorium on any further comments in this discussion being written in the style of one of the ads...deal?) It's a keep to me, but failing that I'd settle for merging into Canadian federal election, 2006 rather than deletion. Bearcat 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and how. Ads are widely seen as a highly integral part of a federal election campaign. If it needs some editing, go wild, but at it's current length a merge is inappropriate. WilyD 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment having read the article, it's actually pretty good, better than most Wikipedia articles, almost all of which could use some sprucing up. I'm not sure why people would complain. Not sure who Ardenn thinks it's POV favouring, I couldn't discern much of a bias. WilyD 12:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. If anything having an article on the Liberal ads balances out the Chretien face ad that led to the Tories' downfall in 1993 (and comparisons have been made between the two campaigns). 23skidoo 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. They played a major role in the election. BoojiBoy 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. The Chretien ad brought the Liberals to power, this ad brought them down. A notable event. --Arbiteroftruth 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep A notable part of recent Canadian politics. R.E. Freak 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete won't even be important in another year. Ste4k 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The Liberals were behind in polls. These adverts did not reduce that deficit and did not result in their victory. If that's "an important turning point in the election", I'm Margaret Trudeau. -- GWO
    • Comment Compare that to the 2000 and 2004 elections where Liberal attack ads were able to reverse any rising popularity the Canadian Alliance or Conservative Party of Canada were enjoying (along with some poorly timed statements from the right). In the 2006 election, the ads not only failed to change Liberal fortunes, they undermined later efforts to restore support. Regardless, the controversy they caused alone makes them highly notable in Canadian election lore. Resolute 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduce and merge to the main election article. Marskell 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per all of the above. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 03:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the Liberal election ads attracted attention by the mainstream US media, and even a response from the white house if I remember correctly. --Cloveious 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These ads were significant to the election, and any discussion of the election would be incomplete without them. The article seems to be well written, and of an appropriate length for the material covered. I think they contribute well to Wikipedia. --Mr Minchin Canada 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I found it interesting and informative. I see no POV problems. -Timzor 00:46, 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 waskeep, nomination withdrawn. Ifnord 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhartiyavidya[edit]

    I tagged this as an ad before, which may have been a little harsh, but it does read somewhat like a press release. It is a teaching system of some sort, which I concede may possibly be notable, but its notability would need to be cited. Delete unless cited and cleaned up. Grandmasterka 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Keep now that I reformed the article into a clean stub. It seems notable enough to me and has been featured in secondary sources. Grandmasterka 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I have not heard of this teaching system in India atleast by way of news or gossip. Seems like a new system unheard by the general public. if it gains some recognition, then undelete it.--Ageo020 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment something related to this has been dropped at the bottom of ICT (education), might warrant some looking into. --W.marsh 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1.I will include the website www.bhartiyavidya.com to indicate the existence of the concept. 2.To indicate recognition i will include results of surveys from thousands of students and teachers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandanaahuja (talk • contribs) .

    Have made the changes..will wait for your response —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandanaahuja (talk • contribs) .

    • Keep lets give Vandanaahuja a chance. We can always bring this up a month from now. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can i remove the notices on the article now, till it comes up for review again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandanaahuja (talk • contribs) .

    • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: you've got 5 days to clean it up if you want it kept. In which case I'll change my vote so long as its all WP:V. SynergeticMaggot 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Grandmaster Ka...i agree my attempts have probably not been good enough....i have deleted all other attempts which either aimed at supplementing any other article or were posted in any other category. My aim is not to vandalise any article on wikipedia or advertise this concept. But, the fact that the concept had found widespread appreciation in a developing country like India which still faces numerous challenges for the implementation of Information Communication Technologies in Education is worth a look. Also this endeavour has been on for 5 years now. So i thought maybe it was worth a mention on Wikipedia....maybe, you could give me one last chance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.7.67.88 (talk • contribs) .

    • Delete unless rewritten to resemble something other than an ad. As it stands now, this article is little more than spam. Resolute 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The editor seems eager to get the article into shape - I see no reason to outright delete it. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Since most of my article has been already deleted, can the notice on top regarding deletion be removed?--Vandanaahuja 07:21, 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 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Insane Spider Productions[edit]

    Non-notable one-person machinima production company formed only this year. Article was written by founder. Googling for "Insane Spider Productions" gives only 11 unique hits. "Mud Monsters from Mars", one of the productions, gets zero hits. Prod tag was removed without comment. — TKD::Talk 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable vanity page. Opabinia regalis 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable vanity. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. WP:NOT for self-promotion.--Drat (Talk) 06:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 07:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. per nom. Neil916 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 02:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. "An American 'company'"? Even the article itself hesitates to call the business a company. 11 ghits, per TKD's evidence, seems to confirm vanity page.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep I've searched Wiki quite a bit and seen pages no different than this. Like 'Furcadian Wrestling Federation', that's some guild on Furcadia. What's the difference besides the fact that ISP will make entertainment available to everyone while FWF will only appeal to certain others who have Furcadia? Also the reason I hesitate to call ISP a company is because isnt a company something that has an infastructure and makes a profit? ISP is completely profit free. It's used to entertain people.TwistedArachnid 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The "just as non-notable/less notable stuff is on Wikipedia" argument is not a reason to keep. It is rather a reason to nominate the other stuff for deletion too.--Drat (Talk) 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. I agree with the original nominator. TedTalk/Contributions 05:36, 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 Therianthropy. Nothing reliable to merge. —Centrx→talk • 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Therianism[edit]

    Non-notable sub-sub-culture of therianthropy, who apparently label themselves "the cool group" —Ashley Y 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Delete —Ashley Y 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete TimCBaker 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete microscopic subculture that is both non-notable and just plain weird. Opabinia regalis 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Way too short. --Sbluen 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Give this a chance... {{stub}} is there for a reason —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Therianthropy. See if they want it. SynergeticMaggot 07:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as dicdef. The apparent casual and recent invention of the phrase also suggests a neologism, particularly Google turns up several discussions compared to the set definition as claimed by the article. Google shows 78 distinct hits, out of 1,640 general hits, raising notability concern. Tychocat 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Therianthropy and see it survives as per SynergeticMaggot. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Therianthropy. If it later develops into something, then it can be split off at that time. TedTalk/Contributions 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Within Therianthropy, a good portion of us call our culture Therianism rather than Therianthropy. Same how Christianity and Catholism are alike, but different names and small notable variations. We mainly beleive in the same things, but alot varies between both. I also do not suggest merging them, as suggested. It's just a headache for us then, prolly resulting in a debate of/and deletion and reinstatement of this article. If we want to be defined as Therians under Therianism, let us be then; it's not bugging anyone. And yes, the article needs to be reworked. I didn't mean offense by 'the cool group', i was just saying that because I really think it is an awsome group to be a part of! ^^p Mix Bouda-Lycaon 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Therianthropy. this does not need it's own separate article.--Wispytearz 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — I was originally going to second merge to Therianthropy, but this article has no substantial content at all and definitely violates the NPOV principle ("cool group"? please!). So there's really not much here worth merging. Add a line to the Therianthropy article mentioning "therianism" as an alternate term, maybe, but I can't see any need for more than that. Miss Lynx 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless they can cite RS that they are indeed cooler (V). (changed vote) rootology 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — A non-notable group of people who can't understand what therianthropy is but want to fit into it anyway. Article also makes no sense; refers to "followers [of Therianthropy]". It's not a religion, folks. Wouldn't fit under Therianthropy because of misinformation and because it is not in any sense a commonly used term. --Kaiyote 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge inside Therianthropy, rewrite (Cool?) Spirou 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge (assuming any of it is verifiable using reliable sources) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 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 speedy delete CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Savvas yerocosta[edit]

    Article was twice speedily deleted per A7, first under the name Savvas Yerocosta[27], then under the present, changed capitalization version[28], now recreated with the assertions of notability that he has won multiple music awards.

    Subject is listed here (PDF) as being a seventh grader who plays intermediate trumpet. I think it's absolutely great that he has won these awards but I do not think he meets WP:BIO and the article violates WP:AUTO. Two Google hits for the article subject, the first linked above, and the latter not mentioning him [29]. Lack of Google results for asserted awards indicates that that they do not imply any wide or unique fame. He may very well be a "rising star" but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete congrats on the awards, but the notability standard for encyclopedia inclusion is well above this. Opabinia regalis 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and then prevent recreation --Brad101 03:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and protect from re-creation per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, admins, you can delete this page. However, I ask you not to permanently delete it. For in the years to come I believe that Savvas Yerocosta will truly become a note worthy person, and will surely meet the criteria for an artical in wikipedia. So, bye for now, I shall be back soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savage1537 (talk • contribs)

    Comment That was the article creator, so the article's been tagged with {{db-author}}. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:03, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A phone call is worth a thousand emails[edit]

    Contested Prod. An expression "coined on July 19th, 2006". WP:NFT. Fan-1967 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as original prodder. Someone got lost on the way to his blog. Opabinia regalis 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Author just vandalized this AFD. Fan-1967 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A saying by an unknown author doesn't merit a place . who is this 'the juice' giusti. seems like a mafia henchman--Ageo020 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment pls don't cast disparity's around about peoples user-names, be civil!-- Librarianofages 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this protologism. GassyGuy 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as clear WP:NFT and WP:NEO. -- H·G (words/works) 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete neologism -- Alias Flood 04:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-notable neologism made up one day. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:NEO --Evan Robidoux 07:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 07:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, WP:NEO. Voice of Treason 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Clearly a non-notable neologism. Lacks any sources so unverifiable. Gwernol 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article was created by a total newbie who was completely clueless about this kind of thing. Participants here should please take WP:BITE to heart. The messages left on the poor guy's talk page were quite unwelcoming. Obviously the article is inappropriate (unencyclopedic) but the person should have gotten a friendlier note explaining the problem. I left a welcome template but maybe there's a more suitable one. Phr (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: The article's creator, The Juice, vandalized this AfD and attacked Fan-1967 twice for putting the article up for deletion EX1 / EX2. The reply on his talk page came after the vandalism and first attack. Voice of Treason 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for obvious reasons Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO and yes, let us not forget WP:BITE. Civily explaining WP:NEO and why a protologism is not appropriate for Wikipedia would have been the logical first step.--Isotope23 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO. It appears the vandalism happened before the the WP:BITE. --DarkAudit 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO. RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, WP:NEO and WP:NFT; maybe WP:SNOW this. --Kinu t/c 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because, while some may nod in agreement, it's still a neologism. Doogie2K (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete coined on July 19th, 2006 by Johnny "the Juice" Giusti. Neil916 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per everything above. R.E. Freak 02:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Fan-1967: please see WP:BITE about referring to a newcomer as a WP:VANDAL. User:The Juice, maybe through error, or maybe with some unknown type of intention, removed a comment and an early delete vote [30], a very big no-no in a discussion like this. He hasn't made any other edits to the afd up to now. To The Juice: please feel free to participate here, i.e. add your own vote and any comments that you want to share; but don't remove or edit stuff added by other people--that's frowned upon in almost every circumstances. (Note, that applies to discussion pages only. Article pages can in general be edited by anyone in any way, at any time). -- Phr (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I jumped too quickly. When the nomination comments were removed my first reaction was vandalism rather than ignorance, and I should have reacted more calmly. Fan-1967 12:54, 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 11:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yatsumi[edit]

    nn comic written by the page's creator. Contested prod Borisblue 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Wikipedia is not a free host, as it says here. --Sbluen 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a bad attempt at advertising a non-notable webcomic. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is worse than advertising a webcomic, this is some kid's comic (WP:NFT) and one of the images was blatantly made in not Photoshop, but Windows Paint! Possible BJAODN material. Morgan Wick 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or userfy if creator wants it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 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 Speedily deleted lacking context. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AR-01[edit]

    character in non-notable comic. Borisblue 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete lacking context. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shiku Sakaru[edit]

    Character in non-notable self-drawn comic Borisblue 02:54, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial blasts in mumbai[edit]

    This article is only a collection of opinions and some information that is also found in 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. --Sbluen 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brainbench[edit]

    This reads like an ad. But this reason I'm bringing this to AfD instead of Speedy is that I'm not sure if this is actually notable or not. Its hard to filter through the 626,000 ghits to see which actually apply. --Pboyd04 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This is nothing but an advert. --Brad101 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain I created the article, but I would shed no tears if it were deleted. --Arcadian 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete doesn't meet WP:CORP Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Dlyons493. Neil916 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Dlyons493. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: With an article rewrite, it could probably be a good article. Brainbench does have thousands, if not millions of users and is used by some prominent companies. But then again, I hold like 30 something Brainbench certifications, so, I'm formally abstaning from voting and commenting alone. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:46, 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 No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. - Bobet 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sage (internet)[edit]

    Not being an avid forum user I've never heard of this. Which lends me to think that its not notable considering most of the google hits are unrelated. --Pboyd04 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Saging is a popular slang on forums using Futaba software. Dwayne Kirkwood 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This isn't notable anywhere except on said imageboards. Perhaps add a mention of it to some other article, but it doesn't deserve its own. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as dicdef at best. Also per Coredesat talk. o.o;;, not notable anywhere else except on some imageboards. Tychocat 07:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Coredesat Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - concur with Coredsat -- Whpq 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Whpq and Dlyons493. SynergeticMaggot 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to somewhere it might be useful, and delete-- unsourced. (I am the article creator.) Ashibaka tock 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It may niche in the Western world (i.e. 4chan), but to 10,000,000 daily Japanese users on 2chan, surely it's notable. Remember, just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it's not worth keeping. --SevereTireDamage 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I meant to link to 2channel, not Futaba Channel. 2channel is the phenomenally popular non-image board, and that article is sourced. Many voters here seem to think the term is exclusive to imageboards, but it is not.--SevereTireDamage 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Whpq and Dlyons493. NN boardcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - it seems to be an important concept in a fairly-widespread type of image board. (Not too sure about use on Internet forums, though - there's 2ch, but I have no idea how widespread it is on Japanese forums otherwise, and it's certainly not common in the English-language web). Not a dicdef either as it stands. Finding suitable references could be fun, though - probably not much interest in imageboard culture amongst suitable sources...
    • Weak delete Not really a dictdef as the concept is discussed, but not really a proper article. No real obvious single merge target and nowhere to transwiki. Kotepho 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep; WP:JOWETT is not policy yet. That said, I'd rather like to see sources for the claim that it's used by trolls. In the system I'm familiar with, trolls are the ones who don't sage their responses as appropriate... — Haeleth Talk 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Futaba Channel or other appropriate Imageboard-related article, give it's only notable among users of such sites. --NeoChaosX 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable dicdef +/- neologism. Ifnord 00:08, 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 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravihansa Wetakepotha[edit]

    Originally deleted on Oct 10 2005 re: [31] A second article was started on the 13th. Just found it while wfying. 2nd article no better than the first. Brad101 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a repost, content is different, and previous AfD had only one "vote". Let's give it the five days, something might come up in searches. Just zis Guy you know? 09:03, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Akroness[edit]

    PROD removed without discussion. neologism with no evidence given of much use outside some web forum... see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Gets 4,000 google results, but from just 10 total different websites. No Amazon, Google News or scholar results. Also, despite the claims of the article, I get no results for the term searching the archives of the paper that is claimed to have used the term twice [32] --W.marsh 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nominater. --Sbluen 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Michael 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, well-reasoned nomination. Mangojuicetalk 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete "Is only fully understood by residents of the city" is something not worthy in Wikipedia, the article is too short, way too sloppy, not in the form of an article, and, simply, nonsense. Mangojuice, please delete it now. Kitia 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete. I gotta say I would think that something that has grown from an utterance in a forum to over 4,000 google hits and it's placement in several people's prominent vernacular over a short course of time is in and of itself worthy of a wiki entry. The Newspaper that has used this term in articles does not keep open public archives of material past 2 weeks as it seeks to recieve payment for past archived content. Granted, this may not be newsworthy to someone outside of Akron, Ohio but to us.. it is. What about links in articles. For example in the Akron wikipedia entry is it of note to anyone besides Akronites that there is a Talk radio station at WAKR 1590? or that there's a Downtown Akron partnership? Hows is it grounds for removal based off of the fact that it "Is only fully understood by residents of the city"? Part of the terminology's charm and long lasting nature is that it's based off of local flavor. For you to call that nonsense, simply because you don't get it, is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfa eljefe (talk • contribs)
    • Delete per nom. NN boardcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete. Firstly, as a member of the www.coolpeoplefromakron.com forums and website, I don't appreciate your rudeness, and I agree with the above "Don't Delete" entry on every point made. Simply becasue it is a local term, one used by the residents of that city, doesn't mean it is not appropriate for "Wikipedia." A child in Akron may look up such a term as "akroness" to use in a local culture HS newpaper article, term paper, or professional journalist using it in an article that you couldn't find (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/columnists/david_giffels/14617541.htm or http://www.kansas.com/mld/ohio/news/columnists/david_giffels/13966638.htm). By the way, it hit on almost 5000 on google, and 12 websites. And in rebuttal to the sloppiness comment, Kitia, would it be too hard to post something like "Akroness of this entry may cause deletion, please keep entries in article form." instead of simply tossing it aside without any contemplation, therefore giving the person/persons a chance to tidy up their entry? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.23.191 (talk • contribs)
    Uh, neither of those articles seem to use the term "Akroness". I think you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about... ultimately we just summarize information that has already been covered in published sources. Period. See WP:V and WP:NOR (and the above mentioned Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). This really is not negotiable. There are plenty of sites that don't have this requirement (nearly any other than Wikipedia, really), see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a start. --W.marsh 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete. Both of those articles use the word as summarized in the Wiki entry in question. CTRL-F is handy for searching in page. As to your point that Wikipedia is merely for summarizing information that has already been published.. The term 'Akroness' has been published on CPFA, used as a title/theme in multiple DVD creations, referenced in above linked articles, and found it's way into the common vernacular of city residents. All things start out small, as ideas passed from one to another and then grow from that seed. This phrase is way past the seed form and I'd call it more of a sapling. A community tree if you will. I support it staying for it's documented popular culture roots and continual growth in our fair city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfa eljefe (talk • contribs)
    • Don't Delete. Uh, your professionalism is flying out the window...sorry about that. You (and I quote) "summarize information that has already been covered in published sources. Period." Exactly what we are trying to do; give you the definition of a word that has been used more and more since it's conception, in multiple published sources. I doubt everyone in Akron got it the first time Mr. Giffels wrote it into his newspaper article. He used the more editorial appropriate spelling of "Akron-ness," but whether you say goodbye or bye bye it holds the same concept. We don't know, but he may have originally written "akroness" and when his editor saw it, asked him to correct it. While I was getting my degree in Mass Media I had many an article corrected, spelling grammer, etc. But I digress...saying that simply because a word, phrase, expression, etc. is a neologism, meaning that it is simply new, not the second definition in Merriam-Websters Dictionary of "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic," fails the arguementative test of tradition. Simply becasue something is new doens't mean that it isn't worthy of note. Also, I agree in geological terms the word is but a nano second old, but a word that been used in the regular vernacular of many an Akronite for the past 2 years, I stand, is worthy of said notoriety. All we want is our word to become notorious, and not in the negative conotation that a "bad guy" would be considered, just well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.23.191 (talk • contribs)
    • Can I eat those meatpuppets or sock those sockpuppets now? --Kitia 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Or is that, "Wikipedia is not for something you made up at the Airdock one day"? :) —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete. See now you're just insulting us, and that is rude. I don't appreciate that. I can only assume that you make "ad hominum" attacks becasue you, at this point in our discussion, have run out of intelligent things to say. I am disappointed that the people at wikipedia, a website that has very much good information, would be such poor arguers. Though amusing, your euphemisms for "deletion" are still uncalled for. And to make a rebutttal to your comment C. Fred, somebody invented the first words at the so-called "airdock" one day many years ago. The first words weren't instantly used by every speaking person on the planet. When American Sign Language was developed by Galludet it was only used by 3 people until they started teaching other deaf people the language. So our word is not yet used by the mass populous, neither is the word "dubs" (meaning 20" wheels on a vehicle) but you have a Wiki page for that. Thanks.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CPU Wars[edit]

    Doesn't seem notable. About 600 ghits for "CPU Wars" +comic. --Pboyd04 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep -- CPU Wars was extremely notable in its time, and is an important piece of computer history. Atlant 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Low number of google hits can be attributed to the age of the comic. Resolute 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as above. Jeez, I remember these (but I saw them in the 80s). But the article needs improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Do not judge historical items by modern standards. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Notability should never be judged by Google hits alone. RFerreira 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete not notable --Vergardio 01:01, 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 to merge to Clone Manga. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nana's Everyday Life[edit]

    Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable webcomic with no sources. Fagstein 03:26, 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 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Episode_27:_The_Game[edit]

    Article about a childrens TV show, with no need for an individual episode synopsis.

    • Delete Original research. --Sbluen 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per precedent. Danny Lilithborne 12:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's not like there's detailed entries for every episode, nor is the show itself noteworthy enough to warrant such a level of detail (see Doctor Who, Star Trek). Doogie2K (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's about Jimbo! Delete as it's not a particularly notable series, unless someone wants to write more episode guides, in which case merge it to a list of episode summaries. BryanG(talk) 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable episodes from highly notable programs. Hell, this one is from a show popular enough to become a movie. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 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 close bad faith nom by edit warrior - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Bourrie[edit]

    This page is really nothing more than a vanity entry. This person has has little to no notabilty, whose emergance of publicity ocurred over a lawsuit filed against him. He doesn't fit the Professor bill of notabilty. He has written some books, that aren't best sellers. He has done freelance work for multiple Newspapers, hardly notable. Please read his blog, it alone get's very few comments. Google his image, and you'll turn up nothing. Pete Peters 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. It appears that when the article was created, the subject was making headlines for some statements he attributed to a politician, which drew possible lawsuit threats. Judging from the Talk page, the subject logged on and voiced some disagreements over how that topic was portrayed. Now it's not mentioned in the article at all. In other words, the subject may indeed be notable, but it's not being reflected in the current edit. -- H·G (words/works) 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment, looking at the recent edit history, I'm wondering if this is a bad-faith AfD nomination. Pete Peters's first edit was to this article, and apparently he has been trying to "out" the subject's Wikipedia username. User:Arthur Ellis has been involved in this as well, apparently in reverting the changes to this page, and there seems to be a tiff growing between the two of them. This page was nominated for AfD only after Arthur Ellis reverted Pete Peters's last changes. -- H·G (words/works) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The immediate background was this. --JGGardiner 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more I look at this, the less I want to get involved. While I think some outside attention might be warranted in this article, or at least in regards to the edit war between two editors, this isn't the place for it. I vote speedy close. -- H·G (words/works) 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems reasonably notable - several non fiction books, so what if they are not best sellers, and a member of the Canadian parliamentary press gallery, so no slouch as a journalist. --Michael Johnson 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a procedural decision. What I see here is a content dispute plain and simple which has led one party to nominate the article for AfD. I second H·G, some sort of outside attention or mediation is probably warrented here. I've tagged it NPOV because it looks like verifiable information has been removed and the current iteration of the article is a fluff piece. Still, that isn't grounds for deletion and while a case for WP:BIO could be made, let that be made at a later date when cooler heads can prevail.--Isotope23 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I googled him and found 83,600 hits including reviews of his books, discussions of his fossils, articles he had written, etc. 64.26.170.192 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Although I agree that this article is more trouble than it is worth, that's not a criteria for deletion. He's not exactly well-known for his books but he has several and I think Hemp got some attention, particularily in certain communities (those inclined to agree with it before they cracked the spine). He's also had quite a number of stories in national newspapers. Although I gather he was a freelancer who did the Simcoe County beat, mostly from tiny Midland. 31,000 google hits (I used quotation marks). It could use some work but I'd keep it. --JGGardiner 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. He is notable enough as an author for inclusion. Bucketsofg✐ 15:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Compaq Presario V4435NR[edit]

    Individual computer model's generally aren't notable and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. --Pboyd04 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as advertisement, non-notable. Next month no one will be talking about this model, presuming anyone else mentions it now. Tychocat 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not notable -- Whpq 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, pointless article. RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per above followed by a swift redirect to Compaq Presario. Wickethewok 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kasandra_Shepherd[edit]

    Wikipedia is not a memorial, lack of historical significance? Jmcnally 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as non-notable. The significance of the subject's murder, although a horrific circumstance, is not established. I hate to sound callous, but many people are murdered every day, and while it is almost always tragic, not all of them should be catalogued on WP. -- H·G (words/works) 04:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was also slightly disturbed to see an entire category for "Murdered Children". While this is horrific and sad, I fail to see what is valuable about keeping a list. Jmcnally 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and comment Sad case, but with the number of murders in Canada alone, being a murder victim in and of itself doesn't provide notability. As for why there's a category for murdered children, categories serve as "meta information" for a host of articles. In and of themselves, they are simply descriptors added to an article, which then allow one to find other articles in that vein. Captainktainer * Talk 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Captainktainer. --Ardenn 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining this, I admit, but the notability of the Shepherd case was that it led to a judicial inquiry which recommended a major overhaul of Ontario's system of child protection, because it was held that the Children's Aid Society's failure to protect her from parental abuse was a contributing factor in her death. I don't feel particularly strongly about this one, personally — it is certainly keepable if expanded, but could also perhaps be merged into a "controversies" section at Children's Aid Society. Bearcat 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Subject was notable enough to warrant a five-page article in a journal concerning child welfare in Ontario, linked from the article. Some of these types of cases are quite notale in the area where they occurred, and the article mentions a well-publicized inquest in 1997. Even though I've never heard of her, residents of the area may be. I think the article is a candidate for expansion, not deletion. Neil916 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand per Bearcat & Neil916, but make sure that importance is asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 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 deleted as CSD A8. Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Power Ranger cross-overs[edit]

    Article was origianlly speedied, but I figured I'd put it here to see if the article really should be deleted. Have your say! Mostly Rainy 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and cleanup This does seem to be a valid topic if it isn't duplicated elsewhere, but right now it seems to lack references. This isn't fundamentally unverifiable, so that can probly be fixed. It also has some spelling/grammatical problems. Ace of Sevens 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into List of Power Rangers episodes; that list will be, ideally, be split up by series or episode as it grows, but organising the episodes by type or theme like this, even if it is a prevalent theme, is not encyclopedic. The content here is fairly bad, but its a good start, so moving it over to that list seems the best solution.-SB | T 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as copyvio: as near as I can tell, everything in this article apart from the introductory paragraph has simply been copied-and-pasted from tv.com's episode summaries ([33], [34], [35], etc). While those are user-editable, the terms and conditions say
    Our sites include a combination of content that we create, that our partners create, and that our users create. All materials published on our sites, including, but not limited to, written content, photographs, graphics, images, illustrations, marks, logos, sound or video clips, and Flash animation, are protected by our copyrights or trademarks or those of our partners. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part. [36]
    In short, this article is illegal. No prejudice against the subject, but we must respect others' copyright and delete this as quickly as possible. — Haeleth Talk 13:04, 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 11:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Weiss[edit]

    Non-notable and autobiographic (TV Genius is Tom Weiss). Delete per WP:BIO. Haakon 04:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, local politicians and government figures aren't usually considered notable unless other accomplishments make them so, and that doesn't seem to apply here. -- H·G (words/works) 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per HG and suspected v --Firien § 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom. SmartGuy 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am not Tom Weiss (who has never lived in Devon), and to state such a falsehood is a libellous smear. Local councillors are considered notable, eg David Boothroyd, Darren Hayday. TV Genius 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry if you are in fact not Weiss. It seemed an easy conclusion to make because your contributions are mainly about him and your username is the name of the company he founded. I still question his notability. Haakon 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable. Boothroyd and (less so) Hayday have other claims to notability. Mtiedemann 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boothroyd and Hayday have less claims to notability, no books published etc. If this sets a precedent for deleting local councillors it clearly wont be the last afd. TV Genius 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment There already are precedents - see Ben Abbotts (Bromley cllr who ran the Tories close in Bromley & Chislehurst), and currently Sandy Keith and Angela Constance (also by-election candidates) where their political activity was more notable. Ditto Antonia Bance. Mia Jones (Chester) was speedily deleted despite having been an article for a year by an admin for only being a councillor and parliamentary candidate. There is indeed a whole stack of councillors from e.g. Liverpool, Manchester, Brentwood and Colchester for whom there is little to say and AfD processes are overdue. Councillor-only articles have to show a greater level of notability such as council leadership (e.g. Steve Reed), leadership of a national or regional body (e.g. Jeremy Beecham, Sally Powell, Robin Wales) or being the "first, last, best or worst" (e.g. John Archer, Edgar Griffin, Margot James). This is not Policy, but I guess I am trying to make sense of the precedents that have already been set. Mtiedemann 15:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom and deletion of other mere candidates and councillors. Timrollpickering 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. Being a local councillors is not, by itself, notable. TedTalk/Contributions 05:43, 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 (CSD G3). --Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Patrick O'Duggan[edit]

    I suspect this is a hoax. No references are given and the article was created by a new account who created several similar articles. I could be wrong, but I can't find any ghits to back it up. It was originally prodded, and then de-prodded by an anon-ip who is I suspect the original author Megapixie 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no Ghits on any variation of his name, and no sources provided. Notability cannot be proven or even asserted. Additionally, there are some hints of POV as well. -- H·G (words/works) 04:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Away with the hoaxy crap. -- Captain Disdain 05:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nn even if not hoax NawlinWiki 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this is an obvious hoax. I have heard of a number of Irish republican splinter groups, but not the Irish Liberation Front. If any Irish republican group had lost 35 members in one day it would surely have hit the headlines and I would have heard about it. When, in 1987, the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade really did lose eight members in one go in the Loughgall ambush it was a major incident which hit the headlines. PatGallacher 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, editor who created the articles is aware of the nomination for deletion (and removed AfD tags from the articles) so if nomination is incorrect he is welcome to speak up here. Google on "Irish Liberation Front" in quotes only points to a cafepress.com site selling materials related to a myspace userpage, and a spoof site of 60 minutes (and Wikipedia). Strongly suspect hoax. Neil916 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per G3 and A7 There is an IRA, but there is no ILF. Speedyable as vandalism and non-notable bio. Jesse Viviano 02:30, 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 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jarsaki Son[edit]

    I suspect this is a hoax. Created by a new account, who also created three other hoax like articles. I could be wrong - but no ghits. Megapixie 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, no Ghits for ""Jarsaki Son" nokoyama," and since no references are provided, nothing here can be verified. -- H·G (words/works) 04:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Someone should just block the editor permanently, since it's pretty obvious that the account is only being used for vandalism. -- Captain Disdain 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nn even if not hoax. NawlinWiki 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, editor who created the articles is aware of the nomination for deletion (and removed AfD tags from the articles) so if nomination is incorrect he is welcome to speak up here. Neil916 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Even if the person is real (which I doubt), there's no merit in the article. Fg2 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not only is "Jarsaki" not a Japanese name, it is not even possible to write in any Japanese script. Which rather leads one to suspect it's a hoax, ね? — Haeleth Talk 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's able to be written: ジャーサキ ... though the article is almost certainly a hoax. --Kunzite 20:34, 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 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Herbert Icabod Yerr[edit]

    I suspect this is a hoax, the article was create by a new account who created three other hoaxy articles (see other afds above). One has been prodded and de-prodded already - so I brought them all here. Megapixie 04:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, without any references, none of this can be verified independent of the internet. And since Google only returns this page for either of the subject's names, when combined with the word "gold," I'm inclined to agree it's a hoax. -- H·G (words/works) 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Destroy as per Humblegod Kennykane 14:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Smells like a hoax, indeed. -- Captain Disdain 05:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unsourced, probable hoax. NawlinWiki 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, editor who created the articles is aware of the nomination for deletion (and removed AfD tags from the articles) so if nomination is incorrect he is welcome to speak up here. Neil916 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as hoax. Facts are incorrect (telegraph lines didn't cross the United States until the 1860s, and didn't even cover the cities in California until 1853); hyaline membrane disease is a newborn disease (I don't know when it was named, but would be suprised if it was by 1863); etc. TedTalk/Contributions 05:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Providing incite and details for those seeking gold within the hills, citing the most prosperous hill for travelers searching for gold. Considering what was happening during the gold rush, I doubt there was anyone this altruistic as to simply point out the best places to prospect. Where are the sources for this information? Sounds like the source is the author's rectum. — NMChico24 09:10, 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. Deleted by - Makemi 04:09, July 20, 2006

    • Reason - (nn-bio, part of astroturfing campaign)
    • Reason - Admin possibly didnt know it was listed. SynergeticMaggot 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Paris Hilton (Christian30)[edit]

    Unsourced, non-notable personality. CovenantD 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was just there, I swear it was... Could it have been deleted already? CovenantD 04:19, 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 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Discoverers Web[edit]

    Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. --Pboyd04 04:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 10:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as a tiny stub with no context, claims of notability, or anywhere close to meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete per nom. --Kitia 16:38, 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. - brenneman {L} 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TMNT Engine[edit]

    This is essentially a homebrew clone of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (arcade game). As such, it may merit mentioon on that page, but is generally non-notable and shouldn't have its own page. This is rarely doen for ports in general, much less unofficial ones. Note that I don't believe this qualifies for speedy. It is a recreation of deleted material, but was deleted without discussion before. Ace of Sevens 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following, because it's a duplicate, apparently created when the author saw the AfD:

    • tmnt engine
    • Delete for both, fan created games like this are not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninstall, hardy har har, as per Ace of Sevens, Do it, Do it -Kennykane 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Some fan games are notable, but not this one. Hope it turns out well, though. --SevereTireDamage 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence of importance, market share, innovation, non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, also appears to fail WP:VSCA since the article was created by the game's author. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both per nom. Recury 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both as per nom. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Burn with..er delete both. Whispering 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and take away its pizza. It really doesn't have mentions, and therefore it isn't commonly mentioned enough to require explanation, and therefore there is no need for an article. Geogre 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, crystal ballicruft. If this came out in 1989, why did the previous version, which I deleted, say TMNT Engine is currently being created by Jason Orme and is a windows based version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game by Jasonorme (emphasis mine)? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Zoe: The original game this is based off of came out in 1989. The subject itself is much newer. Anyways, delete per above reasons. Wickethewok 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stay An entry that will one day be listed anyway, so it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.89.55 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete both. And take away its pizza?!? -- NORTH talk 21:44, 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 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fortis Inc.[edit]

    *Delete. As it fails WP:CORP SynergeticMaggot 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep. Article improved, room for expansion. Withdraw my nom. SynergeticMaggot 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Fortis is one of the more well-known energy companies in Canada. They also own the Electric monopolies in the countries of Belize, and the Cayman Islands. CaribDigita 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Listed at the Toronto Stock Exchange. -- Koffieyahoo 05:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If any claims get verified I'll withdraw my nom. But for this article having been created in 2004, its still once sentence! The last edits were bots and a stub sort, other than that its been about a year since anything was added. SynergeticMaggot 06:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand according to WP:CORP. It has six Google News results including a couple of Bloomberg stories. [37] It also seems to be part of the Canadian utilities index according to this Bloomberg story. [38] Capitalistroadster 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have expanded the article based on a couple of Toronto Star articles. There are more sources available to allow further expansion. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom as NN. Ardenn 17:06, 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 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Roopendra Narayan Roy[edit]

    Notability of subject in dispute. I don't believe being the manager of PwC in India is quite notable enough. Subject gets 29 Ghits. hateless 05:12, 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 articles. Mailer Diablo 11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian30[edit]

    This website was founded in 2006 according to the article. It has no alexa ranking [39]. There is also a template Template:Christian30 at TFD, an image Image:Screenshot of Christian30 Countdown.png at IFD, and a host of other articles that have been tagged with a prod. If any of Christian30 Annual Video Music Awards, Christian Hot 30 Chart, Christian30 Covergirl, Matt Labanelli, and Christian Hot 30 Chart survive their prod, need a trip to AFD. BigDT 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Weasely content is misleading: MTV is mentioned, but the "relationship" is basically that Christian30 saw that MTv was a success and decided to be a success, too! Fails WEB, non-notable, NOT a promotional tool, almost Crystal ball. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other note ... take a look at Portal:Christianity/Article Archive/Suggestions. Within 27 minutes, a redlinked user proposed the article and two other brand new users with no other contributions whatsoever showed up to support the idea. Hmmmmm ... BigDT 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and check the contributions of all of these contributors. I went ahead and changed the targets of some of the redirects, while others need to be outright deleted after their associated articles go. Blatant advertising campaign. GassyGuy 05:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. Not notable, grossly exaggerated and over-promoted, and is the center of a huge astroturfing campaign supported by multiple sockpuppets (listed on the Administrators' noticeboard, and visible in the edit history to Christian30 and its satellite articles). Antandrus (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per previous comments. Slac speak up! 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. When I saw the prod earlier, I was itching to tear into it should the prod be removed. Guess I was too slow, everyone already mentioned all the big elements of this. So, I'll just say delete per all above. -- H·G (words/works) 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:WEB. SynergeticMaggot 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not free advertising. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete hard to find a policy or guideline it does not fail. Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Ninth Commandment (8th for Catholics, Swedenborgians, etc). There are a lot of Christians in America, so if, as the article claims, this website is "often considered to be the driving force in American Christian pop culture", it should not be difficult to find some people saying so on the internet... right? And yet Google returns exactly 0 hits for christian30 "driving force"... — Haeleth Talk 10:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per above. NawlinWiki 11:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all garbage. Danny Lilithborne 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all for failure of WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:V.--Isotope23 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all as above, for failure of just about every standard for inclusion. I'd be very interested to see a result of an RFCU for all these contributors who sound so much alike. Fan-1967 13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is: [40] -- confirmed sockpuppets of the same user. Antandrus (talk) 14:49, 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuselit[edit]

    Spam. Only link is to website asking for donations, not enough substance is given by author. Magazine has existed for less than a year which leaves its notablity in question. Kennykane 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete CSD A1. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jsofts[edit]

    Non-notable website, page created to promote the authors hack of a copyrighted video game TJ Spyke 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete Very little or no context. --Sbluen 06:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as above (CSD A1). MER-C 06:40, 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OtherNet[edit]

    Network is no longer in operation and is becoming an area for vandalism. Pewtermoose 05:50, 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 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of hardcore punk genres[edit]

    This is entirely a duplicate of Category:Hardcore punk genres. Each of these entries was already in that category (except one). Nominating for deletion to eliminate duplication of function. -- H·G (words/works) 06:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom, same as below this one. SynergeticMaggot 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The category does the job just fine. GassyGuy 11:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Cat does a fine job, as mentioned above. Scorpiondollprincess 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, category is good enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. If there's a category for hardcore punk genres, there doesn't need to be a duplicate list. --Gray Porpoise 00:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of musical punk genres[edit]

    Along the lines of my AfD nomination for List of hardcore punk genres above, I nominate this article as a duplication of Category:Punk genres. I've made sure that every bluelinked entry here is listed in that category. The two entries with no wiki article don't strike me as significant article topics at the moment, but if it bothers anyone I can go ahead and create stubs for the two terms before deletion. Either way, nominating for deletion to eliminate duplication of function. -- H·G (words/works) 06:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, doesnt need its own page, has a cat. SynergeticMaggot 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Rendered pointless by the category. GassyGuy 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. As long as we have the cat, this can go. Scorpiondollprincess 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, redundant to category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. If there's a category for punk genres, there doesn't need to be a duplicate list. --Gray Porpoise 00:54, 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 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    George Chang[edit]

    His party has absolutely no relevance in Taiwan, and there is no other claim of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep - I know precisely nothing about Taiwanese politics, but it seems to me that if he's the leader of a party on the island, particularly one which must have some sort of ties to other Communist parties (a large movement), he may end up being passingly notable. BigHaz 07:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. George Chang is a common name, so the supporters of this article should provide us with some sources as evidence that one George Chang out there is the leader of the Taiwan Communist Party. So far the article seems unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no verifiable information in the article, and my own attempts to verify turned up nothing via googling. -- Whpq 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete information is not verifiable due to lack of substance--Aquaman007 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retool or delete. My attempts to find a Taiwanese Communist George Chang on Google had no success, though interestingly, there was a pro-independence George Chang who was arrested by the authorities. Our article on the Taiwanese Communist Party says that the island's communists decamped to the mainland at the end of the Civil War, and that "promoting communism" is still illegal. It says that there basically is no Communist Party on Taiwan and that all efforts to start one have been abortive. The man who is trying to start one is called Dai Chung. Thus, there is a question whether this article is of any truth. However, we might want to have an article on the independence activist, who doesn't have a lot of hits, but apparently had a moderately notable arrest in 1992, or one of the other George Changs that some editors would insert into the article, only to have them deleted. --Groggy Dice 12:06, 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 07:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pacific World[edit]

    A tricky one, this. As a New Zealander, I've never heard the term used and it feels like a neologism. It's a virtual orphan, too, only linked from a disambiguation page. Truckloads of ghits, but they're all for different things (A Buddhist magazine, various travel companies, and more often than not qa chance juxtaposition of words). I'm not convincved. If it is an accepted term, then it's likely as not more of a wiktionary thing anyway as it's unlikely to grow beyong definition length. Grutness...wha? 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps redirect to Oceania, as folks typing that into the searchbar would most likely find what they seek in that case? Fabricationary 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • redirect per Fabricationary. If it's expanded (specifically the islands mentioned), we'll just have another article on Oceania as is. BigHaz 07:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as an Australian, I can't see anyone searching for that term. The term is never used in that sense. While you can get hits for it, it isn't in the context used in the article. The terms for the region are either Oceania or Australasia. Capitalistroadster 07:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, neologism.-gadfium 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO & WP:V, personally I've never heard the term in the States either and can't verify any usage of the term as described in the article.--Isotope23 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. And since when was Antarctica an island in the South Pacific? — Haeleth Talk 18:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I've never heard of the term either. QazPlm 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete hasn't been verified to be a widely used term. South Pacific is the commonly used term I would use to find that geographic region. Ansell 12:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Longhair 00:07, 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 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OLE Automation[edit]

    First of all, it isn't OLE Automation any more, it's now just Automation (and has nothing to do with OLE), and it's a too obscure to warrant a separate article. The content should be merged into COM and the article deleted. - Sikon 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge per Sikon. Term refers to a flavor of the day from the mid-late 1990's. Probably already documented at COM along with dozens of other such variants; I won't bother looking. Phr (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike Phr, I did bother looking. Both Component Object Model and Object Linking and Embedding actually link to this article for discussion of the subject. Contrary to what Sikon writes above, research (and indeed the article) indicates that this is far from being an obscure topic, with many people writing programming guides and articles about OLE Automation. The article is a stub with clear scope for plenty of expansion. Deleting this, so that "OLE Automation" becomes a redlink, is just daft. Keep. Uncle G 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This should be a redirect at best, move it to Automation (COM) or something, but "OLE Automation" is a term discontinued by Microsoft itself, in favor of just Automation. - Sikon 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Untrue. Microsoft still calls it "OLE Automation" here, here, here, here, and here, to pick just 5 articles from the 54,800 matches for the phrase that Google Web says are on Microsoft's web site. Uncle G 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who cares, it's just a COM object that has this specific very common interface that goes at least as far back as Windows 95. Put it all in the COM article and have the other terms redirect. Phr (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also wrong. It's not an object at all. It is a protocol. And it is IDispatch that is the interface. Uncle G 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, whatever. Merge. (And to address your concern, "merge" means leave redirects, so there won't be redlinks). Phr (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, IDispatch is not just any old interface - it's the specific interface you need to implement if you want your COM object to be accessible from VBScript/JScript, and it's used for programmatic control of MS Office and probably assorted other things too. IIRC, OLE Automation is also distinct from OLE/COM in general in that OLE/COM has a many different interfaces for different objects, each with a fixed set of methods, and you need to provide the definitions for all the interfaces you need to use at compile-time, whereas OLE Automation only uses IDispatch, all of the methods of an object can be called via that, and the methods used don't need to be known at compile-time. - makomk 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Correct, the point is that while IDispatch made important new uses possible, in a pure technological sense, this is all the same stuff under the hood. I'd really like to see a historical explanation in the COM article about how COM programming evolved over different generations of Windows as these interfaces appeared, but in any case, Automation arose as part of that evolution. Remember that COM encompasses both Automation and non-Automation uses.

                    So I still haven't seen any sensible argument (as opposed to "prevent redlinks") presented in this AfD for keeping the articles separate, but as someone suggested, the talk page is maybe a better place for that discussion.

    • Keep Even if Microsoft is trying to change the terminology (they do that a lot and it's really annoying) this term is still routinely and commonly used. Fan-1967 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh? Why a separate article instead of a redirect? Am I missing something? I never could stand the way they kept changing terminology, and generally referred to all these things as ActiveX more or less on purpose when I was programming this stuff, even when that wasn't strictly accurate. I would have loved it if they'd put all the relevant docs in one place instead of making me constantly navigate the MSDN maze. Phr (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Uncle G, whose verifiable references and cogent arguments are somewhat more convincing than "I won't bother looking" and "Yeah, whatever". — Haeleth Talk 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've looked now and feel the same way as before. Do you know anything about this subject? Do you know what IDispatch is, for example, and to what extent its presence makes an object different? I didn't look at the other articles before because I didn't feel that I needed to, having spent more time programming COM than I want to think about (shudder). I don't mean to be giving you a hard time, and I'm sorry to have been so flip, but I'm knowledgable enough about this subject to feel that I know what I'm talking about when I say I think we're better off with it all in one article and having the related terms redirect. It's Uncle G, on the other hand, who doesn't seem to realize that merging with redirects doesn't leave redlinks (and of course "merge" means fix the backlinks). And he hasn't made any cogent arguments of anything except that the old term is still in use, which I haven't contested. Phr (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Uncle G and my comments above. - makomk 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if it would be better merged or moved, take it to the article's talk page. Kotepho 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is reasonable. Phr (talk) 17:56, 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 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenwich warriors[edit]

    Contested prod. No real notability; it's basically a little league team. Morgan Wick 06:22, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hit the sticks[edit]

    I prod'd this a day or two ago, and an anonymous user removed it today without comment. The term definitely strikes me as a neologism--it doesn't appear to pass the Google test (44 unique Ghits for '"hit the stick" video games'), and the "history" of it as described by the article strikes me as unlikely, especially considering the lack of references. -- H·G (words/works) 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In all my years of playing video games, if someone said "lets hit the sticks" I'd smack them with a belt sander. WP:NEO. SynergeticMaggot 07:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm completely with you on that one- and I would love to see it. For the love of god, delete! -- Kicking222 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The embarassment of closet gamers will only continue if anybody uses this term. Danny Lilithborne 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:NEO. (And for the record, I wholeheartedly agree with SynergeticMaggot!) Scorpiondollprincess 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-notable neologism. --—Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:26, 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 --Pilotguy (roger that) 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perle Systems[edit]

    • Delete Non-notable commercial advertising. AlistairMcMillan 06:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep It started as advertising, but I put in material about their being delisted from the NASDAQ, so it's not a puff piece at this point. They were a reasonably big company once, although now they're more of historical interest. --John Nagle 06:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the company is notable, would you mind adding some sources to back that up. AlistairMcMillan 17:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep per John Nagle's comments. Scorpiondollprincess 13:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, they were a successful vendor in the minicomputer segment as I recall, obviously the worse for wear at this point. Tagged for importance. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per John Nagle, this should hold a historical interest. Yamaguchi先生 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:CORP. The text still reads like it is an advert in parts where it makes claims. Vegaswikian 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As far as my understanding of the WP:CORP goes, it fullfills point number 1: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself (http://www.findarticles.com). If the text still partly reads as an ad wouldn't it make more sense to change it rather than delete it? --Lukas Karrer 18:55, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cephogomorphia[edit]

    The term produces a grand total of 0 Google hits, which makes me highly suspicious. I'm listing it here to see if any experts in the topic can confirm if this term even exists. Sarg 07:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Tried aol search, failed. Looked into psychological disorders, and its not listed. Its either a hoax or a WP:NEO. Either way it has no place on Wikipedia. SynergeticMaggot 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per SynergeticMaggot. Scorpiondollprincess 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm leaning toward hoax. --—Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm not an expert on mental disorders, but I know a bit about cognitive-behavioural therapy, and I've never heard of it being used to treat anything like this -- it's usually used for depression, not what sounds like some kind of psychotic disorder (my terminology may be wrong). Which makes me suspect this was not based on a reliable source... — Haeleth Talk 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete No hits searching medical and health journals using LexisNexis. Looks like a hoax. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No mention in any field literature that I had access to. No hits in LexisNexis. And I strongly suspect that the word is not even properly constructed from the appropriate language roots even were it a real topic. WP:HOAX Serpent's Choice 06:28, 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 keep and cleanup. Natgoo 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Natas (band)[edit]

    Does not seem to meet WP:BAND, dead end, poorly written and no external sources. MER-C 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep - the band exists ([41]) and has released at least one album that I'm aware of (I own it and have never set foot anywhere near Detroit). Additionally, Esham has his own article here already and is generally credited as an influence on performers such as Insane Clown Posse and Eminem. The article should be rewritten considerably to cover this sort of thing, but is definitely something which should be kept. BigHaz 07:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Although if someone could say I was an influence on ICP and Eminem, I'd probably beg to have my article deleted. -- H·G (words/works) 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add to my above rationale that in no way do I necessarily call myself a fan of any of the artists mentioned. The vote to keep is merely a reflection of my belief that NATAS are notable :P BigHaz 23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Four albums on TVT Records, and has charted [42]. By the way, anyone who has looked at the article in the last 9 and 1/2 hours should take another look, because someone had replaced the original text with an exact copy of their allmusic bio. --Joelmills 00:16, 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 deleted per CSD A8. Mangojuicetalk 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian design[edit]

    Prod removed without explanation. nn company, 21 ghits for "Idiom+Tesseract", many unrelated to the subject of the article. WP not an ad service. Also, abysmal writing. Etc., etc. Finally, the arrogance of squatting on the 'Indian design' page! Hornplease 07:47, 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 08:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blosting[edit]

    Article does not assert notability and provides no defining references. Originally prodded, but tag was removed twice, as such, referred to here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kottke's interest in Blosting shows a great deal of internet notability. This is a new web phenomenon-- a recent blost-related photo has already received over 1200 Flickr views--that will undoubtedly grow exponentially and will soon need its own Wikipedia entry. Philelvrum 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Philelvrum is the user who first vandalised Wikipedia by inserting the Chocula story, and has subsequently also vandalised Boo Berry in the same way. He is apparently attempting to abuse Wikipedia to create a new meme. — Haeleth Talk 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Soon is not now. Plus this sentence: "The first widely known occurrence of blosting was a 2006 biography of Ernst Choukula on Wikipedia.org" makes the article look like missusing Wikipedia. Sarg 08:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Wikipedia, I also noticed that wording and have edited accordingly. Considering the speed at which information travels online, "soon" and "now" are quickly becoming interchangeable. A quick Google search for "Ernst Choukula" will show that dozens of online zines and blogs have already covered this breaking subcultural expression.Jonabechtolt 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: None of them call it Blosting. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NEO, WP:NFT... — Haeleth Talk 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because it's stupid, and ban creator and Jonabechtolt for vandalism. Danny Lilithborne 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Yes, it does seem like a troll, but folks, please, let's not make this personal. -Harmil 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's not personal. People who only intend to manipulate Wikipedia in order to create their own meme have no right to be here. Danny Lilithborne 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for the reasons stated above. Just because people have covered the vandalism doesn't make it encyclopedic, particularly because the article is trying to make the neologism, not the incident, encyclopedic. Euphoria 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per all above, and cheers to Euphoria for hitting the nail on the head. --Kinu t/c 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Haeleth. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all above. The edits to Count Chocla are still being made (recently things like this). If anyone wants to add it to their watch list, that may not go amiss. What is this? Step 1. Vandalize wikipedia, step 2. blog about it, step 3. Claim wikipedia should incorporate your vandalism because it is now notable. Groan. --TeaDrinker 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You infer from this that one person, or a small collective of people, are solely responsible for steps 1,2 and 3. This is not the case. I discovered the Count Chocula entry through kottke.org and appreciate the interesting problem it poses for Wikipedia. The solution is not to simply delete. To do so violates a number of Wikipedia policies, most notably WP:AGF.--71.106.80.32 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read our policies more carefully before you cite them, please. WP:AGF is a policy for interacting with users, not keeping articles. I might assume that you are, in good faith, defending the inclusion of non-notable original research on Wikipedia, but that should not deter me in the slightest from having it deleted as quickly as possible. -- SCZenz 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is my contention that editors are acting too harshly in the particular instance of the Count Chocula edit, and that the reason for such extreme harshness is a lack of good faith in the users carrying out those edits, myself included. This observation seems to be repeatedly verified by the decidedly pompous assertions that Wikipedia's policies are both unknown and misunderstood by myself and other users attempting to document a light-hearted and inconsequential (yet verifiable) event in the history of Chocula.--71.106.80.32 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Complete and total rubbish. This IP should be banned. Okay, while that was very harsh, good faith cannot be assumed since your intent to vandalize Wikipedia to make a point is clear. That is why you're getting a lot of bad blood. But as long as you keep your nonsense within talk pages, there's no reason to ban you. *sigh* Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Vandalizing Wikipedia and making up a new word to describe it does not an article make. -- SCZenz 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with extreme predjudice as WP:NEO and an attempt to hijack Wikipedia for his own gain. --DarkAudit 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete so a vandal created an article about his own vandalism in an attempt to create a new term for vandalism? I really don't think behavior like that should be rewarded with an article. IrishGuy talk 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You people are being really harsh, and unreasonable. Whether Philelvrum and Jonabechtolt created the meme or not, it is something that is being moderately (significantly) reported. There is a Wikipedia entry for Vandalism. There is a Wikipedia entry for Wikipedia:Vandalism. Mention of Blosting, the attempted neologism and its coverage by various blogs does not constitute "rewarding" the users with an article.--71.106.80.32 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The specific vandalism incident is non-notable, even if it was mentioned offhand in several blogs. However, the term is clearly original research. A search for "blosting" google gives 335 results, mostly typos. The fact that somebody is trying to make a neologism out of abusing our website annoys the heck out of me, but the reason we're deleting the article is that it violates about a half-dozen of our policies for the inclusion of articles. -- SCZenz 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Are you stating that the original "vandalism" of Count Chocula is non-notable, or this specific article? I understand your reservations about adding an article specifically devoted to Blosting (it seems premature), but I do believe the so-called "blost" of Chocula is significant--or at least as significant as the other events in the Cultural References category. The inclusion of information about the Chocula "blost" in this area of the Chocula page is fully in line with Wikipedia's policies regarding editing of and addition to existing articles.--71.106.80.32 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No reference to the vandalism of the Count Chocula article should appear in that article. The article is for facts about the cereal, not for facts about the article on the cereal. This is per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Please read our policies more carefully; I must assume (in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary) that your incorrect assertions about them are made in error and not out of malice. -- SCZenz 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and am very familiar with it. I believe you are misinterpreting, and am willing to concede it is without malicious intent. The WP:ASR refers specifically to references such as "According to this Wikipedia article" (which the Chocula reference is not), and goes on to make clear that, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia...If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content." The information about Chocula's edit as verified by aforementioned sources should be included with external links in either Cultural Refs or External Links section of Count Chocula.--71.106.80.32 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Uh, nope. ASR may not explicitly spell out the obvious fact that Count Chocula is not an article about edits to the article, but it is unquestionably a blatant self-reference for us to clog articles with facts about previous edits to the article itself. It is against the fundamental fact that we're writing an encyclopedia, not promoting ourselves; just the words "avoid self-references" themselves make this clear. (If the vandalism of the specific page somehow magically became notable, there would be an article on that on a separate page—but I don't think that could ever happen.) Further discussion of this should be in the talk page of the Count Chocula article, although I doubt there's much point. -- SCZenz 21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "vandalism" of Count Chocula has become notable, not by "magic" but through kottke.org, et al. Further discussion of this particular aspect of the "blosting" controversy will be taken up on Talk:Count Chocula.--71.106.80.32 21:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Something reported, and verified to have been done twice, is something made up after school. BJAODN and all that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Riddhipratim Basu[edit]

    WP:BIO Bronze medalist in International Mathematical Olympiad Clappingsimon talk 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Ah, bronze! When I placed the wikify and cleanup tags I didn't notice that little fact. Should read better... Sarg 09:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. ... one of the rising stars of Indian Mathematics... well, hasn't risen enough to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and accuse Kinu of writing what I was thinking of. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:39, 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 and redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CrashCam Films[edit]

    Not particulalrly notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Just 53 Google hits here. Delete BlueValour 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. DarthVader 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Bob Ray. He and his films seem notable and have articles, but I don't think there is enough information on his production company to make a seperate article. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nathan Beach 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Aguerriero. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 16 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, Will (message me!) 09:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Aguerriero; likely search term, but the film company itself does not (yet) merit its own article. Recreation when notability is obtained is always a possibilty, but I lean towards redirection for now. Srose (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean-Claude La Marre[edit]

    Vanity Sanbeg 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, he has appeared in several notable TV series and a few films per IMDB [43]; over 25,000 Ghits. I have rewritten the article to remove the "great black visionary" puffery. NawlinWiki 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of my reasoning was this article was so bad, it either needed a delete or a complete rewrite. Now, it looks more like a stub, so I've tagged it as such. Sanbeg 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Seems notable, useful stub. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 16 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Delete unless someone can provide news links. There's tons of webpages that datamine IMDB and other stuff, but if an actor doesn't receive news attention he can hardly be called notable. ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He is an actor with a fair few credits Unlikelyheroine 03:03, 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, Will (message me!) 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, to not let the poor guy get stuck in AfD limbo, I looked up his movie and found 3 1/2 articles. Sources are posted on the talk page. The article should still be deleted as-is, but if someone wants to adopt this they can contact me and I can forward the text of the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:25, 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 keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fitz R S de Souza[edit]

    Non-notable. Can scarcely find him in Google. Though he may have done some great things, a lot of other people have as well. Nathan Beach 20:48, 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, Will (message me!) 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not going to say delete again, but I totally agree with your "Delete unless cleaned up" semi-policy. Unfortunately, this was a "Random article" click I ran across. I personally have no interest in researching this subject. It doesn't seem like the editor who started this will follow up (he/she needed a lot of help with grammar/spelling/formatting anyway). I guess out of penance for AfD'ing it, I should become the new expert on this obscure freedom fighter with the extremely long and confusing name: Doctor Shri Fitz Remedios Santana (a.k.a. F.R.S.) De Souza. Anyone want to help? --Nathan Beach 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be able to help - later this week. Judging by this, he seems to have been a participant at one or more of the Lancaster House Conferences (Kenya). Someone with access to the digital Times would probably be able to track him down. --HJMG 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep pending verification - CheNuevara 10:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as his notability can't be disputed. This page gives his full name. up+land 10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I added the full name to the article -- I'll move this page and redirect after the deletion discussion is over. Nathan Beach 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sources on government website appear to establish notability. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Uppland, notability has been established. Yamaguchi先生 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. The government reference backs the notability claim, but I have this uneasy feeling seeing a govt's website like this. If anyone can provide better reference, and add it to the article, I would definitely say "Strong Keep". — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 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; content userfied to User:Kaustuv/WRGPT. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I have in turn moved it to User:Kidtire/WRGPT, as he was the original and sole author of that page. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WRGPT[edit]

    WP:SPAM for the "World Rec.Gambling Poker Tournament". A non-notable WP:WEB-site. Google hits (WRGPT): 658. No Alexa traffic rank for: quizkids.com. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • WRGPT - WRGPT is not a website. It is a free, no fee, no prizes, no sponsors email-based poker tournament that has been in operation for 15 years completely by volunteers for the enjoyment of 1100+ players. WRGPT is a small part of the history of the net and the history of poker. It was started out of conversations on the newsgroup rec.gambling back in 1991. Please do not delete this entry. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.2.222 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-13 17:06:57 (UTC) (this was me) --Kidtire 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    Comment: drew a border around multi-line comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The border gives undue prominence to one IP's comment. I lumped everything together as per convention for comments. Kimchi.sg 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete totally unsourced, no references to reliable, independent writeups of this tournament. There could be larger email poker tournaments out there. Or there may not be. How'd anybody know? We can't just take their word for it. Certainly not for an encyclopedia article. Kimchi.sg 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (please) - I am the definitive source for the tournament since 1999 and have discussed the history with those who preceeded me. I have been asked by many users why there wasn't a Wikipedia article on WRGPT so I decided to write one. Certainly there are many useless articles that should be deleted but this one should not be in that category. There are several articles in Wikipedia, for example, on relatively unknown poker personalities. This article is useful to many and harms none. --Kidtire 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: User's only contributions are to the article and this AFD. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This is correct. I am wanting to help with this wonderful resource and have decided to start by contributing on a subject upon which I am an expert. Thank you for the editting suggestions and contribution guidelines. I am learning and trying to be useful. --Kidtire 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but replace with verifiable info from reliable sources. On doing a little research of my own, it appears that notable poker players such as Chris Ferguson[48] and Greg Raymer[49] have taken part in this tournament. The FAQ for rec.gambling.misc has some info on it[50]. A volunteer run internet-based poker tournament that mostly antedates the web is the kind of quirky stuff that a mainstream encyclopedia would miss and Wikipedia is so great at covering, and it is certainly notable for being perhaps the only email-based poker tournament. In any case, I think the label "SPAM" is unnecessarily harsh for a site that's volunteer run on donations and doesn't blast the viewer with thousands of ads. Full disclosure: I myself don't know anything about poker, but, being from the generation that grew up during the golden years of USENET, I admit to being rather biased in favour of organisations that had their start in newsgroups. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Kimchi. --eivindt@c 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, with the suggestions made by Kaustuv Chaudhuri. 206.230.60.144 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, editing as per Kaustuv Chaudhuri's suggestions.Claudia 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WRPTGT is verifiable via the rec.gambling and rec.gambling.poker newgroups. Perhaps links or refs to some of the original postings about it might be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.23.204 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Unregistered users' recommendations are generally not counted in AFD discussions. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WRGPT is part of poker history. It can easily be verified by current WSOP players (e.g. Andy Bloch, 2nd place winner of the $50K HORSE tournament 2006). WRGPT predates on-line poker. Kaustuv Chaudhuri editing suggestions are a good start for improving this article. Not only should this article be kept, but new articles on IRC-poker and BARGE should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erb2000 (talk • contribs) .
    • Delete due to sock flood. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I mean absolutely no offense, but that's without a doubt the worst voting rationale I've ever seen. So sockpuppets are voting for it- how does that change the merits of an article? I'm putting down "keep," and I'm not a puppet. If Doyle Brunson somehow made it to AfD, and a bunch of socks said to keep it, would you want to delete that, too? If you think the article does not assert notability, then that's one thing, but your contribution to the discussion is about as useful as a sock's. -- Kicking222 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment it's not expounded upon well, but flood of sockpuppets is a usual signature of an article that needs to be deleted, the same way The article about this band is written in the first person is a usual signature that the article needs to be deleted. In this case, the flood of sockpuppets is a result of the article's total failure of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SPAM et al. WilyD 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I, on the other hand, think sockpuppetry is one of the more valid reasons to delete an article. It is considerably more objective than the notability guidelines that can be interpreted in any number of tortuous ways. I have voted keep above, and will stick to it because my rationale remains unchanged, but there have been many instances in the past where I have changed by vote to delete based on the disgusting amount of puppetry in an AfD. The article currently doesn't stand on its own merits, and my attempts to spur constructive discussion on Talk:WRGPT and User_talk:Kidtire (the author of this article) have been met with stony silence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that Doyle Brunson wouldn't have a bunch of socks voting in that AFD, unless you're counting on all the members coming over from the Doyle Brunson RPG Forum, which, by the way, would be the most awesome forum ever. Wickethewok 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Will (message me!) 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete OR and no proven significance. Does not look any more notable than a Shedmoot. (Google for it). Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I really like Kaustuv's suggestions. I think, due to the history of the WRGPT and the people who have participated in it, that it has enough significance to merit an article. Disclosure: I love poker with a passion, but I have never heard of this tournament, so I don't think my reasoning is particularly biased. -- Kicking222 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with fire. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:VAIN with a passion. WilyD 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The WRGPT article is not SPAM so does not fail that criteria. Although the Verifiability may be considered a little weak as it is from other Internet sources; mostly USENET articles, discussions and announcments. Some of these sources have been added to the article. As for Vanity, there is some reason to believe this might fail as the article mentions the author only because the author was asked many times why there wasn't an article about WRGPT in Wikipedia and the author plays a significant role in the operation of WRGPT. Therefore it does not fail all the mentioned criteria "with a passion" as mentioned in this comment. -Kidtire 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:OR -- Whpq 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:SPAM, WP:V, and WP:VAIN. --—Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as spam, original research. If every poker tournament/game that has had a famous person in it has an article, thats a bit much. I must its always interesting watching these AFDs play out with loads of new users coming in and making grandiose claims. I don't think anything thats been flooded with socks/meats has been kept ever... Wickethewok 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn. --Pboyd04 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Wikthewok and WilyD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request to closing admin: if the consensus is to delete, than can you move it to a user sub-page? I think this article can be improved to meet WP:V and WP:NOR, but I don't currently possess the information to make it so and am reluctant to edit a page that might soon be deleted anyhow. Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:06, 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, the award on itself doesn't seem to be notable, and the society awarding it had its article deleted earlier. The biographical information could be merged to Albert Mackey, but I can't verify it and there are no sources in this article concerning it. - Bobet 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert G. Mackey Award[edit]

    This is an nn award with only a five-year history, no list of recipients, and the part of the article that is actually about the award and not the person it was named after is only a stub, sourced to a few lines in one publication. MSJapan 14:19, 7 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I am not in a position to say whether it is notable enough to merge into Scottish Rite but the editors of that article can decide if they want to incorporate it. BlueValour 17:48, 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, Will (message me!) 08:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It looks to be a fairly serious award given for having relevant material published. However, at this point I think it would be better suited to have the article renamed Albert G. Mackey as a bio with a subsection on the award. 205.157.110.11 10:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not significant enough at this time.ALR 01:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If the society that created the award isnt notable enough for an article, why would one of its awards be notable? Resolute 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. This article is mix of a bio on the person and simply lists the two adwards. The group that makes the adwards is a red link. Notablity is a question here. If there was an article on Mackey and the group that gives the awards and a statement about why the awards are encylopedic I'd clearly be voting keep. Vegaswikian 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per Resolute. --Cheesehead 1980 13:29, 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. Formed consensus, and the articles on themselves don't provide any information besides the players' positions and date of birth. If there's something encyclopedic to be said about them, someone can try again with a new article. - Bobet 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Maisonnueve[edit]

    This footballer plays for a club in a French amateur league, and have never played for a professional club.

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    --Punkmorten 09:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Nimes are in the third division, that's a significant enough league. ArtVandelay13 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as sportsmen at a high amateur level, per WP:BIO. --Daduzi talk 10:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP:BIO they must be "Sportspeople/athletes who have played (...) at the highest level in mainly amateur sports". With soccer not being a mainly amateur sport, the claim is not valid. Punkmorten 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Basketball is not a mainly amateur sport either, yet college-level basketball players are explicitly covered by the highest level of amateur sport clause. I will grant that the wording of the guideline is a little vague, but I think as far as football is concerned the highest amateur league (the English Conference, Serie C, French 3rd Division) is probably sufficiently notable.--Daduzi talk 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete first and second division players are notable, third is not. No Football Conference players are listed, unless they have played in one of the top leagues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are in fact Conference players who have articles despite never having played in the league (Tony James (footballer), Gavin Hurren, Nick Crittenden, Bruno Teixeira and so on). In any case, the issue is about the criteria of WP:BIO, not what other articles do or don't exist, and WP:BIO is quite clear about permitting articles on high level amateurs. --Daduzi talk 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are there English Conference players in Wikipedia? Well, let's submit all them for deletion, I will support it. --Angelo 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • On what basis? --Daduzi talk 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the basis that they're not notable: English Conference isn't a "fully professional league", for what I know. --Angelo 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Playing in a "fully professional league" is not necessary to fulfill the notability criteria for sportspeople at WP:BIO, however. --Daduzi talk 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? Football is a very professional sport in England, for what I know, and Conference football isn't another kind of sport, so the amateur sentence doesn't apply on it. --Angelo 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just as basketball is a very professional sport in the US, yet the "highest level in mainly amateur sports" overtly encompasses US college level (including basketball). The clause may be badly worded, but I think the college sport mention shows that it's not just athletics/swimming/gymnastics that's supposed to be covered. --Daduzi talk 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • True, but while professional football players in Europe are signed up young, and can be playing in the first team aged 16 or 17, in the US basketball or American football players usually attend university and only start playing professionally when they graduate. So, the entire setup is different. (Also, many professional US teams aren't really, they're equivalent to football reserves.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, third division players ain't notable. --Angelo 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, the criteria for WP:BIO are sufficiently vague (and contentious to judge from the talk page there and at Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) that I can't really justify using it to justify a keep vote. Additionally, the articles as stand contain little information that couldn't be provided on the team's article page. As such delete all as redundant and unsourced, but without prejudice against a later article (containing non-redundant, non-trivial sourced information) being created. --Daduzi talk 22:41, 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 no consensus. – Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Barony of Tabria[edit]

    Original research, not a reputable source, not an important subject. Could be a hoax. I'm also adding many other pages in the category "Maltese nobility". Either they are unsourced, or they come from a small family of web sites. None of these web sites cite their sources. This subject would be of minor encyclopedic interest if a reputable source could be found. Historically, they may be interesting (but not without a good source). As for now, they look like vanity pages. Even if they do exist and have some bona fide claim to their titles, they would still be vanity pages if they're not mentioned anywhere in a reputable source. I'm not an expert, but apparently something like Burke's Peerage is a good source. There is no use in listing all of these baronies/noblethings as separate entries. It is promotion or vanity. Apparently it is all based on a single web site anyways. The user who made most of these has been notified on his talk page User:Tancarville

    At best, they could make a single page referring to Malta nobility, their committee, with good sources, and then put in a link to their web page. Many of these pages were already listed as unsourced or original research.

    The related pages I nominated are:

    I did not list the following pages in the same category because they have some sources:

    Perhaps we should consider letting the article writer put in better sources. In these types of articles, the reference should be to an individual page in these books or at least a chapter, so that someone can borrow the book in their local library and check them. But since nearly all of these pages are written by a single author, and these types of pages may embroil Wikipedia in the less-reputable sale and promotion of old useless or practically extinct nobility titles, I think it is better to delete them. Also, note the possibility that most of the text here has been copied wholesale from one of the older book sources, hence breaking copyright/GFDL.

    Also, could someone look for these pages in other language Wikipedias? - Janbrogger 10:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm tempted to say that anybody who'd pay money in order to call himself "count", "baron" or whatever deserves whatever fleecing he gets, but I suppose I should be charitable toward the vain and silly. Yes, the whole thing looks like a vanity scheme, which may or may not be based on facts -- which would anyway be rather silly and trivial facts. There's an emphasis on the present day, but no claim that I can see that these titles have any significance whatever in the present day. I hesitate to say "delete the lot" because I haven't even glanced at the whole lot, but they do look feeble. -- Hoary 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. This is a grand hoax of User:Tancarville, aka Said Vassallo, which was exposed several years ago at alt.talk.royalty. This is one of the threads in which the author failed to produce any evidence to back up his claims. Please don't bring WP into disrepute by keeping deliberate spoof. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reasons Why should I enter a public debate on googlies when one person has it against you and will go to lengths to prove you wrong, even if its a recognised source. One should read all the data instead of reading one line to see what the matter is about. People are too quick to judge -- Tancarville 08:28, 25 July 2006 (EST)
    • Delete all Surely one of these titles would have found a way to a reliable source if it were notable. Also note that the Maltese nobility article is rather dubious. GassyGuy 11:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per WP:V, unless multiple, independent sources can be provided. Scorpiondollprincess 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These pages were the subject of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/De Piro, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddien, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese nobility. Uncle G 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all at least in the interim, per the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility. Obscurity is not in itself grounds for deletion, and the genealogies of noble families are indeed encyclopedic. If there's grounds to believe that any of these articles are a hoax, I'd suggest the initial burden of persuasion is on those who are making that claim. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you prove that you can't find a way to prove something exists? GassyGuy 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, by asking yourself "what would we expect to find, if this were true" and seeing if anything like that is there? I'm not going to vouch for these articles, but I think that calling them a hoax in bulk needs something a bit more convincing than a Usenet quarrel. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite agree there. I'm not at all convinced that these articles are hoaxes. However, what I do think is that they fail to meet WP:V, so that is my main concern. GassyGuy 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete the lot. The big question here is sources. Wikipedia articles must, must, must be based on reliable, reputable and verifiable sources. If the sources were there, I agree we should keep a subset of these articles. However, the reason that I nominated the lot is that the sources are extremely dubious. Apart from that, and adding weight to the deletion question is that these are NN, potentially ladden with copyright, and embroils Wikipedia in the dubious claims of "lost" nobility titles (as I suspected, and has been verified. Wikipedia will not even inch forward towards encyclopedic fame and reliability unless sources, sources, sources are emphasized. I'm an MD, PhD with a strong academic interest. It really is vital. This is a good example of what does not belong in Wikipedia - because of sources. Janbrogger 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest that we re-open the prior deision that pertains to the lot of them. The consensus reached about these articles back in early 2005 was that none of them were technically "original research," they were generally notable and verifiable (if with some difficulty), and as such they should remain. Several things have changed since then: verifiability and reference requirements have been substantially tightened, and the number of Maltese nobility articles has substantially increased, and arguably reaches to dubious claims or minor figure. Finally, there's the new claim that some or all of them represent hoaxes. Smerdis of Tlön 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per Janbrogger. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility is quite dated and it did not make a conclusion into its factual content, only if the subject matter is acceptable. hateless 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find all of this quite...bizarre. Malta today has a population of about 400,000; with the long list of noble families listed at Maltese nobility (which seems to be the central hub article of all this strange stuff) and a rough estimate of Malta's population in the 1700s, it looks like about one in ten Maltese citizens woud have been a baron. Additionaly, Maltese nobility claims that most of these titles were created either directly by or under the influence of Paul I of Russia - I'm by no means an expert on 18th century history, but our own article on Paul I merely states that he gave refuge to the Knights Hospitallers after they were ejected from Malta, not that he ever did anything special on the island, let alone ever visited it. I'm inclined to say delete the lot as unverified and very probable, if elaborate, hoax - additionally, I think some serious fact-checking by someone with access to detailed and reliable books on Maltese history is in order. Depending on the findings of the research, Maltese nobility needs to be substantially rewtitten/expanded to explain either why there is such a ridiculously high density of noble titles, or to explain the fact that all of this is a hoax (which in itself seems widespread and notable enough to merit a mention in the article). This last point is technically not a part of the Afd discussion, but now that the issue has been brought up, we should not forget it once the Afd is closed -- Ferkelparade π 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer The Maltese were closely aligned with the Knights of St John and the Papacy. Of course there was never more then 5% of the population that were titled, though up to 10% of the population would have been nobility. 45% that claim to be of noble ancestry. The rest of the population were made up of working class people and slavery. -- Tancarville 08:34, 25 July 2006 (EST)
    • Keep... if and only if verifiable sources are cited.
      There are no notability concerns here; if the claims in these articles are true, then they are valid entries for an encyclopedia. However, I have to agree with the above posters that the lack of reliable sources is fatal. For example, the "references" section of Counts of Għajn Tuffieħa contains two websites (neither of which appears to cite any sources other than the other) and some "Unpublished research papers", which are obviously completely useless for our purposes.
      I am not convinced that there is any hoaxing going on. It's a commonplace that small European nations have disproportionately large aristocracies, and I can't see anything obviously implausible in the claims of the sample of articles I checked. However, the simple fact remains that Wikipedia requires that it be possible to verify articles in their entirety from the sources cited -- all the more so when the article has been accused of being a hoax! -- and at present I'm not capable of that, which means something is badly wrong. — Haeleth Talk 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I'm sorry I brought up the hoax thing, it is a minor issue. I didn't know there had been a discussion before. It is probably not a hoax, and the copyright problems are gone. The major issues are: verifiability, reputable sources and original research. The pages even boast that they are original research! How can something like that be on Wikipedia! Janbrogger 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep ... Why do several pages claim they are AfDed but link here? Mġarr is a bona fide town. I am sure the local council of Mġarr can vouch for that. Is this a mistake, a joke, or what? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」
    • Keep Mgarr Mgarr is village in Malta, which historically is very important. Several prehistoric temples are found over there. Notability is not a question. DO NOT REMOVE! Maltesedog 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Mgarr really shouldn't be part of this nomination. It is an article on an acceptable subject that simply has to have a lot of the unverifiable material weeded out, whereas the rest are about subjects that are at their cores unverifiable. GassyGuy 21:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all (except Mgarr). I have argued to keep some of these in separate VfDs previously, based on the claimed notability, but the author has had plenty of time to add references to the articles and hasn't done so (and the collection of inexact references added everywhere now aren't useful). BTW, I went to the library and checked Brockdorff, which is a German noble family, in the Neue Deutsche Biographie and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels (vol 2, 1952) and found no mention of a Maltese branch. This doesn't mean that a Maltese branch never existed, but I have not been able to verify it. up+land 07:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modification: userfy to Tancarville's userspace, and have him re-add the articles to mainspace when they are referenced (with relevant page numbers etc) to reliable, well-referenced published works (not unpublished research papers). up+land 09:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems that they stand or fall together. They are notable or not. They are encyclopedic or not., etc. here is another reference - via searchmalta.com which I consider reputable. I'm trying to get some additional voices conversant in Maltese history in here to vouch for the situation one way or another.. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」
    • Keep and References: Maltese nobility was part of the Order of St John of Malta for many centuries, its vitual to keep the nobility online.
    • The Adami Collection The National Library, Malta
    • Burkes Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of the UK.-Various editions.
    • Cassar Desain, Marchese L.A., " Genealogia della famiglia Testaferrata di Malta." Malta, 1880.
    • Crispo Albero Genealogical ed Istorico della Famiglia Crispo, Messina, 1797.
    • De Piro, N., "Casa Rocco Piccola", The Conde' Nast Publications 1999.' Http://www.vol.net.mt/casarocca '
    • Gauci,C.A.," The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta", Gulf Publishing Ltd, Malta, 1981.
    • Gauci,C.A.," The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta, Volume Two", Publishers Enterprises Group (PEG) Ltd, 1992.
    • Gauci,C.A and Mallet, P.,"The Palaeologos Family- A Genealogical Review" ,Publishers Enterprises Group (PEG) Ltd, 1985
    • Gauci, C.A.," A Guide to the Maltese Nobility", Publishers Enterprise Group (PEG) Ltd, Malta, 1986.
    • Giles Ash, S., "The Nobility of Malta", Publishers Enterprises Group (PEG) Ltd, 1988.
    • Tancarville also posted this on JanBrogger's userpage [User talk:Jan Brogger]: Do you really know what your doing by deleting all of the Maltese nobility? There are already previous requests for deletion and some were deleted and some were not. If its all based on references then check and ask. Tancarville 08:39, 21 July 2006 (EST)
    • Tancarville has now added the exact same set of references listed above to all the pages. This is an improvement, but still falls short of adequate references. First of all, the references themselves must be improved so that it would in fact be possible to get the books. Citing "various editions" is imprecise - please provide at least 1 or 2 actual editions and their info (ISBNs/publisher, year etc). For any recent books, ISBNs should be listed. The "Adami Collection" is clearly inadequate - is it a book? When, where, by whom was it published? According to a Google search the Adami may be "The Adami Collection Database birth records for Malta ". The second problem is the preciseness of references. You cannot simply cite a whole database, and similarly it is not good practice to cite a lump set of 10 books. For each and every noble title, actual page numbers or at least chapters should be produced. In Library of Congress and Amazon, the only book I found of the ones listed "Nicholas de Piro: Casa Rocca Piccola: Home of a Maltese Noble Family, 74 Republic Street, Valetta, Malta: An Historic House, ISBN 1871684757".
    • I did find the Publishers Enterprise Group. Apparently all the books he has listed are available from their web site. E.g. "The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta (Vol1)" is listed at [51] and has ISBN ISBN 99909-0-329-8.
    • Let me reiterate again that it is sources and original research that is the problem - I have nothing against Maltese nobility. In fact, I would be quite happy to have the articles there if in fact they have good sources and only a minimum of original research. As an example of what I think is acceptable research and sourcing is:
      • referencing the Adami collection with an actual record number, or enough information that I can find it myself (potentially).
      • Enough detail on the books to easily be able to retrieve them, with precise enough references (chapters at least).
        • Well these references cover all of the Maltese nobility, but I will need to go through each one to cite page, chapter, isbn etc. Thats no problem, but I shall need time hopefully completed in several days. I do realise that I was asked before and never got around to completing this task. This certainly has gotten myself to do something that should have been done originally.Tancarville 22:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And still, Tancarville has not answered the "original research" charge. His pages clearly state that this is his own research, which is not allowed. What is his own research, and what is taken from the books?
    • Changed my vote. Keep if and only if the references are much improved. Janbrogger 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Count Fournier conflicts with deleted article Stephen Sant Fournier Maltesedog 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Have you ever studied Maltese history Maltesedog, you shall find that the Sant-Fourniers are as famous in Malta as the Duke of Wellington to England. Read and research before making comments. The Present Count is also quite easily found in Malta!!!-- Lastly, this is a hoax claim [52] --Tancarville 08:34, 25 July 2006 (EST)
        • Question: "The Present Count", you say. I took a look at Maltese nobility and there read: The Maltese nobility consist of those titles of nobility recognised by the British and those titles never presented to, or failed recognition by, the Royal Commission, even though the titles were of historical relevance. . . . and Foreign titles which were either confirmed or inherited by a person of Maltese descent. That's slightly unclear at the start, but toward the end it seems to me to indicate that the nobility is a matter of the past. My reading of articles about Malta informs me that Malta is a republic, a parliamentary democracy with a directly elected unicameral assembly. I see no particular space within this for nobility and no mention of nobles. Oddly, Category:Maltese society lacks an article on Maltese society, but again as I look around I see no indication of the significance of this "nobility". I therefore tentatively infer that, whatever significance Maltese nobility may have had in the past, it is now merely a matter of personal amusement, snobbery (membership of "old money") or whatever. (And the "now" seems not to date from independence; rather, this page seems to imply that political significance of the nobility disappeared in 1921 if not earlier.) What significance does membership of the nobility have now? If it has no real significance, then what's the justification for describing those "title holders" (such as the present "Count Sant Fournier") who postdate its loss of significance? -- Hoary 09:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Hi Hoary, here is an interview with the Maltese Nobility by DW (Deutsche Well) - Radio. Many Thanks to Helen Seeney for the rights to usage of this very interesting interview compiled in January 2005. Press 01 Track 1.wma for the interview. Helen Seeney, from the European Desk, Deutsche Welle Radio, Bonn Germany; interviews. Ensure you send us your comments. The URL is based from my site, if it doesnt work, I shall send a copy via E-Mail. Click Here A InterviewThis interview provided should give you a fair idea of the Maltese nobility as a whole.-- Tancarville 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I couldn't listen, as the file is in proprietary Windows format. I did skimread two or three of the interviews, and the gist seems to be that, whatever significance the titles had in the past, they have no significance now. (A contino writes: I doubt the general population occupies any of its waking hours thinking about the nobility.) This reinforces my view that coverage of the "nobility" should stop when the nobility ceased to have political or social significance. Again, I don't claim to know when that was, but my impression is that it was no later than 1921. -- Hoary 08:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all except the town, due to lack of reliable and accessible sources. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment PEG publishing is a real publishing house. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」
        • Further comment I have added a list of references which should do for the moment. Though timing at the moment isnt good, I shall keep an eye on the whole affair while on holidays in Malta. -- Tancarville 08:39, 25 July 2006 (EST)
    • Delete All Not notable nobles. --Cheesehead 1980 13:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unjust Comments How can you justify that the Maltese nobility are not notable. There are many well known nobles of Maltese origin and you simply shun them off. Firstly, here you may find some interesting articles of Maltese nobility and their connections to Europe. Notable Nobles of Malta

    and secondly here is a list which I provided to a site of notable.

      • Knights of the British orders of Maltese noble descent
        • Cav. Giuseppe Antonio Apap, Marquis di Gnien is-Sultan, CMG, 1833.
        • Cav. Dr. Vincenzo Azopardi-Zamit, Baron of Buleben, CMG, 1842.
        • Cav. Romualdo Barbaro, Count of Santi, CMG, 1834.
        • Cav. Prof Albert Victor Bernard, CMG, 1945. brother of the Count Bernard
        • Cav. Lieut Col Joseph Francis Bernard, CMG, 1916.
        • Sir Ignazio Gavino Bonavita, K.C.M.G., 1856, a kin of the Counts of San Paolino d’Aquileja
        • Sir Claudio Vincenzo Bonici, K.C.M.G., 1835. a kin of the Barons of Qlejjgha
        • Sir Giuseppe Borg Olivier, G.C.M.G., 1818. a kin of the Marquis of Ghajn Qajjed.
        • Cav. Vincenzo, Marquis Bugeja CMG, 1876.
        • Mgr. Sir Maurus Caruana, K.B.E.,1918. a descendant of the Marquis Testaferrata de Noto
        • Cav. Lorenzo Antonio, Marquis Cassar Desain, CMG, 1885.
        • Sir Vincent Casolani, K.C.M.G., 1853. a descendant of the Formosa de Fremaux family
        • Sir Giorgio Serafina, Count Ciantar Paleologo, KCMG, 1882.
        • Sir Giuseppe Calcedonio Debono, G.C.M.G., 1832. a descendant of the Marquis Testaferrata de Noto
        • Cav. Maj Giuseppe, Marquis de Piro, CMG, 1833.
        • Cav. Giuseppe Lorenzo de Piro, Marchesino de Piro, CMG, 1887.
        • Sir Giuseppe Maria de Piro, Baron of Budaq, GCMG, 1856.
        • Cav. Maj Saverio, Marquis de Piro, CMG, 1882.
        • Sir Paolo Dingli, K.C.M.G., 1860, by marriage connected to the Mompalao family
        • Cav. Lorenzo Galea Feriol, Baron of San Marciano., CMG, 1833.
        • Count, Archbishop, Sir Michele Gonzi, K.B.E., 1946.
        • Sir Vincenzo Manduca, Count of Mont’Alto, KCMG, 1833.
        • Cav. Vincenzo Mamo CMG, 1859. a kin of the Mompalao family
        • Cav. Saverio, Count Marchese, CMG, 1833.
        • Cav. Col Antonio Mattei, CMG, 1877. a kin of the Marchese Mattei
        • Sir Paolo Pariso Moscati, K.C.M.G., 1836, husband to Baroness of Grua and later to the Baroness of Budaq.
        • Cav. Lieut Col Achilles Samut CMG, 1901, by marriage a kin to the Counts Tagliaferro
        • Cav. Luigi Sant, Count Sant, CMG, 1833.
        • Sir Filippo Sceberras, Kt.Bach., 1921. a kin of the Barons of Castel Cicciano.
        • Sir Nicholas Sceberras Bologna, Count of Catena., KCMG, 1868.
        • Sir Pasquale Sceberras Trigona, Baron of Castel Cicciano., KCMG, 1868.
        • Lord Gerald Strickland, Count of Catena, GCMG, 1913.
        • Cav. Capt. Giacomo Tagliaferro, CMG., 1856. a kin of the Counts Tagliaferro
        • Sir Giuseppe Vincenzo Testaferrata, KCMG, 1833.
        • Cav. Augusto Testaferrata Abela, Baron of Gomerino, CMG, 1880.
        • Cav Ugo Testaferrata Abela, Baron of Gomerino, CMG, 1901.
        • Cav. Hon Francis Vella CMG, 1893. descendant of the Marquis di San Vincenzo Ferreri
        • Cav. Hon Giovanni Vella CMG, 1868. descendant of the Marquis di San Vincenzo Ferreri
        • Cav. Dr Paolo Vella CMG, 1890. descendant of the Marquis di San Vincenzo Ferreri
        • Sir Raffaele Crispino Xerri, G.C.M.G., 1818. brother to the Countess of Beberrua
        • Sir Joseph Nicholas Zammit, K.C.M.G., 1818. father to the Baroness of Buleben
        • Sir Temistole Zammit, Kt.Bach., 1930. by marriage, a kin to the Marquis di San Giorgio
        • Some Noble Bishops of Maltese nobility
        • Mons . Saverio Caruana Gatto , Malta - 1831
        • Mons . Publio Sant from 1847 to 1857 Archbishop of Malta
        • Mons . Fra. Gaetano Pace Forno, Bishop of Malta, (r. 1857-74 his grandfather was Baron Forno of Sicily )
        • Mons . Conte Carmelo Scicluna D.D – 1875
        • Mons . Count Sir Michael Gonzi, KBE., Last Bishop of Malta , (r. 1943-44)
        • Mons . Antonio Grech Delicata, Bishop of Gozo, (r. 1868-76), Baroncino di Budaq, Nominated by the Baroness of Budaq, but failed to succeed upon her death.
        • Other Nobles of the Saintly order
        • The Venerable Maria Adeodata Pisani O.S.B. 1806-1855, Baronessina di Frigenuini
          • Do you all believe the Maltese nobility are a Hoax? Do you all believe that the Maltese nobility are not notable? Do you believe that its not worth the hassel to be placed online? -- Tancarville 07:10, 29 July 2006 (EST)
            • I don't understand who it is that you are asking here. As for me, no, I don't believe that "Maltese nobility" is, in its entirety, a hoax. But the long list doesn't impress me at all. Let's take "Sir Temistole Zammit, Kt.Bach." as an (interestingly named) example: I'd say that if he is noteworthy for what he did, he deserves an article; and that if he's slightly noteworthy for what he did, he deserves a part of a larger article -- but that his mere existence in some genealogical record is not something of any concern to Wikipedia. I'm also wondering why nobody has explained just what the significance (to Maltese politics, economics, society, etc.) was of its nobility, when and how its significance (apparently) fizzled to nothing, or why it is worth mentioning who have been the Counts, Continos, etc., of what, after this fizzling to nothing. -- Hoary 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I seem to have received a reply from a history professor at the University of Malta who mentioned working Tabria specifically. I don't want to quote him here until everything is understood, but it could be an important commentary here. He seems to think the Maltese Nobility are important. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」

    Move to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility?[edit]

    It has been suggested that this discussion be moved to: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility~ - Janbrogger 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy Delete CSD:A7 - no assertion of notability. Gwernol 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam cox[edit]

    Not suitable for Wikipedia Phoenix Hacker 09:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. This is obvious, should have been Prodded or even speedied. Sarg 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may make speedy delete A1 and/or G1. I'll tag it as such and see what happens. Otherwise, delete. - CheNuevara 09:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete what on earth is it? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete repost, doesn't matter if you have got TfD'ed templates. As long as the text is substantially identical, down it goes. Kimchi.sg 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Public transport connecting to The Hague (2nd nomination)[edit]

    This article was deleted a few days ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public transport connecting to The Hague), but was recreated. It does not contain encyclopedic information and all relevant information can be found in The Hague, Railway stations in the Netherlands and Train routes in the Netherlands . Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Repost makes it a speedy delete candidate under G4. I've tagged it as such. - CheNuevara 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as previously deleted content. Voice of Treason 09:48, 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 speedily deleted. Kusma (討論) 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Edwards[edit]

    Vanity Page Phoenix Hacker 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. BigHaz 09:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Obvious vanity page. Might be a speedy candidate too. Sarg 10:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete: A7, I see no assertion of notability in this article, and no, having a website that gets visitors in the thousands does not count. Would be WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS violation anyway, with a hint of WP:VAIN. --Kinu t/c 15:28, 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 with Nukular Fire lol. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of catch phrases[edit]

    Fails WP:NOT (various failures of WP:OR and WP:V within the article too), and any article that has a warning at the top that it isn't about what it states in its title has to be a candidate for deletion. Yomangani 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete although I would generally suggest that all of the List of signature phrases articles be listed as well. Danny Lilithborne 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Danny Lilithborne's comments. List of signature phrases should probably be examined as well. Lists that are are too subjective/interpretive (what counts and what doesn't?) are prone to WP:OR and difficult to verify. Scorpiondollprincess 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm sorry, this is just too wide. Every fictional character in existence has at least one catchphrase, often many. Better to relegate these to individual articles (for example, Homer Simpson could list his catchphrases). I wouldn't mind having a category of phrases that have their own article though. Deco 00:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to popular demand, I'm also listing the associated:

    Yomangani 14:51, 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 merge and redirect to Homestar Runner. – Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homestar Runner Wiki[edit]

    Following deletion of Lostpedia, this is another generic fan wiki. No cited sources, nothing in Google News, all looks like WP:OR. "Notable users" includes one name, no article on this person, just an interwiki link to the HR wiki user profile (cross-namespace and cross-wiki!). Has about 1400 articles. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge any useful content with Homestar Runner. Sarg 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nn wiki. Mention it in the Homestar Runner article, but it doesn't merit substantial coverage. GassyGuy 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted!!! An external link on Homestar Runner should suffice. Danny Lilithborne 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect to Homestar Runner. The external link should suffice as Danny stated above; No reason for a whole article about a fan wiki.--Isotope23 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to a short reference in Homestar Runner and expand the actual Homestar Runner Wiki, not the article here. WilyD 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge although I object to it being called 'generic' - it's a great resource that even the Brothers Chaps make use of (they've stated it in interviews). Crystallina 14:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many fan wikis would be the same. There is a long-standing tradition of interaction between the fan community and their idols, wikis just extend this. The point is simply there is nothing to show how this wiki is unusual; the wiki is a notable concept, individual wikis are rarely notable. Ditto blog/blogs, myspace/myspaces, YTMND/YTMNDs. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that YTMND itself isn't notable? Even after all the press it gets? Crazyswordsman 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BaleetMerge per Sarg. RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Homestar Runner. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This really only needs a link or mention at most in the main article. Good Wiki though. Wickethewok 18:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Homestar Runner with maybe a small mention somewhere there. BryanG(talk) 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This article was on AfD once before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homestar Runner Wiki. BryanG(talk) 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as before, stub if you have to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep
    • Keep - It has a large and active community, and The Brothers Chaps say that they use it a lot for keeping track of things on their site, so it has some importance to the official website. - Joshua368 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Ditto. And what is the point of wikipedia? That's right to have information about a topic. Why does this not fit into the category?--H*bad 04:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree that you have the right to information, all information on Wikipedia has to be verified by a secondary source. That kind of content is minimal on this article. Crazyswordsman 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's a notable site. Yeltensic42 don't panic 05:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but rewrite It bothers me that so many people are so persistent in VfD this article. Remember it was already voted on some of whose supporters I know sadly have left wikipedia in protest of some of the community's behavior. Keep in mind that to date, the main page alone boasts 4.5 million hits and as Joshua mentioned earlier, is routinely used by TBC as a resource. Comparing stats to Lostpedia's, this wiki is twice the size. That does not even include the forum and fanstuff wiki's it has had to expand into. If there are deficiencies in the article, then I urge the community NOT to take the easy way out at do blanket deletes, but to correct those deficiencies and improve the article. How hard is that. Even if it's not "in the news" it is popular enough to many users across the wiki (just do a regular google search and skip over the first few hits and you'll notice people talking about it in their blogs and everywhere else. --Stux 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: LostPedia has 1,176 legitimate content pages and hrwiki has 1,466 legitimate content pages. That's far from twice the size. And being mentioned in blogs isn't sufficient to be included on wikipedia. --Peephole 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Merge with Homestar Runner. If it is used often by the TBC, and has importance to the official website, then it sound natural to merge it with the official sites article. Rogue Leader 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article's existence has always bothered me. Though maybe it's just because I'm a major contributor there. (That should probably mean that my vote on this particular page not count, as I'm biased. Flattered, but biased.) — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No notability asserted. --Peephole 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete another vanispam piece about an unremarkable wiki with no sources (meet WP:VSCA and WP:V). A one-liner in the main article would be quite enough recognition. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that vanispam is a definition, not a policy. And for verifiability, then every article but two in this category should be deleted per that rationale; that and thousands of other articles that I am sure have the same issues. I must agree that the article deserves a major rewrite (I honestly don't know what the policy is regarding a rewrite in the middle of an AfD), but how hard is it to do THAT? Something slightly larger than this article migtht suffice, or is that article going to be AfD's too? I am willing to continue the shave but I am afraid that even despite the changes the end result would be deleted anyway. Forgive me for being a little bitter (and verbose), but to me this seems like a sledgehammer solution for a problem that requires pliers, and no one wants to help. Just AfD. --Stux 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A rewrite during the AFD is fine. I've done it myself to have articles saved and so far it's worked, but perhaps I only pick easy ones. Yes, VSCA is definitional, but it is a WP:NOT definition. Verifiability is very difficult for websites in general, and few actually pass any sort of strict interpretation. The existence of the site can reasonably be inferred from its existence, and a short description likewise, but where do you go from there ? WP:WEB is not an easy bar to get over, but if Homestar Runner Wiki meets any of those criteria you should add the references showing that to the article right away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry it has taken this long, but thank you very much for your response to my question and advice. I have tried to make a few changes by condensing the article. --Stux 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What do we need to verify here that can't be done by A) seeing it exists and B) reading HRWiki:HRWiki:A History? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of the site.--Peephole 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but rewrite Seems like it just needs a cleanup. Merging it with Homestar Runner will just make that article too long and unwieldy, and probably lead someone to spin HRWiki back out of the HR article, spurring another VfD. Deleting seems like overkill, and the undercurrent seems to be that there's a group of people who are less than unbiased in their views. --D Wilbanks 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. 1ne 10:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete I hate to vote this, because it is a wonderful resource and the second hit that comes up in Google for Homestar Runner; however, I admit a link and MAYBE a small paragraph in the Homestar Runner article is all that is justified. Stev0 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and put a link at HStR. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Homestar Runner per TomPreuss and others. Yamaguchi先生 02:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I know this place, and if anything, it's notable. --The Mu 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few of the debaters, including myself, brought up all the notablilty of this Wiki, and there is not enough of it for it to merit its own article. Of course the informaiton (or a good chunk of it) can stay, but not in its own article. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article has been reasonably condensed and I added two references (one is from flashforward but documented by the wiki). I do have one question: where do we draw the line in notability? Does it need to have 15,000 articles? Does it need to be mentioned at least three times in a local newspaper for a city of the size of 100,000? Different people have different measuring sticks which shows how fuzzy this line really is. --Stux 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm assuming that the article has been improved since the inital complaints, because it certainly does have sources. It is not affiliated with TBC (the creators/owners of the Homestarrunner IP and website, for those not in the know), so I don't see why it should reasonably merged into the Homestarrunner article any more than Memory Alpha should be merged into the Star Trek article. In fact, other than content quality, I see no difference in the uniqueness or viability of this article. Perhaps what we need to do is create a WikiProject Homestarrunner and include this page in it? Maybe that will give it the credability it needs to get equal treatment with other fan wikis. WestonWyse 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of fan wikis seem have no articles at all, or to get deleted, because the ocntents are almost without exception unverifiable from independent secondary sources. A short paragraph on the parent article is fine, but fan wiki articles in general have a cruft factor of close to unity - I'm sorry, but the world at large really does not care about anything more than the fact that they exist. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, actually, the Homestar Runner Wiki is one of those few exceptions. I don't edit the Wiki (I DO have my own Wiki which will get an article on Wikipedia just as soon as I get struck by lightning), but there IS maybe a paragraph or two that could be merged somewhere else. I personally think this is more notable than Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia, however, it's not notable enough to warrant an article (mainly because this Wiki has become much more than just a fanwiki). Sir Crazyswordsman 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This debate's lasted for ten days now. I'd like to see a result. AFDs usually don't even last the minimal five days. Sir Crazyswordsman 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete and protect. Cross-space redirects are not allowed, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Votes for deletion and Articles for deletion[edit]

    Delete pseudo-article-redirects absurdism beyond the ridiculous reaching somewhere into the sublime. These are either the incredibly obvious redirects to their incredibly obvious target or they are nothing. They are not the lunacy that apparently two people want them to be. Or, better, make back into redirects. -Splash - tk 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't self-references specifically not allowed? Danny Lilithborne 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no policy against, them, no. WP:ASR is just a style guideline. -Splash - tk 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Avoid self references. I assume i'm one of the lunatics you're referring to... /wangi 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be precise about it, I referred to the article itself as being lunacy, not the people who wish it to be so. The former is merely a criticism of the 'article'; the latter would be a personal attack if one were feeling thin-skinned. :) -Splash - tk 13:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lunacy is the result of lunatics, don't worry skin is thick ;) /wangi 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (or redirect, but I prefer delete) I agree with Splash and wrote on Talk:Votes for deletion some time ago that ASR is _not_ a reason to keep the links as pseudo-redirects. googl t 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either redirect, which is the obvious solution, or, if you are going to delete these, make sure you fix all the referring links first. -- Arthur Frayn 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each page has just a few incoming links - less than 20 each. /wangi 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just Delete. Many editors have put a lot of effort into eliminating all cross-namespace redirects, and that policy is firm. Fan-1967 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which policy is that? -Splash - tk 14:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 14:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lot of effort can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/June 2006. Uncle G 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not what I asked for, though. And that some users opted to beat people around a bit with their delete and protect buttons (and a healthy dose of rudeness) does not make their actions into policy, or even sense. -Splash - tk 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The discussion on the "page" you linked to deals with ambiguous Three-letter acryonm internamespace redirects, not to unambiguous obvious redirects. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrong. Please read the whole page. There's no need to enclose the word in quotation marks, by the way. You're not quoting anything. Uncle G 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not notable outside Wikipedia. I don't like cross-namespace soft redirects any more than cross-namespace full redirects. David | Talk 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironic delete as a non-notable self-reference. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make into redirects. I know my vote won't make much of an impact, but I happen to oppose the whole "cross-namespace redirect" thing and no one -- despite requests from me -- has yet to provide any verifiable evidence that such things are harmful to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I only just discovered the existence of WP:IAR so am citing it here.23skidoo 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Both. This is what the help pages are for. Agent 86 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How on earth are users going to know to look in the help namespace if they aren't even sure how to get to wikipedia-related material??? I know I myself didn't know about help namespace untill well after I figured out how wikipedia names its internal material --Aknorals 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both, self-referential. Do not redirect, because cross-namespace redirects are a violation of policy. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. They. Are. Not. There. Is. No. Policy. That. Forbids. Them. Anywhere. At. All. -Splash - tk 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both should be redirected as obviously helpful redirects. --SPUI (T - C) 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Inappropriate as obvious self references. These don't belong in the main space. Wickethewok 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all. I prefer. Adding a selfref tag to an article that does not exist or redirecting an article to another namespace is even worse. Just add a {{deletepage}} to both and protect them. -- ADNghiem501 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. Even if cross-namespace redirects are a good idea, we already have the hard redirect WP:AFD and AFD contains a reference to what people are looking for (which perhaps should be removed per WP:ASR). Those should be sufficient.--Chaser T 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both and protect. A cross-namespace soft redirect is still a cross-namespace redirect. BryanG(talk) 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, why make it harder for people to find the AfD page? This is a usability issue, not an encyclopedic one. And Wikipedia is enough of a usability nightmare without deleting soft-redirects like these. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete soft redirect. Any discussion should be under the true redirect (which also should not exist.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both but modify the default search filter for logged-in users so that it includes the Wikipedia:, Category:, etc namespaces. --Zoz (t) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you can do this already. Just go to your preferences and go to the "Search" tab. There's a "Search in these namespaces by default" section where you can check off which namespaces to search. BryanG(talk) 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, but I knew that. Actually, I meant something like this. --Zoz (t) 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • REDIRECT to Wikipedia. 132.205.45.110 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both, any way you look at it these are going to be either self-references or cross-namespace redirects, neither of which are acceptable. --Cyde↔Weys 01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. These are simply not encyclopedia topics. Rbraunwa 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect both. I really don't understand the reluctance to have a cross-namespace redirect in such an obvious situation. No one has yet cited an applicable anti-cross-namespace-redirecting policy, and having these (in particular) is uncountably valuable, especially to fledgling (not necessarily new) users who have not yet learned the WP:AFD shortcut. Powers 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. I don't understand the reluctance either, but I've come to accept it. -- NORTH talk 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or even speedy delete since theres really no "content" to speak of, wikipediaisms belong in the Wikipedia namespace. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    also, protect-delete for a while if this comes back after being deleted, theres no reason to go through AFD a third time for this. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, the first deletion debate was completely unrelated to the redirect, you realise? -Splash - tk 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of protect-deleting this? The end result will be replacing a useful "self-reference" (a cross-space redirect) by a useless self-refernece ({{deletedpage}}). I fail to see how this improves Wikipedia. Kusma (討論) 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have it Redirect to the proper place This is easier to type. FurryiamIAM 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, useful to help accidental linking, useless as articles. A useful cross-space redirect "self-reference" is much better than this (and both are a lot better than {{deletedpage}}). Kusma (討論) 08:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; Either keep or redirect. JeffMurph 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make into redirect Having looked at sample deleted and deleted protected pages I don't see that they look any better than a redirect. No one is hurt by the redirect. FunnyYetTasty 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I believe I have a solution to the dispute concerning cross-namespace redirects. Please review it/leave comments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 15:26, 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 12:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadows in Light's Sky Castle[edit]

    Article about a fantasy series, apparently on DeviantART. I googled for the phrase, and only got the Wikipedia entry for results. --Sam Pointon 12:07, 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 07:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Mullin (soccer)[edit]

    Non-notable footballer. soccerbase.com has no record of him ever having played in the football league and he is now plying his trade for a non-league team nine levels below the Premiership. Article also contains essentially no information on him ChrisTheDude 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep if he really played for Coventry City FC as his article says. Needs to be cleaned up, though. GassyGuy 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A Google search for "Pat Mullin"+"Coventry City" brings up 1 hit that isn't from WP and mirrors, and that link doesn't work. Since the only info on this player which would make him notable is unverfiable, he's therefore non-notable. -- Kicking222 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - as mentioned above, soccerbase.com has no record of him, which would suggest that he never played for the Coventry first team..... ChrisTheDude 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it appears Coventry City is a mistake, it looks like Millwall F.C. is his biggest claim to fame, and that's not WP-worthy. Oh, well, then. Delete per nom. GassyGuy 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, just to clarify did he play for Milwall? If so then he warrants an article as a professional sportsman (per WP:BIO) --Daduzi talk 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As mentioned above, soccerbase.com has no record of him ever having played in the football league, which would seem to suggest that, while he may well have been on the books of Coventry and/or Millwall, he apparently never played a professional match for either club and therefore surely receives no notability as a result. As an aside, I'd also question whether he would be necessarily notable even if he had played for either or both of these clubs. There's an awful lot of journeyman players out there who have played a handful of games for lower division teams (which both Coventry and Millwall are), but I don't think that means that they automatically merit an entry on Wikipedia.... ChrisTheDude 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just had a look at WP:BIO and I have noticed (for the first time) that it does indeed state that a sportsman can be considered notable if he has played in a "fully professional league", however all sources would appear to indicate that this player was on the books of the clubs mentioned (maybe as a youth team player or some such) but never actually played for the first team. Rambling off somewhat, I have to say that I personally don't think that every player who has ever played in the "fully professional" Football League (of which there must be literally tens of thousands) can be considered notable just by that fact alone, but that's probably a debate for somewhere else.... ChrisTheDude 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that case delete (and I'd probably agree with you on the policy issue, it seems to have been written with American sports in mind; the suggested guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) look better to me). --Daduzi talk 22:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the guy plays between the sticks for Maidstone United see here. The question is whether he did play for a league team; still looking! BlueValour 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is denying that he plays for Maidstone, however that alone does not confer notability..... ChrisTheDude 06:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - hence the second part of my comment :-) BlueValour 11:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I have made enquiries on the Millwall message board and he played for Millwall as a junior but no-one remembers him getting anywhere near the first team. Playing for Maidstone doesn't do as they are not a FL team. I can find no info on him playing for Coventry. BlueValour 03:59, 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 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fin Smith[edit]

    I might be wrong but that looks like a hoax to me. There is no Google hit for a Fineous Farrier, there are no references given and why is the article called Fin Smith? It's also the only contribution of the user ‎FinLeNinja Optimale Gu 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, looks like a hoax. If it is a major figure in Fin history, why are there no Google hits and why does he not exist in the Finnish Wikipedia.... Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Cpt. Morgan, especially since the article name is "Fin Smith" and not Fineous Farrier. Looks like a vanity site to me. Neil916 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable, violating WP:BIO. It seems to me like someone creating a vanity page (Fin Smith, as listed as a descendant), trying to fluff it up to something notable. Several minutes with Google with various combinations of Farrier, Fin, Sweden, Lutheran, and dates produced nothing relevant. TedTalk/Contributions 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It looks like the surname Farrier is sometimes Americanized as Smith, since the two trades are related. However, I can find no mention of Fineous Farrier in any historical text. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Hageman[edit]

    • Delete Not notable, seems to just be a local player in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuBu (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 July 2006
    • Delete Has only played U21's - the article site shows appearances : League 0 , Total 0
    • Keep seems probable he will be playing shortly (see my talk page) Dlyons493 Talk 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no professional appearances (WP:BIO). --Daduzi talk 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) withdrawing delete vote, highly borderline case. --Daduzi talk 11:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I would vote to toss if he was still on the U-21's, but he's starting a two-year first team contract this season. He's a professional player with a professional contract.[53] The article didn't make that 100% clear, so I stated it more explicitly. Anyway, a first team player in the Irish equivelent of the premiership is notable enough for my tastes. Vickser 07:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not Notable, this is not the place to host profiles of highschool soccer stars. JeffMurph 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he comparable to a high school soccer player? He's got a professional contract in one of the better teams in the premier Irish league. Vickser 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This was User:JeffMurph's first post. -- Alias Flood 17:44, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Artemis Fowl (film)[edit]

    WP:NOT a Crystal Ball. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - real film in production (devlopmental hell)..keep. andrew 10:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - when things start being confirmed about the film, it might be a useful article to have. Before then, we're crystal balling. BigHaz 12:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. I'm especially uncomfortable with the amount of space this article devotes to rumors. An encyclopedia is not a rumor mill. I'd not oppose this article being recreated when more concrete information is available (and can be cited). Scorpiondollprincess 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 13:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. For a film to be in production means that they are actually filming it, not just planning it. Since most roles have not been cast yet, the film can't be in production. --Metropolitan90 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Delete --Vergardio 01:01, 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 keep - multiple non-trivial works, yada yada yada - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles B. Johnson[edit]

    • Delete Not notable. Does not seem to be an important figure other than being wealthy. GuBu 11:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I think running a NYSE-listed firm with billions in assets makes him notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A quick google shows 800+ for "Charles Johnson" "Franklin Resources", including media outlets such as Forbes, Bloomberg.com, and the Wall St. Journal. Seems notable enough to me. --Wine Guy Talk 21:58, 22 July 2006
    • Delete Adds no value, other than to give his forbes ranking, which will change from year to year. JeffMurph 08:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If having a forbes ranking does not constitute notability, then is the forbes ranking, itself, even notable? TerraFrost 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, being ranked the 147th richest person in the world probably didn't happen by accident. RFerreira 21:02, 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 speedily deleted by Royboycrashfan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    David Summerlin[edit]

    This article needs more fleshing out, but I disagree strongly with deletion. Ebacherdom 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the mystery poster. This article should be considered a legitimate stub until we see where the editing tasks it, or if someone proves that David Summerlin is a non-notable. --chemica 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe, the mystery poster is the person who started the article. Could you please add a post-dated sign please? --anirudh 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless the information does in fact come forward from someone else. Without it, he's the friend of a notable person, which isn't enough. BigHaz 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless "a detailed description" of the subject's "immense" works is forthcoming (with verifiable sources). Scorpiondollprincess 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as it stands. Notability claimed but not specified. Interesting phrasing: he's notable and someone else will come along and say how he's notable. After several months no one has. Fan-1967 13:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Google search results do not point to the person. Is being a friend of someone famous enough to gaurantee notability? --anirudh 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Fine, delete it already - you obviously have more friends than I do, Gingerjoos! Ebacherdom 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per author request. So tagged. Fan-1967 21:15, 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 when ignoring the anons - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delfin Fernandez[edit]

    • Delete Not notable, badly written, not of general interest, does not appear to be a famous person — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuBu (talk • contribs) 10:52, 19 July 2006
    • Keep per WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Many sources are cited. Subject gets plenty of Ghits (including mention in other news stories not cited here). Article definitely needs cleanup, but being poorly written is not sufficient cause to delete an article. Scorpiondollprincess 13:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A bodyguard is not important enough to be profiled in an encyclopedia. 86.129.157.213 14:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep does seem to be just sufficently notable. However, the article is in a terrible state, needs to be written in a more appropriate tense, and needs to sound much less like an advert. MLA 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Many sources are cited. Subject gets plenty of Ghits (including mention in other news stories not cited here).Act4 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Vanity page of a bodyguard??? Why was this not a quick delete 81.129.152.69 08:01, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dinio García[edit]

    • Delete Not Notable, only of local interest Jimbo68 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Keep I'd nearly keep for creative use of English jumpstart him into the startdome (shades of Mel Gibson and Tina Turner). He did have hit in Spain - can't verify if it really was a No 1. Dlyons493 Talk 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Anyone who can say "only of local interest", where "local" refers to a major European country, could probably benefit from reading WP:CSB. — Haeleth Talk 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable, horribly written. JeffMurph 08:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week Keep appears to meet the first criterion of WP:MUSIC by getting on the Billboard charts. Eluchil404 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Haeleth. Ifnord 00:12, 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 keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Kellogg[edit]

    • Delete Not notable in his own right. Being the son of a wealthy man is not enough for an encyclopedia entry. I recommend redirecting the link to his fathers entry Jimbo68 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been asked to explain my vote, I observe on further inspection that his father (to which I thought the article should be redirected) doesn't actually have an article to redirect to, while the company mentioned -- which might have been the other logical target -- has only a one-line stub. This therefore appears to be the most detailed entry on any of the related subjects. I remain of the opinion that a single article on the Kelloggs would be preferable to several, but as we don't have several, there doesn't seem to be any such problem. I am therefore changing my vote to keep and expand, at least for now; perhaps the father could also be discussed in this context, to give a broader, more detailed article. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for further clarification: since a redirect would make no sense when the only possible target article does not mention this man at all, the minimal sensible outcome, if the consensus is to delete or redirect, would be to merge this with the article on the company. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect per nom -- Alias Flood 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per expansion and cited notability -- Alias Flood 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; fails WP:BIO. JeffMurph 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that the article has been considerably improved since the above "delete" votes were cast: a number of previously absent claims of notability have been added. If the closing admin is inclined to delete, I would strongly urge re-listing first, to ensure that any consensus is based on a fair evaluation of the expanded article. — Haeleth Talk 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Article looks good now, and notability is proven with references. Natgoo 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep rewritten article is clearly verifiable and based on reliable sources. Eluchil404 22:29, 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 Speedy delete. Little context.. Tyrenius 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Raindom[edit]

    This is a senseless entry containing no information at all. Spam? Wastekiller 22:06, 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. Redirect optional. Mailer Diablo 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    University College Dublin YFG[edit]

    Its the same reason for University College Cork YFG --Wild ride 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete per nom -- it does a better job asserting the importance of the topic, but I don't think it quite gets there.--SarekOfVulcan 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge and redirect to Young Fine Gael - it can be put in a new section along with the content from University College Cork YFG. No sense in deleting when far more trivial matters are left on Wikipedia, and in a worse state of prose. zoney ♣ talk 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Student organizations at a single school are generally non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent State University College Republicans, which resulted in a delete, for comparison. --Metropolitan90 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Young Fine Gael is notable (youth branch of the second-largest political party in Ireland). Their having groups at various third level institutions is notable (the number of such institutions and size of the country is such that they would be widely known in Ireland). I fail to see how we need to delete information on the topic, even if separate articles are not desired. zoney ♣ talk 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable student organisation hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete student organisations are rarely notable. No objection to a merge Dlyons493 Talk 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smerge into Young Fine Gael; there's good information here, but not so much that it needs its own article. Thinking of what's most useful for users of a general-purpose encyclopedia, ISTM that rather than merging it as it stands, the best thing would be to condense it down, so that the most important facts are easier to pick out. I'm not convinced everything in this article is worth keeping, but we certainly don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater; the simplest way to find out what's notable would probably be to let the editors of Young Fine Gael decide what they want to include there. — Haeleth Talk 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with that analysis and suggestion. zoney ♣ talk 23:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as an attack page. -- Kjkolb 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kage Syndrome[edit]

    Zero google hits on this, a slang term apparently known only to members of a certain internet forum. Non-notable, no reliable sources for this, etc. Xyzzyplugh 12:39, 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 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stoomie[edit]

    Falls well short of WP:MUSIC, vanity Optimale Gu 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, guy doesn't even have a full album out yet. Non-notable. SmartGuy 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems to be a vanity page.
    • Delete faiils WP:MUSIC -- Alias Flood 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, all he's done to date is a demo and a web music video. NawlinWiki 16:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • --AFISX 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Well guys...I'm sorry to have caused a stir. Stoomie has a dedicated following among the younger Internet musical community and these folks have been asking us to put up a Wikipedia page for him. We wanted to wait until the album dropped and was available in big-name locations but this is scheduled to happen this coming Monday (July 24th) and as such, things around here have been a bit insane. We put up the page a couple of days early so that a) we wouldn't have to do it during the fulfillment rush and b) it would already be there for viewing when the album drops. We will, of course, abide by whatever you decide. Please keep us advised of your wishes; we can always replace the page at a later date.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of vehicles in Halo 2[edit]

    Sigh. Though this was deleted just a week ago, the article was reposted. Speedy deletion tag was removed by admin as the content was not identical. Admin then placed a PROD tag on it which was removed with the edit summary "the predecessor to this article should have never been deleted" which shows the editor has clearly gone against the consesus of other editors. Previous discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vehicles_in_the_Halo_universe. We've already had the discussion and such, so hopefully a speedy delete is still in order. Let someone take it to articles for undeletion or deletion review or whatever. Simply re-creating the article is not the proper way of getting things done. Delete. Wickethewok 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Halo is notable. I don't play video games, but even I can recognize it as notable. However, the game itself does not confer notability to every aspect. This coverage is superfluous. This is not the right forum for this coverage. I'm starting to feel like a myna. Oh, and the fact that it was recently deleted doesn't really help it. Circumventing deletion review and taking matters into one's own hands = bad form. GassyGuy 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I've put a friendly message on the (re)creator's talk page suggesting he head to a Deletion Review on it if he's that keen on the whole idea, so he'll likely turn up here or there soon enough. BigHaz 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, no vote for now, but since the content is not identical, a speedy delete is definately not in order according to Wikipedia policy. I agree that the recreating editor is going against AfD, but the Afd surely did not display a clear consensus and speedy deletion is only valid for reposting identical articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom; Halo 2 minutae. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Absolutely ridiculous, not important enough for an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuBu (talk • contribs)
    • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge relevant info into main article, along with List of multiplayer gametypes in Halo 2, List of Halo 2 changes, Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved and possibly List of Halo series characters. Doogie2K (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete again. I can't remember what the last one looked like, but this one is a blatant game guide, right down to giving controller actions for various moves. And Doogie2K, please go right ahead and nominate all those properly -- except the last, which I think probably qualifies under WP:FICT, though that may be debatable. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The first three are listed. (I didn't notice about bundling noms until after the fact; it's my first-ever AfDs.) The last, I've left for now, though it does need substantial help. Doogie2K (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per GassyGuy and Haeleth. BryanG(talk) 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The old article wasn't this bad. This is bad; this is where it crosses the line to game guide. -- gakon5 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge. As much as I like Halo 2, this is game guide-ish, it's a reposted article, it's not well-written, and it's not particularly important. --Cryptic C62 13:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup and merge. I agree that the arcticle crosses that at some parts the article crosses the line into a game guide. I believe that the article should be cleanuped so that it is not a game guide and should be merged with the Halo 2 article. -- Credema 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete linas 04:15, 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 keep and wikify. Natgoo 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amber Chia[edit]

    Questionable notability. She's a model, not one of the ranks of supermodels. Many Google hits, but they tend not to assert any notability for her, often mentioning her name in passing Lurker 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete not notable. Danny Lilithborne 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. She appears to be a celebrity in Malaysia. She gets numerous Google hits just from The Star (Malaysia) newspaper alone [54], and 47,500 Google hits overall [55]. The article could stand to be improved, though. --Metropolitan90 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Metropolitan90. hateless 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article has been improved with references and additional details. Amber Chia is probably not along the ranks of Gisele Bundchen, but has a large following in Malaysia, with a growing presence across Asia. malaysiarocks 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please notable celebrity in malaysia help reverse systemic bias Yuckfoo 20:05, 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. Natgoo 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guitar moves[edit]

    Despite the obvious good faith in its creation, the article is unmaintainable. It has references for only a handful of the listed moves, making the rest apparently from author experience. Furthermore, few reliable sources on the subject could possibly exist. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while a comprehensive list of stage moves certainly has a place somewhere on the Internet, this is not it. Deltabeignet 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. References for the moves are certainly possible, given a good going-over by a rock critic, and I think you underestimate the availability of reliable sources of rock-and-roll history. --Phanatic 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Has a real problem with verifiability, but is also quite interesting so I'm tempted to WP:IAR. Jefffire 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Its kinda silly, but a lot of work has been put into it, and its somewhat interesting in a Spinal Tap sort of way. GuBu 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Certainly not the most 'necessary' of all articles, but interesting nonetheless. --Rehcsif 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I feel bad that I think this should be deleted, given the amount of work put into it, but I can't help but think that the listed moves are not coherent and unified enough to be actual moves worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, when in reality moves such as the "Duckwalk" have probably been done a couple times in different variations within the last 50 years without coming at all near the point of the Moonwalk or something like it. It also seems that many of the titles of the guitar moves are made up because they lack an actual name. Why do they lack an actual name? My guess is that it is the author who identified the move as a distinct and notable entity. It seems that any interesting motion performed by a guitarist is likely to end up on this list, and I just can't see being good for our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article is a referative work and sheds the light on lots things in rock-n-roll history. Certainly, it's not in the best condition now: lots of unreferenced info around, lots of "made up" titles, broken formatting, etc. I'm trying to tidy it up, generally, it following ways:
    1. Titles should be either clear, known to everyone (referenced, not made up) names of moves, or just bare descriptions (for example, I doubt that "Playing behind the back" can be named otherwise or it's not clear for everyone what this title refers to)
    2. Move description should include clear and brief descriptions of actions involved and refer to particular persons. A good reference is a photo or short animation of a person doing it.
    3. Move should include description of famous performers of this particular one, an inventor (if applicable), history of development of move, info on various variations, info on performances captured on video.
    4. Article should be fixed to use neutral, encyclopedic tone, without using "you do so and so" and that kind of language.

    Guitar moves are pretty popular, has its traditions and long history. While current metal bands may thrash the whole scene and it looks pretty average, aggressive and extreme moves in 1950-60s looked really shocking. As for obscurity of the material - we have articles such as air guitar or juggling that also list various moves and techniques and even whole categories such as Category:Juggling patterns and tricks. Also, the article can be a good source for beginner performer to find some interesting thoughts to spice up his performance. --GreyCat 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Provided that each "move" is sourced. These sources just shouldn't mention a performer specifically performing the actions associated with a "move", but must describe it as a "move" or some variation thereof. As it is, unsourced ones should probably be removed until sourced. Wickethewok 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - May need some clean-up per WP:V, but many of the moves are historic and easily documented guitar performance techniques (e.g. Townshend's "windmill" and Berry's "duck walk"). -MrFizyx 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per reasons stated above. Could use some clean up and more referencing for sure, but there's good faith that it will eventually be worked into a better article. --SevereTireDamage 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but raises some interesting questions. For example, can a photo be used as a source? Unsources entries really need to be removed.--Aguerriero (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article is rather important than useless. It is true that there are some moves in rock and roll world, or music industry in general. However it is very possible that the names of the moves and the definition were not come from reliable sources. For this issue, the article just need to be improved, not deleted. - Imoeng 10:51, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This article is currently undergoing examination for copyright violations and may be deleted on those grounds. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Christine Caine[edit]

    Non-notable minister. Google returns inconclusive results, mostly a jeweler with the same name. She also seems to be connected to the Christian30 hoax astroturfing campaign. Danny Lilithborne 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per WP:BIO. Not-notable. I'm not sure I detect a hoax here, but if so then strong delete. Get rid of for not-notable at least. Scorpiondollprincess 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:Bio, and non-notable. Jefffire 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. First ten of 10200 google results all seem appropos, google news also serves a relevant result: coordinator for 40000 Hillsong volunteers at July conference in Sydney. Fulfills WP:BIO afaict. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I'm not very familiar with the field of Christian music. However, the problem with the Christian30 Covergirls doesn't seem to be with the subjects, but with Christian30. Since we don't have categories like Entertainment Weekly Covergirls or People Mag Covergirls, we obviously shouldn't have a category for an obscure site. But the girls themselves seem to be legitimate, and there doesn't seem to be a general movement to delete their articles. What C30 seems to be doing is like this: I start a site called "Celeb30," then go on Wikipedia and put celebs like Keira Kneightley into my "Celeb30 Covergirls" category. That just means that my category should be deleted, not that the Keira entry should be deleted as NN. In this regard, the very fact that Christian 30 is trying to "claim" her is actually an endorsement of her notability. I also note that in the Google search posted earlier is a 700 Club guest bio[56] result. I don't see how Christian30 could fake that! The fact that the 700 Club would have her on as a guest argues for some level of notability. --Groggy Dice 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. GRBerry 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Her bio gives the title of three books by her and publisher of one. I'm not sure she meets the author test or the music test, but when you start piling up a weak notability in field X, a weak in Y, etc... you get a weak result that is stronger than any individual field's results. Amazon shows one book about rank 200K, one about 400K, and a couple out of print in the 1.2 Mil and 2 Mil zones. Searching her name also brings up some CDs and some works by other authors. Looks notable for field, probably more so in Australia than the states. GRBerry 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A search for "Christine Caine" comes up with one hit in an Australia New Zealand media database in relation to Hillsong. She is mentioned in an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. A search of verifiable sources through databases available through the ACT public library system came up with no references to her. She doesn't meet our guidelines for biography. Capitalistroadster 09:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Running similar search terms on Google gets 672 hits.[57] Your results appear damning, but there are possible arguments that the database may not be telling the whole story. After all, it didn't turn up the Adelaide Advertiser result that Google News did. For instance, is this an up-to-the-minute database, and how far back does it go? If it was not instantly updated, it might not catch people whose notoriety was recent (though that doesn't seem to be the case here). Also, how broad is the selection of publications, particularly of Christian/evangelical ones? It is possible for someone to have notability in a subculture, but to be "flying under the radar" of mainstream outlets. I noted in my own remark that one thing that swayed me was information about being a guest on the 700 Club. However, her prominence even in evangelical circles appears modest. And it looks like the article will be deleted for copyvio anyway, unless somebody knows enough about her to rewrite it in a way that doesn't copyvio. --Groggy Dice 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the trivia section. The item about her childhood cannot be verified but would not be trivial if it could be. The other item about what she calls her husband is unverifiable and trivial. Capitalistroadster 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: most of the text and the image in the article appears to be copied from [58]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please she is notable but remove copyvio Yuckfoo 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Ifnord 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Capitalistroadster Cheesehead 1980 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk 22:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Fulara[edit]

    No evidence is given of notability. Evidence of absence, etc, but Google didn't reveal anything overtly promising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystallina (talk • contribs)

    • Delete, non-notable musician. SmartGuy 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - No claims of notability, sources, etc. Wickethewok 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? - Here in Poland he IS famous now, editor of "TopGuitar", one of the Masterclasses teachers at European Tap Seminar. He did a lot of new things in tapping (such PORTATO method, special instrument). Sure, you can delete it now, but I'm sure that for 3-4 years you will HAVE TO put it again here. No doubt. Romek
    • Delete. The article does assert some notability, but since no citations for subject's "numerous awards", it fails WP:V. If Romek or anyone else can provide cites to reliable sources that verify the claims in the article, please do so. --Satori Son 16:06, 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 no consensus to delete. - brenneman {L} 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fonzie Syndrome[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 insert their own opinions and stick any info they feel might belong there (however tenuously). wikipediatrix 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Aaaayyy... Delete per nom. Also, I'm not sure I buy all of the provided examples. GassyGuy 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete for WP:OR. However I do think this is a genuine phenomenae. I could be persuaded to change my position if verifiable sources were cited (e.g., in each example, a TV critic calling such-and-such a case of this). Scorpiondollprincess 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete as above for OR. I would say 3/4 of these don't belong: Andy Sipowicz was one of the two leads from episode one, for example, and Heather Locklear was deliberately hired to be the center of that show. (Also, to be fair, should have been titled the Kookie Syndrome, as that's the original model. Fan-1967 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per my nomination. wikipediatrix 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (wikipediatrix should not be effectively allowed to vote twice in my opinion. PMA 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Weak Keep - the phrase does exist and is in use (Check groups.google.com), and describes (in my opinion) correctly, the usage and derivation of the term. The violation of WP:OR is signifcantly problematic, and as stated in the nom, coul turn this into a dumping ground of opinion. -- Whpq 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and because it's entirely a matter of opinion and difficult, if not impossible, to verify. Agent 86 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Unless sourced as OR. Groups.google.com is not a reliable source of info. Wickethewok 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - As much as i violently disagree with Wikipediatrix's heavy-handedness and tendency for unilateralism, she has a point - although i would say it's a genuine phenomenon not "contrived". PMA 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I believe the term is used offhandedly in Jon Hein's book regarding Kramer, suggesting to me that it existed independently outside of Wikipedia. Someone would have to Nexis the work of most TV critics to really make sure. Also, I would really like it if Wikipediatrix didn't use the same abusive text for all these nominations. It leads me to further doubt her good faith (is it really necessary to stick your own vote in when you made the nomination? That makes it look personal). Although, I admit this is a bit more open-ended and could quarrel with some of the entries (I would never have described Sipowicz, ever, as a supporting character), that's what we have editors and talk pages for. Daniel Case 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing "abusive" about what I said about this article. Sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way for whatever reason. wikipediatrix 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's everything abusive about it. Using both "contrived" and "made-up" is redundant and unnecessary as they both mean the same thing here (especially when they modify "neologism," which implies the same thing). The only reason to do it is when the writer or speaker feels one word does not adequately convey the depth of their negative feelings, cf. "international world Jewry", as used by antisemites.

          Further, reusing the same text for another nomination suggests some sort of grander agenda (which, to be fair, you've copped to elsewhere).

          I have learned, with deletion nominations, the shorter and more dispassionate, the better. Daniel Case 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • I agree with Daniel - sooner or later 'trix will end up with an Request for Comment. PMA 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Feel free. wikipediatrix 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hasn't SPUI gotten into trouble with that sort of attitude before? Daniel Case 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please consider switching to decaf. I am not on trial here, the article is. If you and PMA have a problem with my alleged attitude, there are avenues you can pursue if you think you have a case, but this isn't the place. Please make an effort to talk about the article instead of talking about me. wikipediatrix 12:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I will leave pursuing those avenues to someone else who wishes to do so. I have better things to do right now.

                    As to this being about the article, let me just let everyone know that yesterday I left this proposal for a resolution to this issue on Wikipediatrix's talk page. Despite continuing to post here and on other deletion threads, she has not responded to it since then. If it's about the article and not her, I would think that the discussion could and would have been turned to it. Daniel Case 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    • Whatever. I nominated the article for deletion and gave my reason for it. I'm done. Keep insulting me if it pleases you. wikipediatrix 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete as OR, though I may change my mind if someone verifies it. BryanG(talk) 23:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And someone did. Keep and rename per below. BryanG(talk) 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Comment. In regards to Daniel Case's suggestion about a Nexis search, I was actually crazy enough to search for "fonz! syndrome" in the News, All (English, Full Text) database and found a single story, from The Orange County Register. That 2000 story used the term "Fonzie Syndrome" to refer to actors who become identified to a single role that made them famous. I hope this helps. --- danntm talk 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, have tried to find secondary sources that describe the purported syndrome described by this article. Unfortunately, most (of the few) web pages on this subject are like this one in that they cite Wikipedia as their source. (Others turn out to be simple non-GFDL-compliant mirrors of Wikipedia.) The article cites no sources. Editors have argued on Talk:Fonzie syndrome over what the syndrome actually is, but not a single source defining it has been cited on that talk page, and requests for sources for any of this have remained unanswered there. Editors have claimed that this concept existed prior to the Wikipiedia article, but no sources have been presented to demonstrate that. The Orange County Register story (Barry Koltnow (2000-07-15). "Shaft, first and forever: Actor Richard Roundtree reprises the role that made him famous in the 1971 action film". Orange County Register.) is, as danntm says, about Richard Roundtree with the reference to Fonzie syndrome apparently being nothing more than about the strong association of certain actors with their most popular rôles. That is nothing like the syndrome discussed in this article. This therefore appears to be original research. Delete. Uncle G 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I defer to UncleG here and accordingly acquiesce in the deletion of this article as presently constituted, or (what I would still prefer) a redirect to Continuity issues with characters in episodic media, as I proposed on Wikipediatrix's talk page. My concerns about her and what I see as her insufficient commitment to civility still stand, however. Daniel Case 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thought, per Wikipediatrix's own suggestion, can we consider renaming this to Breakout character? I find 9,620 Google hits there, some of which are already in articles here. Daniel Case 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any sources to cite that describe what a breakout character is? Uncle G 01:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Several pages deep in the Google hits, I find this rant: A "breakout character" from a show is the character that becomes the most popular and talked about, and perhaps imitated. Another one, from the Muppet Wiki: When a character becomes very popular, we call that a breakout character.. This TV critic's usage on his blog suggests rather common use. Here's another implied definition from an article on The Pink Panther: As much as THE PINK PANTHER plays up the sexual hijinks, the accident-prone Clouseau remains the film’s breakout character, easily stealing away the focus of film. A usage related to the Fonz: Ultimately, Winkler molded the character around himself and everybody, including Ron Howard, realized this would be the show's 'breakout' character. Is that enough? I think an article can be created. Daniel Case 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well done with the research! That's the sort of use of Google (to locate actual source material, rather than merely to count hits) that we need editors to do more of. Looking at the sources, you appear to have a fairly verifiable definition of what a breakout character is (albeit that there's probably a better source available than that), and two verifiable instances of breakout characters. That addresses the concern of original research, since now editors and readers can confirm that the concept discussed by the (proposed rewritten) article exists outside of Wikipedia and has gained traction in the world at large. I therefore change to rename and heavily rewrite to be about breakout characters, as per the sources located (and whatever further sources editors locate). You'll have to refactor the introduction quite drastically; and you'll have to start the list of characters from scratch, but you have sources for three (Barney, Fonzie, and Clouseau) already. I strongly recommend requiring that every character in the list be accompanied by a source acknowledging xem to be a breakout character. Uncle G 11:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Daniel. PMA 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the excellent research of Uncle G. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change "vote" to Delete, Rename, or Merge, but do not keep. (If Daniel would work on Continuity issues with characters in episodic media, it would be appreciated.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As if I didn't have enough to do at the moment. OK, I'll get to it, hopefully some time soon. Daniel Case 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. I have now created the breakout character article, based on (but not yet citing) what I found above. I have acknowledged in it the Fonz's association with the phenomenon, but since we cannot find much evidence to support the "Fonzie syndrome" referring to this I suggest we just make this a redirect. Daniel Case 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, looking them over, how about a merge instead? I am posting the suggestion at both articles. Daniel Case 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename as per the breakout character suggestion.71.98.184.143 04:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. "Fonzie syndrome" returns a whopping 60 unique Google hits. - CheNuevara 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and move to breakout character. I'm assuming this article has been widely edited since it was first nominated. -- NORTH talk 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Keep in mind that, as Uncle G notes, entries on this projected article should properly cite sources that specifically refer to each entry as a "breakout character". This will result in a much shorter list than we currently have now, and will make standards for inclusion much tighter and limiting than before. It can't just be another free-for-all where people say "oh, Shaggy's my favorite Scooby-Doo character, I think I'll add him to the list." wikipediatrix 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't see anything there that counts as original research, and it's decently well-footnoted in proportion to its length.KASchmidt 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Breakout character, a better term. Remove all uncited examples. -- MisterHand 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete, who's making all these Syndromes up?it's not making Wikipedia more credible. Marminnetje 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Breakout character. Yes, who's making up all these Syndromes? Just because one character, one (re)casting situation, or one writing out of a character is odd, noticeable, or notable, why do editors insist on coining a syndrome based on that single event and playing a parlour game to add in supposedly similar events from other shows. Spate of these articles on wikipedia. We'll have to watch out for the multi examples creeping in to Breakout character though. Asa01 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with breakout character; the term is both more neutral and more widespread, per research above; do not keep on its own. Well spotted. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:58, 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 of the debate was delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Quantified Marketing Group[edit]

    Advert for a company Edward 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Hageman[edit]

    • Delete Not notable, seems to just be a local player in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuBu (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 July 2006
    • Delete Has only played U21's - the article site shows appearances : League 0 , Total 0
    • Keep seems probable he will be playing shortly (see my talk page) Dlyons493 Talk 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no professional appearances (WP:BIO). --Daduzi talk 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC) withdrawing delete vote, highly borderline case. --Daduzi talk 11:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I would vote to toss if he was still on the U-21's, but he's starting a two-year first team contract this season. He's a professional player with a professional contract.[59] The article didn't make that 100% clear, so I stated it more explicitly. Anyway, a first team player in the Irish equivelent of the premiership is notable enough for my tastes. Vickser 07:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not Notable, this is not the place to host profiles of highschool soccer stars. JeffMurph 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he comparable to a high school soccer player? He's got a professional contract in one of the better teams in the premier Irish league. Vickser 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This was User:JeffMurph's first post. -- Alias Flood 17:44, 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 - multiple non-trivial works, yada yada yada - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles B. Johnson[edit]

    • Delete Not notable. Does not seem to be an important figure other than being wealthy. GuBu 11:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I think running a NYSE-listed firm with billions in assets makes him notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A quick google shows 800+ for "Charles Johnson" "Franklin Resources", including media outlets such as Forbes, Bloomberg.com, and the Wall St. Journal. Seems notable enough to me. --Wine Guy Talk 21:58, 22 July 2006
    • Delete Adds no value, other than to give his forbes ranking, which will change from year to year. JeffMurph 08:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If having a forbes ranking does not constitute notability, then is the forbes ranking, itself, even notable? TerraFrost 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, being ranked the 147th richest person in the world probably didn't happen by accident. RFerreira 21:02, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Diana Bianchi[edit]

    Not notable. The information can already be found on Christie Brinkley's page, in fact it's the only page that links to it. Besides having the affair with Christie Brinkley's husband she's not notable. I'm listing on AfD because this page has previously been marked with {{db-bio}} but it was reverted/removed. ImmortalGoddezz 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Bianchi is a huge story and a young, upcoming sex bombshell with a promising career in singing. Her article should not be deleted over frivolous reasons motivated by jealousy against an aspiring starlet and celebrity home-wrecker.
    • Delete per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom Optimale Gu 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -Big Smooth 16:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Huge news and notable. People will come here looking for information about this person, who is an aspiring professional singer in addition to the Brinkley husband affair. Badagnani 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. per Badagnani. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. per Badagnani. Likely there is a record deal in her future. Lowellt 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Just another mistress. References to record deals are crystal-ballisms. -- GWO
    • Delete per Gareth Owen. Puh-lease. Let her shoot the boyfriend and go to prison if she wants an article. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but delete the non relevant information, that is everything after the first paragraph. The article shouldn't contain information on Brinkley other than Diana Bianchi was involved in an affair. eventine 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I came to the original article while specifically looking for an article on Bianchi. If I'm looking for it, like many other people, should I not be able to find it? Hebron 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The world is full of aspiring this-and-thats. Trudy
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Kellogg[edit]

    • Delete Not notable in his own right. Being the son of a wealthy man is not enough for an encyclopedia entry. I recommend redirecting the link to his fathers entry Jimbo68 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been asked to explain my vote, I observe on further inspection that his father (to which I thought the article should be redirected) doesn't actually have an article to redirect to, while the company mentioned -- which might have been the other logical target -- has only a one-line stub. This therefore appears to be the most detailed entry on any of the related subjects. I remain of the opinion that a single article on the Kelloggs would be preferable to several, but as we don't have several, there doesn't seem to be any such problem. I am therefore changing my vote to keep and expand, at least for now; perhaps the father could also be discussed in this context, to give a broader, more detailed article. — Haeleth Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for further clarification: since a redirect would make no sense when the only possible target article does not mention this man at all, the minimal sensible outcome, if the consensus is to delete or redirect, would be to merge this with the article on the company. — Haeleth Talk 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect per nom -- Alias Flood 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per expansion and cited notability -- Alias Flood 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; fails WP:BIO. JeffMurph 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that the article has been considerably improved since the above "delete" votes were cast: a number of previously absent claims of notability have been added. If the closing admin is inclined to delete, I would strongly urge re-listing first, to ensure that any consensus is based on a fair evaluation of the expanded article. — Haeleth Talk 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Article looks good now, and notability is proven with references. Natgoo 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep rewritten article is clearly verifiable and based on reliable sources. Eluchil404 22:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunday Night Group[edit]

    A group of environmental activists at Middlebury College. Has been tagged for WP:NPOV problems, and per comments on the talk page there's some serious WP:Weaseling, but even if those are resolved, I really don't see that this group has any notability beyond their campus. Citations are primarily to campus websites and a few blogs. I would guess there are similar groups at thousands of universities, and this one is not notable enough for an article. Fan-1967 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable (one mention from a local newspaper and no assertion of significant accomplishments outside of the school) campuscruft. --Craig Stuntz 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • References to external environmental organizations, a statewide weekly (Seven Days), and other sources (including Grist Magazine) suggest this article's topic is at least as relevant as the thousands of other student organizations with separate articles, especially given the amount of publicity over the organization's short sixteen-month existence. Thanks, Aiken1986 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What student organizations are you specifically referring to? Generally, we tend to avoid articles on student organizations confined to one college. There certainly may exist some, which have not been noticed, but overall articles for such organizations tend to get deleted. Fan-1967 04:57, 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) 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AEA Consulting[edit]

    Article reads like vanity/advertising. Also see Aea consulting. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 14:56, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Schools in the East[edit]

    Listcruft Computerjoe's talk 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unnecessary list. I was quite surprised at the content as I expected that it wouldn't be a list of Japanese schools but I didn't expect that such introspection would be from the UK. MLA 15:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a spliting of the the list of Schools in England into the 9 Regions of England. This list is of the schools in the region of the East or Eastern region. The whole List of schools in England is very large and will only get larger as more schools are added. It needs to be split up and in some sort of way organised better than it curtrently is. I have found a list of all Local Education Authorities in Engalnd and have split that list up into the 9 regions. I have then looked at the combined list for all schools in England and pulled out the relevent ones for this region and tried to put some order to them (currently the list of schools in England uses various methods of listing withing the same list. With the break away articles I am trying to bring some order and regular structure to the lists so they are eaiser to follow and more useful. Evil Eye 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At the very least, it drastically needs a new title. I was expecting to see Harvard, Georgetown, Yale and MIT. Fan-1967 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is what categories are for. Plus the title is unnecessarily confusing as, to paraphrase Doctor Who, "Lots of countries have an East". 23skidoo 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But not every school is worth an article on it's own. People have been debating this for a long time and I've seen many people argue on here that a simple list of schools for each LEA would be better than each school having an individual article. If schools are not notable enough have individual articles then the category function will not list them. While a school might not be notable in itself to warrant a whole article, the fact it exists is an important factor and very useful information. Getting hold of lists of schools is extremely hard (I had to spend ages when adding all the schools for one LEA to the main England list searching out the school names (that one LEA had over 100 schools, there are over 150 LEAs in Engalnd and I beleive over 20,000 schools)). I will admit though that the name is perhaps not the best name for the list, perhaps something illustrating that the 'East' is one of the English regions would be better. Evil Eye 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - use a subcategory or at least move to Schools in the East of England. Yomangani 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, we don't need this. Use a category. Also, the title is ambiguous. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above. -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete List-cruft! Wrath of Roth 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete East of what? No context. --ColourBurst 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you explain what you mean by 'no context' please? If you mean the title of the article, then I have said above that probably needs changing. If it is just that the title is ambiguous, which is what your comment implies, then why vote to delete? Wouldn't suggesting a new name be better? Evil Eye 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Fine, if you want a reason, much of the list just invites redlinks to be created and AfD'd. In other words, much of the list is nonnotable and it's a little too indiscriminate for my liking as well. Why only England? What about every other country (for example, a list for the U.S., even for a larger state, would become unmaintainable quickly.). --ColourBurst 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Such lists do already exist for every US state. The other parts of the UK also have such lists (which I noticed were split out of a single article for the whole UK about a week or so ago. I'm sure other countries will also have simialr lists. But this idea of lists was a compromise I had heard talked about many times when reading the arguments for and against individual school articles. rather than a tiny stub article on every school, just giving the info of type of school, location, size etc, the list gives all schools in one area, (which is the way the list will likely be most useful) with this information in just one large article instead of 100 or 500 or 1000 separate articles. Evil Eye 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You're right (it exists for Canada also, but only for certain provinces). But I've taken a look at the country listings and it's very inconsistent. I'm still of the mind that it's unmaintainable (and probably a lot of the other school lists are unmaintainable as well). I'm not picking on you personally - it's an incredible mess. (E.g. why are only international schools in Shanghai in the China list? Why isn't BC (a fairly large province) included in the Canadian schools? Why is the listing of schools in Quebec only art schools? What about school-like institutions? What constitutes a school?) --ColourBurst 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can I ask those of you who have voted 'delete' to have a look at the Yorkshire and Humber region list to have and see the entry for the LEA of Barnsley there. That list contains the age range of the school, the type of school (eg connunity, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and the place the school is situated and any specialist status the school has. I hope to also include the number on roll too when I can find them. The ultimate goal is to have the same on all lists for all schools in the country. Obviously this will take some time and needs the pages setting up and them worked on. I have also redirected the page nominated here to List of schools in the East of England. Thanks. I hope some of you might reconsider now. Evil Eye 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There is no article on Schools in the East or Schools in the East of England. Why not? Because it is not an encyclopedic topic... because there is nothing conceptually similar about them. They do not embody a characteristic style of architecture, or a particular educational philosophy, or a common history. They have no more in common with each other than "Schools whose names begin with the letter C." In general, if there is no article on X, there should not be an article entitled "list of X." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then I suggest you nominate for deletion the 50 or so list articles for lists of schools in the US for each state. There are no articles to go along side them of exactly the same name either. Why is there no article of the same name? Becuase the article which would contain the information in an article called Schools in the East of England would actually be contained in an article either on a more specific area or a more general area and would also be entitled education, eg Education in England or Education in Cambridgshire. And you say there is nothing in common between schools in the article, well within each such section of the article there are similarities. For example, you see the structure in Buckinghamshire contains upper, middle and lower, where as Cambridgeshire has Primary and Secondary Schools. Some LEAs will show lots of Grammar Schools, others wil have none. Maybe Educational establishments in the East of England would be more suitable? Alos, I say again, the reason there is this article is becasue one single artilce for the whole of England or the UK would be too huge to keep as a single article. What is really silly here is that people on here have been arguing for a long time against individual article for all schools, with the suggestion articles on education within each LEA, which lists the schools and gives only the basic information, eg type of school, local, size etc, with only the most notable schools having their own articles. Here we have the startings of such a system and yet people are still not happy and want to get rid of even the most basic collective articles on the subject. I really don't understand it. Evil Eye 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole education structure is mess I agree (probably because schools aren't encyclopedic per se), but even if one was to accept your reasoning that it should exist because it can't be found anywhere else, the list you've created is just slightly less unmanageable than a whole list of schools in England. It's already huge and I guess you've barely started. Yomangani 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd guess the current list here is about 1/3 to 1/2 complete. That is however only a rough estimate. Then there would be finding the information on each school which would make the article more worthwhile. But the current state is a start and there is a clear end point to it too, which, once reached, means the artciel would only need updating when a schools changes, eg closes, a new one opens, a specialis is added/changed etc. It's not really an open ended lsit. Large yes, but certainly it has it's boundaries. And I'd say it's a very useful list too. Evil Eye 12:59, 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 08:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chavworld[edit]

    Non-notable website Geoffrey Spear 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete- There is a strong article already in Wikipedia and while this website could be added there as an external link, it does not merit its own entry. Richardjames444 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. --Porqin 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Richardjames444. iI just added that link to the chav entry. If it lasts then well, thats all coverage it needs.-(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete there are no references or sources and notability is not established. The fact that one member was featured on media is not enough for inclusion of website he sometiems visits. Shinhan 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete --Pilotguy (roger that) 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Box Network Services (UK) Ltd.[edit]

    Article is lacking is notability and is a copy vio from the company's website Spartaz 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    please also note Black Box Network Services (UK) Ltd has been put up for speedy Spartaz 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a sentence. The company is NASDAQ listed with offices in over 140 countries. How much more notable do you need to be?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djme (talk • contribs)
    at the very least it needs to be an original article and not a copy paste from the company website Spartaz 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is now factual and original. Please reconsider deletion— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djme (talk • contribs)
    • Move to Black Box Corporation. Why would we have an article about the foreign subsidiary, but not the main corporation? -- Mikeblas 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per nom. Added the speedy deletion tag. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 18:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain to me why cyclades corporation are on wikipedia? Why they are also allowed to advertise vendors of their products. The inconsistency on here is truly remarkable. Why do corporations like Microsoft or IBM get to advertise their products too. One rule for one, one rule for another.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Everson (2nd Nomination)[edit]

    Call for Second VfD It's time we voted on nuking this a second time, this time noticing these points:

    • WP:DVAIN is a policy that came into effect after the last AfD and therefore is an entirely new guideline to consider.
    • Textbook violation of WP:VAIN
    • WP:AUTO WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP Are there any more I'm forgetting that he's also violating?
    • Michael Everson himself reverts any modification to the page from his own personal writing, be it addition or subtraction, even when factual information is added. He will most predictably be a part of this discussion and the greatest opponent to deletion. His username is Evertype
    • Autobiography is highly frowned upon and sets a poor example to other editors
    • Since Everson himself states he is one of the numerous co-authors of the Unicode standard, maybe he should be merged with a small portion of a larger page listing all of the Unicode authors.
    • The links at the bottom of the page to evertype.com are a commercial site where he is advertising products, so by definition, him writing his own article about himself and his products on Wikipedia is nothing more than thinly veiled spam
    • This article is a fine example of what user pages are for, and all of its content should be on User:Evertype instead of here.
    • This article does not cite any sources that are not primary. He has a source cited of his own personal website and two links to interviews with himself.
    • While this article has been vandalized numerous times by trolls, it is also important to note that reverting vandalization is not justification of content and we can't turn a blind eye to the fact that Evertype has made a mockery of Wikipedia not only in his original violation by writing the article himself but through continued reversion to this vanity page to this very day. He is not remorseful in action despite numerous "apologies".

    - --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing, since Everson would always rather waste time addressing the author than the issue, I would like to state ahead of time that I'm not a sockpuppet and that I nearly never contribute anything to Wikipedia whatsoever, which doesn't make any of the above points less valid. Thank you. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Fixing the header so it doesn't break the topic list. No vote.—Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see media coverage. He looks at least marginally notable. See no reason to delete. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, he was on the front page of the technology section of the New York Times. That's what, section number S? If he's so famous, how come nobody else wrote an article about him? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep, possible bad-faith nomination, and possible WP:POINT violation. I don't really see anything wrong with the article. Furthermore, I see nothing that fails WP:NPOV. —Coredesat talk. o.o;; 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware the author wrote the article himself and reverts all changes made to it? That's not NPOV at all. This is precisely the sort of article that Wikipedia vanity page guidelines are specifically against--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see no evidence of that. If he's notable enough (which he seems to be, he meets WP:BIO), we can ignore the vanity guidelines. As for the edits, he has only made three edits to this article this year. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -the last AFD established there was no consensus to delete. It sounds as if you need to go to WP:RFC or WP:RFM if he is protecting the article. Yomangani 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds to me like you need to read the discussion page of the article, where he rants and raves about what a celebrity he is --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep I complete agree with SayWhatYouMeanWhatYouSay, in so far as this page is clearly a violation of WP:VAIN. Just look at how eager he is to talk about himself on the talk page! It is obvious that Evertype is using this as a second userpage, and that is a bad example to other users. However, he does seem just notible enough for his own page. Would not oppose a Merge with Unicode if that was consenus. Thε Halo Θ 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The actions of a user are a different issue than whether or not the article is notable. Seems to pass WP:BIO. --Craig Stuntz 15:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but are you making a joke? In WP:BIO guidelines is a direct quote: "Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?" Then I direct you to Talk:Michael Everson and tell me he's not the worst offender to WP:VAIN in the history of Wikipedia. This is precisely the sort of self-aggrandizing garbage that the editing guidelines are for. Also, an autobiography is by definition not NPOV because it is from the point of view of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay (talk • contribs) .
    You fail to mention that your quote comes from the section headed, "Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support)". There is no rule against autobiography, and I do not agree that autobiographies are by definition POV. When I said, "seems to pass WP:BIO," I was of course referring to the primary guidelines at the top of the page, and not the alternative proposals which haven't yet reached consensus. --Craig Stuntz 16:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the cruft about him being a Buddhist, a polyglot, part Irish and other stuff like that? That's uncyclopedic and belongs on his userpage or better yet, MySpace. If I for some bizarre reason were researching Unicode contributors and authors (and there's a whole lot of them but Everson likes to make it sound like there's a grand total of two Unicode authors in the world) would I need to know all this? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That can just be removed. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were that easy, I wouldn't have gone to all this trouble. I've attempted to edit that cruft out and revert wars between me, him and his sockpuppets start. He doesn't allow a point of view that is not the Michael Everson point of view. With Everson, you get your cake and you eat it too. He's advertising on Wikipedia for free, he has his resume on Wikipedia for free, and he's the god of his own article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case you need to list this article at WP:RFC, not here. Yomangani 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Biography suggests including the subject's religion. Being polyglot and part Irish appears to me to be 1) directly relevant to his professional work and 2) categories, not article content. If you don't like the categories, that's also a separate issue. --Craig Stuntz 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does he need a biography? All he's ever done is make a few fonts for Unicode. Big deal! He didn't invent Unicode, he's not the sole contributor, and if it weren't for Michael Everson's vanity, this article would never exist in the first place. He's worthy of maybe an extremely brief mention in Unicode on what fonts he's made, but why does anybody at all need to know all that about him, why do we need a picture of him looking very color-coordinated in front of a landmark in Iran, or have a seperate page for him whatsoever? He's got a userpage, that's what it's for. DELETE. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge with Unicode on the basis of no non-primary sources. --Weevlos 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He's done more for Unicode than simply make a few fonts, and the article as it now exists strikes me as a starting point that could use the inclusion of some counterpoint about his detractors and the messy falling out he has had with some of his business partners, but that's a question of article content, not whether there should be an article about him at all. If he is continually deleting non-complimentary info about him, seek to have the article protected and have him banned from editting. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Michael Everson is a very well-known and influential expert (I am tempted to write "celebrity") in the world of coded character sets and typography. I have known about his work since the mid 1990s, i.e. long before Wikipedia was conceived. There can be no doubt that he clearly deserves an article in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with a readership that has showen a particularly keen interest in matters related to computers. This includes important specialist technology leaders such as Michael Everson. I cannot find anything in the article that would seem out of place in a detailed encyclopedia article and I very much welcome Michael's contributions to keep the article accurate, authoritative and up-to-date. Most importantly, I found reading this article most interesting and insightful. Should it be deleted, I will not hesitate to rewrite from scratch an equivalent article, which is likely sound very similar. This 2nd vote for deletion is entirely unfunded and a petty and disappointing vendeta against a notable Wikipedia contributor. Markus Kuhn 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggestion of rewriting the article yourself would, for once, actually be a step in the right direction to obeying the rules and making the article up to some sort of NPOV. If one is to base judgement of Everson's notability by the entry he wrote, he is like a God, the master of letters and linguistics who all but invented Unicode. Anybody who checks up on the facts finds this to be embellished and inflammatory. He won't link to Unicode.org because that website shows he is less of a contributor than at first it may appear, and joined the project at a later date than many. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last remark indicates to me that you have very little first-hand familiarity with the history and evolution of both the Unicode and the ISO/IEC 10646 project, that you have not been for years on the relevant internal mailing lists and committee meetings, that you are not a regular reader of the countless very well researched documents that Michael Everson has contributed to the working groups in charge of ISO/IEC 10646 over the past decade, but that instead you are quick to form strong opinions after a very superficial search on a few web sites written for lay audience. With regard to rewriting the article from scratch, well, I am to a first approximation as lazy as anyone else and am certainly most happy to let the man himself provide the raw material to get started, which I am then most happy to trim and extend in scope and language as I see fit for an encyclopedia entry. Just like with any other Wikipedia article. Please work a bit harder on finding a pragmatic balance between treating the no-autobiography policy as a strict and irrevokable religious dogma, and the practicalities of getting high-quality and authoritative biographic information into Wikipedia. Did it never occur to you, that the vast majority of biographies out there of living people written by others are relying almost exclusively on raw information provided by the person concerned? Most dispicable of all, you have so far been only some anonymous coward. Show at least some face, contribution, and personality, rather than a sock puppet created obviously for the sole purpose of deleting this article! Markus Kuhn 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're right that SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay hasn't contributed anything, and yeah he probably is a sock puppet, and I'm sure Michael Everson has done a lot with Unicode, what does that have to do with the general utter suckiness of this article? --205.162.51.137 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong and speedy keep. This was already discussed and disposed of, and the article has not materially changed since, allegations of protection notwithstanding. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a narrowly drawn res judicata policy that overrides Wikipedia:No binding decisions in these cases. Otherwise, what is to prevent a third, a fourth, yea, a ninety-ninth VfD? I suggest that even this second VfD is already an abuse of process. --John Cowan 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering when you'd show up, John Cowan. The very fact that the page has not changed at all and is not *allowed to be changed at all* through you and Everson's (is he your friend or something?) reverts is further proof that this page does not belong on Wikipedia. It's a MySpace, and you know it. To answer your accusation that the VfD itself is somehow abusive, it's been over an entire year since the last time and a whole lot of people have tried to change this page and it just seems to be getting reverted continuously, even on the occasion something new is found out about him. In addition, he only cites primary sources, which is reason enough to nuke. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the honor to be Michael's friend, yes. Useful changes have been made and not reverted: only vandalism has been reverted. In addition, anyone who deliberately links a Wikipedia article to that extremely unfunny travesty at Encyclopedia Dramatica exposes, in my opinion, his utter lack of good faith. --John Cowan 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That vandalism has nothing to do with this VfD, as per addressed in the original reasons. I wrote that part for people like you. [So you openly admit violating a guideline, then. --John Cowan 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)] [No, I definitely do not. You must have heard I am backing out of this conversation. That doesn't mean you get to accuse me of things long after we have discussed. That's bad faith. Back off. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)]You're terribly predictable. To address your earlier comment about how there should be "exceptions" to the Wikipedia:No binding decisions policy, that is the sort of ludicrous hipocrisy that brings the trolls to target contradictory arrogance like that. You want the Wikipedia:No binding decisions policy to have binding decisions? Logically, it wouldn't be a no binding decisions policy any more, then, would it, Johnny? Your action of asking for some sort of special protection against people constructively editing an autobiography does NOT apply, that's for user pages, not autobiographies. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asking for a policy to prevent endless VfDs. That's very different from page protection. --John Cowan 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, anybody who starts from the first edit and looks at the diffs can plainly see there's been A LOT of constructive edits that have been reverted soley because of the autobiographer's personal opinion. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Seems notable enough, but I have a big problem with people editing articles about themselves. Imo, the best action for people to take regarding bad information in an article about themselves is to post on the talk page or simply ask another editor to do so. Wickethewok 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with this, although I think that AfD is not the solution. --Craig Stuntz 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has recently asked me to revert vandalism, and I was happy to do so. (I am not a sock puppet.) --John Cowan 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Michael Everson has done more than a 'few fonts' for Unicode, I believe he is responsible for encoding about 5-10% of the 100000 characters in the standard. I think references to Budhism, Ireland etc. are useful trivia; makes his biography more interesting. If Everson has violated the policy for editing articles about himself, there should be other ways to correct it; IMHO removing this page is not the solution. Vnagarjuna 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per Vnagarjuna. -- Arwel (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what user pages are for? Again, if he's notable, why didn't somebody else write an article about him? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep His work on the Irish is extraordinary. This article is well justified. (btw, I hope he doesn't have a big head!) El Gringo 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep With the same comments as last time. If you know about i18n then you know about Michael Everson, and if you don't then the Wikipedia article about him is sufficient to fill people in. Sure, writing about yourself is a cardinal editing sin, but the article has been up for peer review for long enough now to make that moot. Moreover, it's been mooted to the point where my distain at good Wikipedia articles hitting the big bit bucket in the sky for political or peripheral reasons seems much more pertinent. --Sbp 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Noteworthy, extraordinary achievements. MelForbes 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Says who? Him? --205.162.51.137 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. I don't need evidence that he's notable; the del advocate(s) have given so many transparently irrelevant args that they have no credibility in claiming n-n. Make it speedy for the sake of the dignity of AfD and as a courtesy to the abused editors. If there are shortcomings, they can be fixed in the normal course of editing. (On the off chance that the article were worthy of deletion, a well-established Wikipedian would eventually notice and make a credible case against it.)
      --Jerzy•t 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. I am quite familiar with Everson's work and its quantitative and qualitative significance in a broad range of cultural and technical contexts. It fully justifies an article about him and, as many have already stated, there are more elegant editorial devices for nudging it into total WP conformity than the one now being voted upon. --futhark 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep, I don't think this is a speedy candidate however. Per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Your points/reasons doesn't qualify it for AfD. Michael Everson doesn't need this page at WP as a resume, as this User:SayWha... or any other user who is/are thinking or suggesting. So many Organisation, Institution, University, Government office, Company, Websites, etc have info/article on him, that in fact, WP itself is honored to have a higher status on the search returns, like from google, yahoo. Unicode is a very big thing, if you/we/i try making only 100 existing characters or symbols on your/our own, only the drawing steps or to maintain proportion will make you realize how hard this is, let alone, all the other steps needed to finally make only 100 glyphs as a standard. After so many peer reviews, and no biased POV, this article is a very good collection of WP. Even if he has started or edited this article by himself, anyone was alaways/anytime allowed to rectify/correct, with a reference/proof, if there is/are any mistake. As no one has done that, it absolutely cannot be an AfD issue, neither NPOV, just because if any user raises this / says so. --Tarikash 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    My response to that: There's been a whole lot of talking about how notable he is. If there's so many institutions verifying all of this information how come links to unicode.org keep getting reverted, how come ON unicode.org he wrote his own bio as well, which echoes this article, and how come he only references his own website and interviews about himself? Could it be because if you research the issue, Everson is a much more minor contributor than you think he is to Unicode? Tell you what, why don't you give me some sort of number here on how much he's done vs. total number of typefaces and we'll see how notable he really is. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1986-1987, At Xerox, Huan-mei Liao, Nelson Ng, Dave Opstad, and Lee Collins begin work on a database to map the relationships between identical Japanese (JIS) and Chinese (simplified and traditional) characters for quickly building a font for extended Chinese characters. Xerox users (e.g. Nakajima of Toronto) were in fact using JIS to extend the small Chinese character set. This leads to a first discussion of Han Unification, the pros & cons of which are written up by Eric Mader. At the same time at Apple, discussions of a universal character set are sparked by the Apple File Exchange development. Mark Davis begins Apple's participation in ANSI X3L2. From February 1989, working group meetings starts more frequently, starts the foundation of Unicode Consortium, (which formally founded in 1991). (At this point, most probably less than 25 active founding members). November 1988, Lee Collins begins building the Unicode Non-Han database and defining the initial repertoire, the first database for the Unicode names and mappings. The Unicode Standard was first published in October, 1991 (ISBN 0-201-56788-1 ). Unicode 1.0.1 (Volume 2)(June, 1992)(ISBN 0-201-60845-6). Unicode 1.1 (June 1993)(Previos 2 publications and Mark Davis' Unicode Technical Report #4:The Unicode Standard, Version 1.1) is actually known as real Unicode. UTF-8 borned in 1992. Even in June 1994, Michael Everson was Irish representative (official member CEN/TC304 and ISO/JTC1/SC2/WG3). I've found Michael Everson's papers (Unicode related N956 at JTC1-SC2-WG2 archive) from March, 1994. Michael Everson released "Everson Mono Unicode" font in 1995, After more than a year in development. Which is world's 3rd Unicode font. Before him, first was Charles Bigelow & Kris Holmes' "Lucida Sans Unicode" font in 1993 (Shipped in Win NT 3.1). Second was, "Unihan" font by Ross Paterson in 1993. UTF-8 was formally adopted in ISO 10646 in 1996. Unicode 2.0 (August 1996)(ISBN: 0201483459 . 9 major authors). Unicode 2.1.2(May, 1998. Prev 3 publication and paper of Lisa Moore, Unicode Technical Report #8, The Unicode Standard, Version 2.1). Unicode 3.0(Sept, 1999, published in 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5). Since 2000 (from the version 3.0), He is one of the Co-author of publications of Unicode Standards, out of total 12 (principal) authors (Joan Aliprand, Julie Allen, Joe Becker, Mark Davis, Michael Everson, Asmus Freytag, John Jenkins, Mike Ksar, Rick McGowan, Lisa Moore, Michel Suignard, and Ken Whistler). Unicode standard is now going under very important changes (ie roadmap) to enhance the standard for applied fields, based on the papers, where Michael Everson is one of the co-author, out of total three authors. He is now a very bigger figure than before. --Tarikash 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    There's only primary sources (interviews *are* primary) and original research here, which violates WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP, and have been reason enough all by themselves to speedily delete other articles. Then there's the fact that he keeps reverting and nitpcking edits by not just the vandals but ordinary edits of himself or reverting by proxy through Mr. Cowen, which is explicitly violation of WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Just because this article's been around for a long while doesn't make it any less of a vanity entry based on original research. Besides, does every creator of a character set deserve a Wikipedia entry? --Jacj 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article's opening paragraph is: Michael Everson is an expert in the writing systems of the world. He is a linguist, typesetter, and font designer, and is one of the co-authors of the Unicode Standard. There are many experts, linguists, typesetters, and font designers in the world, and Unicode was developed by the Unicode Consortium which is a large organization. This gentleman seems to be doing a lot in his life, but I see nothing in the article which would make him particularly encyclopedic. If he is more notable than an average linguist/typesetter/font designer - as the numerous 'Keep' votes above would seem to attest - then would someone please point out in the article's first paragraph why he's important? - Brian Kendig 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Or merge with Unicode after some major rewriting. article reads like a vanity page. ~ CBGB 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge with unicode. article is original research by the subject. Smooth Henry 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are a mere three references in this article. Two of which are to the author/subject's own homepage. Talk about lack of WP:RS and WP:V. What if every WP user wrote an article about themselves and used little more than their own website as a reference source? This content is what user pages are for.--Bouquet 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Bouquet's statement -- ContivityGoddess 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Brian Kendig and Bouquet--Nosmik 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. he's an authority in his field and written up in NY Times. If there are questions on points of V simply should be a rewrite. Why is this even nominated? rootology 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above Listerin 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per CBGB - vanity page, merge what verifiable/useful contents with unicode (the only thing he's famous for) and delete the rest. --timecop 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per above. Everson is certainly a significant part of Unicode/ISO10646 as we know it today. His is a field that goes little noticed, requires much self sacrifice, and yet has impact upon everything typed and read electronically. We could only wish for more articles on the people behind this crucial standards. --Yacob 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you feel so strongly about this person's accomplishments, would you please edit the article to put more emphasis on them and why they are particularly notable? I accept that Everson may be a terrific person, but from the article I still don't understand why he deserves note in an encyclopedia or why it's relevant that he was born in Norristown or is a Buddhist or likes Tolkien. That Unicode is important is a fact which belongs in the Unicode article; that Everson is a "significant part" of it is something which this Michael Everson article does a poor job of conveying. - Brian Kendig 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I personally find him a notable person, passes the Amazon test, article seems to be written from a neutral point of view, the information currently in the article seems verifiable (personal information from his personal website and the information on his work is probably well documented a unicode.org). —Ruud 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've replaced the generic NPOV template with a more specific autobiography template. Hopefully the new template will appropriately define the potential issues with this article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Like others have said, he's done his job for unicode and seems to now think he is some kind of legend. I do a job but I don't have a page about it. If he really is such an influential figure within the unicode community, give him a paragraph in there. All this linking to his homepage/interviews with himself is a complete joke. How can people seriously consider keeping this, unless they are all in on the joke too? Alexs 08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete In addition to what other users have said specifically about his case, he's yet another example of popular/powerful wikipedians getting some perks. This is a disturbing trend, and it could someday compromise the integrity of wikipedia. --NEMT 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or complete rewrite This article, as is, is an autobiography, and a rather unverifiable and boastful one. It has no value to the encyclopedia in its current location, and would be somewhat questionable even as a user page. Further edits would be to a work already tainted by Michael's conflict of interest in having created and maintained it. I see the use of a Michael Everson, as his work has some inherent notability (and a much shorter article detailing his contributions to Unicode would be encyclopedic) but this page as is should be deleted or, at the very least, blanked and rewritten by anyone but him. --66.92.130.57 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I normally am an inclusionist, but this just reeks of vanity. The only way to save it would be a complete rewrite. GaryNigel 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I made the AfD. Vanity, redundancy, unencyclopedic. I'm sure Unicode is wonderful but Everson is not notable enough to warrant a seperate page. He is one of 12 primary co-authors to unicode, therefore hardly deserving an individual page. (Unicode 3.0 (Sept, 1999, published in 2000. ISBN 0-201-61633-5)) Delete or merge to Unicode. As a matter of fact, if you look in the Acknowledgements section of that book, (it's a PDF) you will find he is the 6th out of 12 listed and there is a lot less about him than some of the other contributors. Wow! This is a very revealing book. Ken Whistler is listed as the "Driving force behind the Unicode project" (he has no Wikipedia article) and several others as well that are acknowledged for doing more than he has done. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The authors in Unicode 3.0 are listed in alphabetical order, and everson is 5th of 12, not 6th. In Unicode 4.0 ISBN 0-321-18578-1, they are also listed in alphabetical order (Everson is 5th out of 13). More bad-faith special pleading on your part. Aye-Aye 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Quite notable; also no particular reason to delete. Bryce 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's one of 12 contributers, none of them have userpages. Read [60] and you'll find there are contributors with more notable achievements, and none of them have their own vanity page. Go on, look. You can change your vote if you want. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I would have written pretty much the same substance as currently in the article. By the way, we should have an article on Ken Whistler. – Kaihsu 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we just make articles for the other 10 out of 12 primary co-authors as well? And then all of the secondary contributers. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we should. – Kaihsu 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Feel free to rewrite and lock, but deleting is plain wrong. Michael Everson is definitely worth a page at WP, or are we running out of space? —behdad (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, either. --ForbiddenWord 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. (1) Notable author of the Unicode Standard. Suffice it to say without his contribution (among others'), we wouldn't have Wikipedia in all of these language editions we have today. (2) Neither autobiographical authorship (in part) nor a scarcity of verifiable sources are reason enough for deletion, especially given a prior "keep" vote. A-giau 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - If being the subject of a profile article in the New York Times doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia, then there needs to be a Great Purge of thousands of biographical profiles of people with fewer claims to public fame. Any specific problems with the article can be addressed in the proper place. AnonMoos 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Can you contend with a straight face this article would exist if it were not auto-biographical in nature? --NEMT 20:54, 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 speedy deleted, obvious junk. No google hits, this word is not in usage. Friday (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bedridiation[edit]

    Neologism - perhaps joke or hoax. Meaningless in any event. KarenAnn 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Locke LeCruset[edit]

    Prod removed by author. I cite this line of text about the subject: "Locke LeCruset is a fictional character appearing in several short stories written by Zachary Adam, many of which have gone unpublished outside a few scope of fan-boards." After prod removed, another sentence was added: "(Though an analogy will avialable in hard-copy in January 2007)." I'm not sure what to make of that, but, at best, it's claiming it will be notable at a later date, and WP is not a crystal ball. My google searches of "Locke LeCruset," "Locke Le Cruset," "Lock LeCruset," and "Lock Le Cruset" return no results. GassyGuy 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update: This doesn't affect the nomination, but I thought I'd add that my research shows that this character is fanfic from the forum Final fantasia. I don't know anything about fanfic fora, so I won't prod that article, but request that someone else look it over as, to me, it seems non-notable. GassyGuy 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nonnotable fictional character. NawlinWiki 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not known outside the forum it calls home, and crystalballism. The forum page reads like an ad. AfD for that forthcoming. --DarkAudit 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Final fantasia should be AfD'd as well. --ColourBurst 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed and done. --DarkAudit 19:23, 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 Speedy delete. -- Longhair 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Planetpaul[edit]

    "Imaginary planet", really just an artist's website; nonnotable as planet, no opinion as to artist. NawlinWiki 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment the artist himself may well be notable -- see the external reviews [61] on his website. I still think Planetpaul should be deleted. NawlinWiki 16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'd have speedied it. utcursch | talk 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete: artist doesn't seem to have an article, his imaginary planet certainly doesn't deserve one. Could probably be speedied with db-bio. Oh, wait, the user who created this article just created a Paul du toit article, which is just the second paragraph of this one. -David Schaich 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete per nom. WP:NN, WP:OR, WP:V, and arguably WP:VAIN apply. Scorpiondollprincess 16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is pure fantasy, OR, VAIN, its NN and nothing is V. SynergeticMaggot 16:26, 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 per CSD A8. Xoloz 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gnostic Movement Incorporated[edit]

    violates WP:NOR and also most of the article is a copyvio (cut and paste from [62]) -999 (Talk) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per my nom. I didn't discover the copyvio until I'd already created this AfD. Therefore I'll let an admin decide whether to speedy and perhaps then stubify... -999 (Talk) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you give specifics? Article should not be speedy deleted without some evidence. Thanks, --A. B. 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS, Don't forget to notify author when nominating for AfD -- see Template:AfD footer It's not mandatory ,but as WP:AFD notes, "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." . I'll do it this time. Not doing this can make the nominator look sneaky or POV, even if they're not. --A. B. 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per copyvio tag and 999's nom. SynergeticMaggot 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- in addition to WP:NOR, also fails notability, neutral POV, what Wikipedia is not (i.e., not a soapbox), verifiability and possibly vanity standard (see WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NN, WP:V, WP:VAIN). Fix each of these problems and use reliable sources (WP:RS) -- I'll be happy to switch my recommendation to "keep". I don't have a personal POV on Gnosticism-related articles (does that make me agnostic on gnosticism?)--A. B. 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:CV, copyright problems are not grounds for speedy deletion except in narrowly defined situations; I suspect this article does not meet those requirements. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions (the highlighted text near the top of the section) for specifics.--A. B. 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it fits the criteria. It is cut and pasted from a .com, the page has a clear copyright notice, and the article is less than 48 hours old. What else is needed? See also the site's terms of use, which clearly state the material may not be posted elsewhere. I'm going to speedy... -999 (Talk) 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A .com no longer always means "commercial". From the article, .com:
    "Often, noncommercial sites such as those of nonprofit organizations, governments, and so on will use .com addresses, which some find to be contrary to the domain's original purpose. A .org, .gov, or other more specific TLD might be more appropriate for such sites."
    See www.tva.com, (U.S. federal agency) and www.ordotempliorientalis.com for just two examples.
    SynergeticMaggot and 999, you are not disinterested parties when it comes to editing gnosticism-related articles. From the perspective of an outsider, pushing for the speedy deletion of this article (as well as, for 999, a pattern of not notifying authors of articles nominated for deletion) may begin to look like POV-pushing, an attempt to bypass the more deliberative process of AfD and even bad faith (if there's enough of it). I continue to believe this article should be deleted if it's not improved this week, but I will fiercely oppose speeding up the process.--A. B. 17:55, 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 and cleanup. – Avi 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homogeneity (statistics)[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. Reason the page should be deleted Madmath789 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) and Salix alba (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was previously listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogeneity however the content of the page in question was cut and pasted into Homogeneity (statistics) and Homogeneity was turned into an uncontriversal disambig page. It seemed simpliest to start a new AfD discussion here rather than have a possibly confusing one at the old AfD. --Salix alba (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Content of previous AfD listed below

    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]


    • Week keep and extensive rewrite. Basically it looks like there is not much stats going on here. We have a set of fairly standard correlation matricies correlating the variables p,q,r. The authors have then taken examples of a few special cases where there is a logical relation between the variables, say p implies q and given examples of the resulting correlation matricies. The illustrations don't really illustrate the mathematics well. Some of the matricies look suspect, no examples of real data are given, just synthetic data, giving 0 for some correlation coefficients where you would really expect some small non zero numbers for real data.
    There does seem to be a core of something worthwhile here, there is certainly important statistics concerning hierarchal statistics, which I brushed across in my PostDoc days.
    I'm less certain that this material is correctly titled, or the concept of homogenity in statistics is adaquatly represented by this page. --Salix alba (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Cruise's edits and found out that he made significant contributions to a number of articles (see User:David_Cruise/Contributions), some of which contained references to Krus' publications. He decided to leave Wikipedia around February and deleted many of his contributions. Since then his edits were mostly minor (or so I think) (Igny 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    There seem to be 2 different accounts here: Cruise and David Cruse, and I have some serious concerns about another contribution: Canonical analysis, which 'looks sensible' (and has references - but almost all to sites connected with David Krus of 'Cruise scientific') - until you try to read it very carefully! Madmath789 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to raise the issue of Cruise's contributions to math articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics (Igny 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Very weak keep I have no idea, having read it twice, what the objects called "lattices" are or why they are being called that; my best guess is that they are functions to {0,1}. This also looks like a miscellaneous collection of information. But I think those problems can be taken care of by normal editing; if normal editing isn't working, I would change my !vote. Septentrionalis 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I can't make heads nor tails of it; however, I just use statistics in my work. Can anyone confirm whether Psychometrika is a legitimate journal, and whether this concept is actually used in that manner in that journal? In any case, if kept, I'm going to add it to category:Pseudoscience, it doesn't describe why the technique might be used. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have confirmed that Psychometrika is a legit journal. It is not available as an e-journal from my university library, so I would have to physically go to the library to check the references. Link here. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Google Scholar [63], Krus has many publications in the fields of Psychometrics, Psychology. Could it have sense as homogeneity(psychometrics)? (Igny 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete unless some-one completely rewrites the article in such a way that (a) it makes sense to at least mathematicians and (b) starts with a definition of homogeneity in statistics that has some understandable relationship with homogeneity in general. If it's pseudoscience, then why should we keep it? --LambiamTalk 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment a quick google finds An explanation of the statistics used in the Meta-analysis: A meta-analysis combines the data from several studies about the same subject. Homogeneity measures the differences or similarities between the several studies. which I think is an acurate definition of the term (well it seems reasonable to me). Taking this definition the article begins to have more context. If we have two studies which largely agree then will have logically consistant data matricies.
    • Comment I don't know this topic. But I do know that (1) statisticians in psychology departments know lots of techniques relevant to the application of statistics in psychology that are seldom seen outside psychology departments, and (2) I suspect that this is about assessing consitency of responses to surveys. Michael Hardy 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Walk into a math library, pick up a journal of a branch you do not specialize in, and it is likely (very) to look like gobbledygook. Ditto for electrical engineering, chemistry, or virology. The appearance of gobbledygook to a non-specialist should not be a criterion for deletion. The journals and authors cited are certainly not made up (Chronbach! He wrote the book used in a tests and measurements book I had decades ago.) This article appears to be perhaps written by an expert in a subfield. Meta-analysys is real. However, the article is way less approachable than the article on, say analysis of variance, which is far less technical but of far greater application. I agre one can have more than a nodding acquaintance with stats, read the article, and still not be sure what it is about. More definition and some simple explanations would be good.Edison 01:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per arguments made by Edison, immediately above. In fact, when I go into a math library, I make a point of picking up a journal in an area I do not specialize in, and I make a concerted effort to read and understand it. And, amazingly, I often can understand it, because it is usually well-written. If the topic is particularly difficult, good articles do provide overview sketches for the required background. The problem with this article is not that it deals with a difficult, abstract topic, but rather that it is so poorly written, that one cannot make sense out of it. linas 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Candy Bouquet[edit]

    Advertising spam. Violates WP:SPAM. KarenAnn 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak delete, Google generates quite a few hits, mostly related to individual franchises. Current article reads like an ad. Either clean it up and make a legitimate article or get rid of it. SmartGuy 16:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. No evidence of it being spam, since the author has edits to other articles. Asserts notability, just needs a source. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per Aguerriero. Should we delete every article needing cleanup? (that would be over 1400 articles... —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As the article stands, it does not assert any notability that would satisfy the requirements of WP:CORP. This article started out as blantant Spam, now it's just non-notable. --Satori Son 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's quite highly rated as a franchise and has hundreds of US franchises plus international ones, I will add the citation. Ifnord 00:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Subdermal[edit]

    Dictdef, entry already in Wiktionary. I don't see this article ever expanding, as just the adjective itself is too vague to be a topic. hateless 16:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Commonwealth recipes[edit]

    Fails (by a mile) WP:WEB. KarenAnn 16:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements per nom. --Porqin 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and because it's contrary to WP:NPOV. For example, who is the arbiter to say if their articles are "incisive, and thought-provoking"? Agent 86 17:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:48, 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 merge into Pittsburgh Steelers. Done. Ifnord 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Pittsburgh Steelers players who have been MVP[edit]

    Needless list-cruft. If anything it should be part of the Pittsburgh Steelers article. Wrath of Roth 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as listcruft. MVP of what? The article is poorly titled. With just MVP, most would assume league MVP, not MVP of a single game. --DarkAudit 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Any superbowl MVP inquires can be found in a more suitable location. No need for a short subset of that list.--Porqin 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge This list has gone too far; merge with Pittsburgh Steelers. -- joturner 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Pittsburgh Steelers. And besides, an unqualified "MVP" to me is the league MVP, not for just one game. Kirjtc2 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Pittsburgh Steelers, however make sure it's clear they were Super Bowl MVPs and not league MVPs. BryanG(talk) 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Pittsburgh Steelers per above. -- NORTH talk 21:57, 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. Natgoo 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Belle (Beauty and the Beast)[edit]

    The entirety of the page is just a summary of the movie, and includes some parts that the writer aparrently made up, i.e. the Beast's human name. The page is therefore redundant and pointless, and contains some bad information. EDIT-- Since my initial complaint was lodged, the article has been redone to include her other appearances. It's fine now, save that there's a very long synopsis of one movie, and "Prince Adam" is not mentioned in the movie or its screenplay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmundog (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 Jul 2006 (UTC)

    • Delete There isn't a need for a seperate page for a character in Beauty and the Beast. Anything relevant can be added to the Beauty and the Beast article. --Porqin 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Cuñado - Talk 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Beast's name is indeed Adam, according to Dave Smith's Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia. — Mike 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are countless articles on Wikipedia about fictional characters whose storylines are clearly explained in the article about the story in which they appeared. The Belle page is no different. And I would never, I mean NEVER make things up about anyone. I said Beast's name is Adam because I have seen it stated on the IMDb.
    • Comment I say we give the article 4-7 days and see how it turns out, then vote. It's a brand new article, give it some time. KojiDude (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Looks like a real article. Georgia guy 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I told you I could do it. I suppose we can keep the article now, can't we? Jienum
    • Merge to Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:FICT (major character), although possibly shorten some as it does read like a plot summary in parts. She's appeared in more than one movie/game, so a merge wouldn't be appropriate anyway. BryanG(talk) 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per BryanG's reasoning re: merging not appropriate and WP:FICT citation. — Mike 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but cut most of the plot summary from the article to streamline it into more encylcopedic prose. Voice of Treason 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but trim as suggested above. Notable Disney character that has appeared in a number of forums. Some of the stuff (like Beast's name being Adam) needs to be verified by a non-IMDb source. 23skidoo 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If we delete this, then why shouldn't we delete or merge every article about a fictional charector or place into the main article about the game/movie/book/show. Or if we think that fictional charectors should be deleted, then people involved in projects should have their info merged into that article. Deleting this is heading down a road that Wikipedia should stay far away from. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. You can't merge into Beauty and the Beast because the Belle character appears in several films. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Belle is a great character. People would wanna know about her. --User:Angie Y.
    • So now that people have stopped voting, I shall now remove the deletion notice on the Belle page since most users claim that it should remain.Jienum 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, though I'd like to see more external references. --Elonka 18:21, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Philosophy[edit]

    Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete A vanity article about a small, young band, that simply has no assertion of notability whatsoever. --Porqin 16:57, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Entitlementia[edit]

    Neologism. Patent nonsense. KarenAnn 16:50, 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 as incoherent rambling.

    Eclectic Movement for Inri Cristo and Consolidation of the Kingdom of God Over the Earth[edit]

    Is it not obvious from reading the article? This is a pamphlet for some non-notable religious fanatic in Brazil. Cuñado - Talk 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This article doesn't maintain any sense of notability, it is a vanity article, also WP:SPAM, and the page is signed by the creator. --Porqin 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as nonsense religioncruft. Sandstein 18:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cuñado, go ahead and take your chance to Speedy it to Heaven ;) Sarg 19:06, 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 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Final fantasia[edit]

    fails WP:WEB. Only 3 ghits for 'final fantasia', and none refer to the site. High alexa ranging is for the host for their work with other web forums, not the page in question. Article reads as an advert, coming foul of WP:SPAM. Author's rationale 'because I wanted an article on this'. --DarkAudit 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This page doesn't meet any notability requirements. --Porqin 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:WEB. Although I get different Google results for the name, the pages are not referring to this forum. GassyGuy 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I want a page on chocolate-covered banana-flavoured marshmallows too, but I don't think that'll get in. Anyways, WP:WEB. --ColourBurst 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails web, nn forum/message board. SynergeticMaggot 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete nn forum. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:39, 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 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IndyScribe[edit]

    Non-notable blog/online mag rogerd 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Doesnt meet notability requirements. --Porqin 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Cuñado - Talk 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable. --Xrblsnggt 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable. Also tends to be quietly re-inserted as a "media" outlet in articles about Indianapolis after such mention has been removed.Dogface 16:40, 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 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    God(song)[edit]

    "God" is a single and we have a page for the single (See God (single). I see no reason for this page. Jesussaves 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge with God (single). Yomangani 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The page primarily contains the lyrics to the song, if there is anything else left that needs to be salvaged, merge it with the already existent page. --Porqin 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not much here. Possibly move God (single) to this name after the deletion is performed. On a tangent, I expected this to be about the Tori Amos song when I saw the title. GassyGuy 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. FWIW The lyrics would be a copyvio. The article actually says so with the (c) sign at the bottom. --Richhoncho 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete what's here... could be useful as a disambiguation page, since there are other well-known songs of this title (John Lennon's, for one). Grutness...wha? 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Do not merge or redirect since most of the content of this article is copyrighted lyrics and there are other songs by the same title which people might be looking for instead. --Metropolitan90 02:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. God (song) should redirect to Plastic Ono Band (John Lennon album). The song in which Lennon said "The Dream Is Over" and "Don't Believe in Beatles" is far more notable. -- GWO
    • Delete or Merge with either God (album) or God (single). Mebbe make it a disambiguation page. That would incorperate both Rebecca St James' album/single/song and Plastic Ono Band (John Lennon album). ~Sushi 04:01, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Plotkin[edit]

    This article does not cite sources to establish notability. It was tagged [64] but the tag was subsequently removed [65]. A Google search does not reveal much [66]. Beside the Wikipedia entry, an interview to an online zine. This article is nominated for delete as per non-notable and possible fancruft. Tony Bruguier 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. I'm willing to quibble about the notability of this or that IF author but Plotkin is undeniably one of the most well-known. In addition to writing several award-winning games that are almost always cited as the best of the genre, he has created GLK, Glulx, andBlorb. He has been interviewed for Computer Games Magazine - a print magazine, not online. Crystallina 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and said awards include multiple XYZZYs and first place in the 1995 Interactive Fiction Competition. Crystallina 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Not sure how 73,600 hits on "Andrew Plotkin" with quotes "doesn't reveal much". (That's more than Graham Nelson and almost as much as Cliff Johnson.) Included in the first 2 pages of those hits are interviews of him, reviews of his work, and mentions of him as "one of the most renowned authors in the IF community." DenisMoskowitz 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, saying "the tag was removed" implies that no additional information was added - award information was also added to the page at the same time. The notability tag can be removed if information is added to show notability. DenisMoskowitz 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable IF writer, plenty of related precedents: Adam Cadre, Graham Nelson, Emily Short, …. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, made some name himself within the IF scene, also what comes to technical side. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. He is credited as the developer of several games and formats that themselves have articles due to their notability. --DavidK93 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well-known and influential IF author. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. I recommend that editors of the article add a references section to confirm his notability, including cites like this PC Gamer UK interview [67] and a cite for the awards. --SevereTireDamage 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: IF isn't a huge genre anymore, but that doesn't mean this guy isn't notable. Ace of Sevens 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (and revise): Little mention is made—either in this discussion or the article—of Zarf's contributions in other media than IF. System's Twilight, for example, was actually pretty popular back in the day; add that to his work on Icehouse and, while no particular other project has had an audience quite as large as ST did, having this page is worthwhile if only to connect these projects together. I think perhaps more emphasis on System's Twilight in particular, and mention of the particular contributions to Icehouse would strengthen this article's justification of its existence. --Jake 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Influential and widely known. -Mikepurvis 14:34, 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. Mailer Diablo 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    William Lilburne[edit]

    This one's a borderline case of notability, which why I've AFD'd it instead of simply asking for a speedy deletion. Most notable clain he has is being a first cousin to one of the regicides of Charles I. A secondary claim of notability is being a great-great-great-grandfather of Thomas Jefferson. While we do have articles of relatives of some notable people, the relationships here are so remote that I can't see any reason to keep this article unless Wikipedia were a genealogical database, which it is not. Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I agree, this person isn't notable. FYI: this article was part of a lot of obscure genealogical information added to Wikipedia a long time ago by User:MPLX, who was obsessed with linking John Lilburne with Thomas Jefferson. A lot of it has been removed. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, really not notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Heather Ekstedt[edit]

    Non-notable blog writer. Claims of activism unsourced and cannot be found via Google, and I found her blog here but it's just an infrequently updated blog with occasional press release postings from a fight attendant union. Subject's not notable enough to ensure sources that will pass WP:V. hateless 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I can find no evidence that this individual is in any way notable and the article provides no sources. DrunkenSmurf 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Francesco[edit]

    No indication of notability given. Google doesn't help, and his personal website has an Alexa in the vicinity of 600,000. Crystallina 17:52, 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 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GhosT clan[edit]

    COMPLETELY non-notable gaming clan. As I have seen many a time here, delete all clans! Speedy and prod removed by author Wildthing61476 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ghosT clan Why do you have to delete is? it is simply an article about a clan that plays Cod2 and its just information? Dose it cause problem? Its just information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozsa123 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment It's NOT information that belongs on Wikipedia, that's all. Wildthing61476 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Why dosnet it belong on wikipedia? the whole point in wikipeida is that it had everything? if you hate this artical so much just dont come here? savey?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozsa123 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment I don't hate the article, but read WP:WEB, WP:V, etc and you'll understand WHY the article doesn't belong here. Wildthing61476 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The clan is not notable enough to ensure there are enough reliable, neutral sources of information per WP:V. hateless 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Not notable. DrunkenSmurf 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all gaming clans as non-notable. Sandstein 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Who will care how many n00bs were pwned 20, 50, 100 years from now? --DarkAudit 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all clans. Nobody outside this group cares today how many n00bs were pwned. Fan-1967 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all of the above. GassyGuy 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Sandstein. It's not information, it's back-patting. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the vast majority of gaming clans don't belong here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    hahaha okay i dont care delete it. Its not that big a deal to me i just did it for fun.But damm you guys are sad i mean it dose nothing bad to you its just a cool thing but no it has to be gone gone gone,the majority of people go to wikipedia to enjoy what there looking for so it should matter. Maby some of the people i know will wanna know about the clan. but fine be hardas*s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozsa123 (talk • contribs)

    • Strong delete per all delete votes above, and, well, trying to read the article hurt my head. --Kinu t/c 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've actually tagged this as a Speedy G1 because of how incoherent and meaningless it is. Anyone is free to object if they don't think it's a speedy candidate per se, since this is probably going to end up tossed anyway. --Kinu t/c 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You know what, the majority of people I know, could careless about a gaming clan. You want to brag about it...that's what free webpages/MySpace is for. We are trying to create a reference guide used the world over, not a list of who pwned who. Wildthing61476 04:54, 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) 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reach Beam[edit]

    obscure pizza joint in Korea, not notable, advertising wikipediatrix 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete non-notable restaurant/company hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:CORP. Sandstein 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't think it has any restaurants, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Doing a Hangul search does throw up a few hundred hits so maybe someone wants to make a case for retention? Dlyons493 Talk 19:47, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Organ Stop Pizza[edit]

    obscure pizza joint in Arizona, non-notable, advertising. wikipediatrix 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete non-notable restaurant/company. Certainly fails WP:CORP and the bit about the organ pipe is not enough for this restaurant to warrant its own article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong, speedy keep - I have added reliable sources on the notability of this establishment, the home of the largest Wurlitzer organ in the world. (Good pizza, too, if you ever get to stop by and try it!) ;) PT (s-s-s-s) 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it sounds like a very cool place, but a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability. Incidentally, their own website contradicts your claim: it says "one of the largest", not THE largest. wikipediatrix 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me the official WP policy that states that a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability? :) And, if you look further at the website, it does state that the organ is the largest. Also, I have cited a reliable source in a major newspaper about the establishment. It is a landmark in the area, and now that you know about it, and have seen there is reliable info about the location in confirmed sources, why not withdraw your nomination? (by the way, 822 Ghits, 321 unique.)PT (s-s-s-s) 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for press coverage per criterion 1 of WP:CORP, see e.g. also Stop Pizza. Sandstein 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seems nn as a pizza joint but the Biggest Aspidistra In World swings it for me. Dlyons493 Talk 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nothing notable about this company. The organ might be notable, but there isn't anything in this article that couldn't be merged into Wurlitzer. The "one of" qualifier certainly sounds close to being weasel-words. I have been unable to verify the claim that this is the largest Wurlitzer. In any event, there are clearly pipe organs larger than this one. According to this, the largest Wurlitzer is at Radio City Music Hall. Agent 86 21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see criterion 1 of WP:CORP. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Organ Stop article cites one newspaper story, and it's pretty much a puff-piece. WP:CORP is not set in stone and we are not blindly required to stop thinking critically if an article tenuously seems to meet one criterion. The Arizona Republic article does not verify the allegation that the organ is the world's largest. It simply says that it is "billed as the world's biggest Wurlitzer". WP:CORP may not be set in stone, but WP:VERIFY is. Agent 86 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have just added another source, fulfilling the "multiple" portion of the criteria. As for the Wurlitzer debate, there is a lot of conflicting information about who has the biggest organ. I seem to remember boys at school having the same debate... nevertheless, we could always say "disputedly." PT (s-s-s-s) 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now there just needs to be a media story that isn't trivial. Critical thinking ought to trump blind adherence to WP:CORP. BTW, "disputedly" is still a weasel word. Agent 86 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • How are Phoenix New Times or Arizona Republic "trivial" publications? These articles establish notability. Your reason for deletion was "non-notability." Now that new edits have asserted it's notability, why pretend that it's non-notable? How does an article on a notable establishment tarnish Wikipedia? PT (s-s-s-s) 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please re-read my comments. The story is trivial, not the publication. They're articles on a pizza joint that owns a conversation piece, not articles on a "notable establishment". Puff pieces of local interest do not denote notability, unless there is blind adherence to a guideline. Agent 86 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If you actually look at the articles which are cited, you'll realize this is more than just a "pizza joint." This establishment is a local fixture. Significance has been asserted in multiple reliable sources of media coverage. And though this has no bearing on the voting, I can personally testify to the notability of this establishment, having set foot in it and being a member of the community where it is. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (otherwise I wouldn't have created it  :). Applying CORP to something not created under that guise doesn't seem right to me. It's Notable, it's verifiable. I am not associated with the facility in any way, so it can't be Spam. I'd understand if this were my, oh...5,000th edit or so...but since I'm approaching 10k, I think it's safe to assume I'm telling the truth about not being SPAM.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 04:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep due to notable rarity. These types of places used to dot the landscape of America, but AFAIK, they are a vanishing breed. —Viriditas | Talk 08:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, notable and verifiable. It has been covered by multiple non-trivial works, and multiple times at that. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per Aguerriero, my thoughts exactly. --Wine Guy Talk 21:38, 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) 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizza Papalis[edit]

    obscure pizza joint in Michigan, non-notable, advertising. wikipediatrix 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, WP:CORP. Sandstein 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Pizzacruft or maybe its pizzacrust? Any case, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Wickethewok 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, It's not advertising, and obscure/non-notable is in the eye of the beholder as this is an extremely recognizable pizza chain in the Detroit area. It does seem somewhat odd and arbitrary to propose deletion of this particular chain and not some of the linked pizza chains (Shield's (restaurant) & Buddy's Pizza). I'm not sure it meets WP:CORP though.--Isotope23 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shield's (restaurant) & Buddy's Pizza should be nominated for deletion as well. I can't be everywhere at once. wikipediatrix 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no claim to notability, doesn't meet WP:CORP. By all means delete the others also. Dlyons493 Talk 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I have lived all over the world and this is the very best deep-dish pizza. Keep and put up a recipe! DrL 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The fact that DrL makes a stronger argument for notability than the argument does pretty much seals the fate of this one. Erechtheus 21:45, 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 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hot Off The Press[edit]

    Article reads like vanity/advertising. Also appears to be cut and pasted from comapny website. Speedy and prod removed by author (as always) Wildthing61476 18:22, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizza Haven[edit]

    Two completely different restaurants of the same name share the same article, and neither of them are notable. wikipediatrix 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, WP:CORP. Sandstein 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but modify. Pizza Haven is one of Australia's largest pizza chains, on par with Pizza Hut or Domino's according to these articles (1) (2). The Seattle version isn't notable though. Kirjtc2 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite Does seem to be a major chain in Oz. Dlyons493 Talk 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- notable pizza franchise in Australia. - Longhair 00:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- there are at least 20 of them in South Australia, they do regular TV ads and mailbox ads. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable pizza franchise in Australia. There are 236 articles in an Australia/New Zealand media database so potential for expansion. Has expanded into New Zealand and Southeast Asia as well. The Seattle company doesn't seem as notable but might be worth a passing mortgage. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but modify -- the Australian franchise is notable, as per Kirjtc2's comment Mako 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Australian franchise.--cj | talk 06:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the Australian chain, maybe even have 2 4 the price of 1. JPD (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. Major australian pizza chain with lots of media mentions- the US one is worth a section on the article but not one on it's own - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable Australian restaurant chain. Cnwb 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable Australian franchise. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definite keep on the Australian franchise chain, not sure about the American chain but it seems to have operated in a large area for quite a while, and the fact that it is bankrupt now does not mean it does not deserve an article. Overall possibly actually a dual renaming to reflect the different geographic areas with dab statements on the top of each article. Ansell 12:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. It does apepar to meet WP:CORP for the first use. My vote is to move the current article to Pizza Haven (Australia) and convert the current name to a dab. Besides the second chain listed, there is at least one other in Canada. There could be more. So with a common name a dab would be best in my opinion. The US chain does not appear encylopedic so a brief summary in the dab article would suffice, and that's another reason for the dab at the main name space. Vegaswikian 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split, Keep Australian chain at Pizza Haven; either move Seattle restaurant to Pizza Haven (United States) or delete. -- Chuq 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the major Australian pizza chain. Other restaurants by the same name can and should be mentioned, but only in passing as a minor footnote so as to avoid confusion. RFerreira 21:05, 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 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarikh Ahlul Hadith[edit]

    Incomprehensible religious gibberish. Probably meant to be a hadith about some holy man, but would likely fail WP:NOT, WP:NOR etc. even after extensive cleanup. Bonus points go to this article for citing itself as its only source. Sandstein 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'm inclined to suggest delete per WP:V (article cites itself?!). However, some sources do seem to be provided ... but I honestly can't follow what this article is claiming and how these sources seem to apply. Though sources are cited, I can't make heads or tails out of them (or the article) enough to verify anything. This may be a notable topic in Islamic tradition. However the article, as written, requires a massive cleanup. I would not oppose the article being deleted so something new (and more clearly verifiably sourced) could replace it. Ideally someone familiar with the subject would be willing to clean up/wikify this, confirm its sources, and eliminate WP:NPOV (though honestly I'm not sure I understand the article enough to say if it's even NPOV or not -- parts of it seem to skirt the boundary). Otherwise, I'm afraid a delete might be the best option. Scorpiondollprincess 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's almost certainly copyvio although I can't find from where. Possibly [68] Dlyons493 Talk 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete looks like patent nonsense to me. No context, either. Danny Lilithborne 22:57, 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 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netricity[edit]

    This is buzzword-based spam, and poorly worded to boot. If the term refers to something real and notable, this gibberish doesn't express it. Calbaer 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. It seems it may have been used once or twice, but doesn't seem to be a widely accepted or even particularly useful term. In the event of it being kept a rewrite is definately needed. Artw 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Artw, Please see my personal message to you concerning the rewrite in progress. Jthomp4338 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The department of education may have coined the word, but I'm pretty sure the reference didn't involve "spacetime" or the "ever-expanding collective intelligence of Human Knowledge Bifurcation". This is creepy original research of a neologism. --Xrblsnggt 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete OR, or at least not noteable, and that's putting it kindly. I googled it, and was unable to find any usage of the word in the sense the article refers to .WolfKeeper 21:54, 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The World Of An Idiot[edit]

    A TV show some guy wrote but it hasn't actually been made and there is no certainty that it ever will be. After I added a prod tag pointing this out the claim was added that talks are underway with a production company but that's not enough to justify an article. This is surely unverifiable crystal ball gazing, if not vanity/self-promotion. Delete Spondoolicks 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Too "Crystal Ballish" and borders on WP:VAIN. Big problem is WP:V though. Scorpiondollprincess 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It hasn't really been filmed, they don't have any distribution yet, and they are hoping to get a good theme song. That pretty much sums up the level of crystal ball gazing going on here. If it culminates into something of note, it can always be recreated. IrishGuy talk 21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom--WP:NOT a crystal ball. Best of luck to the guy getting it produced and distributed, of course. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • DON'T DELETE
    • What is a crystal ball? I thought it was an albulm by Prince. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.32.185.106 (talk • contribs) .
    • Delete per Scorpiondollprincess.Erechtheus 21:48, 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 withdrawn/erroneous nomination. W.marsh 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaydar[edit]

    In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Artw 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC). This page was listed in error. The correct listing is here . Artw 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please consider my vote on this to be neutral. Artw 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Speedy keep as per AnemoneProjectors. Whoops. Artw 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this article slated for deletion? It's a well-known topic that has crept into mainstream usage. It is basically a twist on the old "it takes on to know one" proverb, but as it applies to gays being able to tell whether another person is gay. It's a valid term and I see no reason for deletion.My vote is no. slowhandsd

    • Speedy keep: the article that was meant to be nominated for deletion was Gaydar (website). -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close per Anemone. I simply wanted to put this here to make it easier for an admin to spot this AfD, close it, and then perhaps reopen it for the website in question. -- Kicking222 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: this is a commonplace term which has nothing to do with the WWW. Why does it have to meet WP:WEB? The Wednesday Island 19:47, 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. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OUTeverywhere[edit]

    In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Artw 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please consider my vote on this to be neutral. Artw 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page should not be considered for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.22.78 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep One of the oldest online gay community websites in the UK. Any particular reason Artw is on this crusade against homosexuality-related articles? 217.196.231.46 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep the article provides no evidence of notabilty but it does have an Alexa rank of 47,821 [69]. It would be nice if the article showed more evidence of meeting WP:WEB. It is mentioned in a newsletter by what claims to be the U.K.s largest charity for Multiple Sclerosis [70]. As a side note, I think the above comment went to far with a very blatant insinuation that the nominator has something against homosexuals. That borders on WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy talk 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. OUTeverywhere is the most significant (I would guess the largest in membership) website of its kind in Britain, if not worldwide, ie a consciously non-sexual, non-commercial gay and lesbian online community. It could do with more sources, but it has already been cleaned up once (which I did, I think after the last AfD). David L Rattigan 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral OUTeverywhere does not meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. I am unsure that this is sufficient for deletion on websites that cater for minority groups due to their nature, but consistency should be maintained with the Thingbox article. Additionally, OUT is also a fully commercial site (it is no longer non-commercial) and this article could be considered advertising if it fails to meet notability requirements. Teppic74 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak DeleteKeep One reading the WP:WEB requirements, it can be seen that this entry does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB, and, furthermore, is a commercial site, and so its entry could be viewed merely as advertising. ddstretch 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the changes that have been made, it seems that now it would meet the requierments of WP:WEB, and so I would now say a Keep ddstretch 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the SinG website may meet notability requirements (though the links are somewhat trivial) but there's no evidence of meeting the requirements for the main article. Teppic74 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all keep votes. — Nathan (talk) / 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This website does meet the requirements of WP:WEB, although it needs tidying up and editing a little more, perhaps this will help justify its inclusion to those who are concerned. The need for edit, though, is not a justifyable reason for deletion. --manchesterstudent 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Someone has messaged me saying that I don't have experience on Wiki so my views may not be taken into account on this AFD. For the record, I am not a new Wiki user, I just don't like having a user page! Please see my edit history and you'll see that for the last few months I've been involved in a number of AFDs am a new page patroller and also have created and edited a number of articles, usually on LGBT issues: hence why I felt qualified to comment on this AFD. Please take into account my views: I am NOT a new user or sock puppet! --manchesterstudent 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Outeverywhere is a significant element of the UK online gay "scene". -- Flaxton 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: links have been added to the article which show its notability. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I've added some links to the page after some research to show it's notability (forgot to sign in when I made the edit though - d'oh!). -- Corky1979 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The entry is neutral, non-promotional and accurately describes the ethos of the website in question which is notable by its differewnce from other sites of a similar nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Jamie (talk • contribs)
    • Delete: The links on the page (just about) establish notability for Silence is not Golden. They don't do so for OUTeverywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.97.231 (talk • contribs)
    • Keep: I think it has achieved some cultural relevance and thus notability: some fringe plays have references it (directly or indirectly) and it has achieved some notoriety/cultural relevance. I've added the sausage-tossing incident as being one of the most 'public' examples of its wider cultural significance. Scottkeir 23:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional neutral(???) If the site was founded as long ago as 1995 and that can be documented, that's somewhat notable in its own right for this type of site. The web was just barely starting to take off around then. I don't have an exact sense of those times but many things were being done that were quite new, and thus could be thought of as pioneering. Documentation added so far (about just about everything) is quite skimpy however; self-released press announcements aren't WP:RS. Phr (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change vote to delete. On further research there was more happening by 1995 than I realized. Salon.com and Amazon.com both launched that year, and Amazon had VC funding in 1994. So I'll push my cutoff date for notability-by-longevity back to 1993 or so. Phr (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: How many gay social networking websites are there that enable gay people to meet away from the scene and without the usual sex obsession of gay meetup websites? One. It was also the first gay social website in the UK. Whether that happened in 1993, 1995 or 2001 is less relevant than the fact it was the first. OUTeverywhere publishes some of its media coverage. See these: Independently written and edited interview [71] in Attitude (Magazine), major page feature [72] in the UK's gay newspaper Pink Paper, and OUTeverywhere is referenced by The Sun (newspaper)'s agony aunt Dear Deidre [73] in referring people to good organisations to help with 'coming out' support. 217.36.233.38 08:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) DG[reply]
    • Comment: OUT is a commercial website where paying members can meet each other. The circumstances (sex-related or not) don't make it notable, as with the thingbox site. Minor coverage in the gay press or references to the URL don't meet WP:WEB requirements. 84.92.141.190 13:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: for WP:WEB, I'd not read "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself... includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." to exclude gay press or other UK-wide (in circulation) media. Scottkeir 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It does, however, exclude trivial references, such as a quote of the URL or brief summaries. 84.92.141.190 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Even as a member of this website, I think this entry should be deleted, as the website should be treated in the same way as other community websites (e.g. the deletion of 'Thingbox', which triggered this discussion).
    • Comment: The assessment of OUTeverywhere's encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia should be judged on its own merits, on facts and independent research, and not a 'battle' by users of either OUTeverywhere or Thingbox (which includes many disgruntled ex-OUTeverywhere users). There are numerous commercial websites described on Wikipedia with a notable history and/or heavy contribution to social networking. 200,000 people (mainly gay/lesbian/bi, mainly UK) have so far signed up to OUTeverywhere in its 11 year history; this can be verified by signing up and checking account numbers. 82.68.195.78 08:44, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    12 Cent Dwarf[edit]

    No Google hits, no hits in All Music, deletion tags removed by author. I think even MySpace bands have more notability... Wildthing61476 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete with {{nn-band}}. No claim to meet WP:MUSIC, fails WP:V. -- Scientizzle 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Author continues to remove deletion tags. Wildthing61476 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete, non-notable, vanity. wikipediatrix 19:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I have removed the speedy tag: {{nn-band}} does not equate to "doesn't claim to meet WP:MUSIC." Mangojuicetalk 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The editor was given all of one minute before warnings were posted on his/her page. Don't bite the newcomers. To his/her credit, Sci did actually go to the editor's talk page to help him/her along. Finally, there's no such things as a "MySpace band." MySpace has become a relevant tool in the music industry, so flagging a band or artist for non-notability and using the phrase "they have a MySpace" really doesn't make sense. I will vote Keep when sources citing the band's national touring have been placed in the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because no sources are cited. But I agree with parsssseltongue and if sources are cited to support 12 Cent Dwarf's notability, then I could change my mind. Allisonmontgomery69 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to unverifiability - nothing on google. However, I think PT makes an interesting point about MySpace. I've been surprised to find that some of my favorite bands have a page there. --Joelmills 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable and unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hillsong Wildlife[edit]

    The author removed the speedy tags twice without explanation, and then did the same with prod tags, and then added a lot of awful images, so I'm listing it here. Basically, this is a non-notable association, and the article is pure vanity. Oh, if it is deleted, whoever makes the deletion please kill those images too. Sarg 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom, lack of notability and vanity. --Porqin 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, or merge into Hillsong Church. Without the pictures, of course. Somebody really loves the Hillside gang, even has it's own category. --Richhoncho 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because there's really nothing here but pictures. No sources are cited and I don't see why this is notable. I agree with the nominator: it's vanity. Allisonmontgomery69 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NO! Delete how is it not notable? this is part of hillsong church, the pictures show how it is on a friday night. wikipedia is the largest free encyclopedia online, so i still dont know why people have problems, this article is also neutral towards wildlife. there is no reason to remove this. more info is yet to come within the next 7 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.96.253 (talk • contribs)
      • Wikipedia cannot house an article about every person, place, event, group, etc. This would become unmanagable for the community. --Porqin 12:36, 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2SPK (Internet Marketing Service)[edit]

    Advertising. No google hits or notability. The author of the page has the same name as the article. IceCreamAntisocial 19:05, 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 08:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Battlestar Wiki[edit]

    Unsourced article on a Microwiki (1100 pages). Seemingly ample blog links, but zero news hits either on Google News or NewsBank. Was recreated after a first AfD, with consensus Delete. Prodded, seconded and deprodded as potentially controversial. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this has been posted after a consensus to delete, then it should qualify for speedy deletion. Indrian 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not if it's different content. The recreate came a year after the AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No notability asserted --Peephole 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete because it doesn't seem very notable. I know they have lots of blog links though, like the nominator says. But it still doesn't seem quite notable enough. Sorry. Allisonmontgomery69 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No WP:WEB, RS, V, etc. rootology 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom; if CSD A7 applied to websites (and why shouldn't it be applied to wikis ?) this would be speedyable for failure to imply notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't see any reason why to include this in Wikipedia as of this writing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no secondary sources at all. No news articles. Hardvice 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Cant see why this would be kept Jimbo68 16:37, 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 TransWiki to Wiktionary. There wasn't really a quorum but it doesn't seem worth relisting. The Transwiki has been completed. Herostratus 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Company seal[edit]

    dicdef DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as dictionary definition, like the nominator says. Allisonmontgomery69 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to wiktionary. Seems a better destination for a dictionary definition than deletion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:38, 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. - brenneman {L} 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Montgomery Burns' state of mind[edit]

    Not only is the premise and title completely unencyclopedic and non-notable, massive fancruft like this unsourced list of every occurence of Mr.Burns' memory quirks and malapropisms opens the doors to all kinds of obsessively fannish lists. Similar lists could be made for every Simpsons character - and indeed, any fictional character anywhere - listing all the instances in which they display their trademark habits. wikipediatrix 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, the topic is adequately covered in Montgomery Burns -- Whpq 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for the same reasons Whpq said. Allisonmontgomery69 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, excessive fancruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A separate page for a fictional character's memory lapses? Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Joelmills 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move This information used to part of the Montgomery Burns page until someone relocated it to a new page, why not just move it back again? Rusty2005 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with moving it back agin is because of the content. Montgomery Burns' state of mind was created from Montgomery Burns because this content was too unwieldly, and made the main article unreadable. But splitting off the minute trivial detail into a separate article was probably the wrong approach. What is really needed is some serious copy-editting to boil it down to its essence, and remove the list of references to all the instances of his memory lapses. The section in the main article has achived this, and to merge all of this trivia back into main article would degrade the quality improvement. -- Whpq 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back into Montgomery Burns, per Rusty2005's suggestion. --NeoChaosX 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back into Montgomery Burns, per Rusty2005's suggestion. --Othersider 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree with Whpq: the Montgomery Burns article will be too long for Wikipedia style preferences if all this info is dumped back into it. It's more than sufficient to give two or three examples to show Mr.Burns' state of mind. We don't need to make it an ever-sprawling parlor game where readers try to think of every single instance in which Burns ever uttered an anachronism. wikipediatrix 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back into Montgomery Burns, per Rusty2005's suggestion. I mean, really, he is, arguably, one of the most admired characters on the Simpsons. And the humor of his rapidly deteriorating state of mind is worth its own page. Lighten up, people.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of GameCube games on two discs[edit]

    How is this list encyclopedic? What use to anyone is a list of Gamecube games which are published on two disks? Maybe they're rare for the GameCube, but what about List of PC games on four discs? This is of no use. - Hahnchen 19:28, 20 July 2006

    • Delete per nom as completely useless and unencyclopedic Nintendudecruft (though, to be fair, the article was actually started by a user with zero other edits). -- Kicking222 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: GameCube has been criticized for using relatively low-capacity media. This article is to give an overview of how often it's an issue. Ace of Sevens 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not sure which way to go on this one... seems kinda fun-factish I guess. Although technically it isn't unencyclopedic, it probably isn't too useful I guess, except for people like me who enjoy reading useless things like this. Oh, and what is "Nintendudecruft?" -- gakon5 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a reference to User:Nintendude, who, while a frequent contributor to WP and a seemingly nice person, often (and I mean often) created quite pointless video game-related lists that were almost always deleted via AfD. -- Kicking222 23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Facsinating. Keep per SevereTireDamage. -- gakon5 14:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this seems not-notable, not-useful, and not encyclopedic as the nominator says. Allisonmontgomery69 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The information is useful to those researching the history of the GameCube or journalists writing about the physical media's criticism, as Ace of Sevens mentioned. It was often cited as a negative factor in multiplatform ports, due to the minidisc's limited size, many games had content cut out altogether rather than going to two discs, while some of these still had omissions. The subject is notable in the history of physical game media - remember when FF VII was praised for having so much content it needed 3 discs?. With this platform the opinion generally changed. Multi-disc gaming on the PC was notable at one point, but after a few years virtually every game used multiple discs so it wasn't really notable anymore (the same thing is happening to DVD-ROM). But in the history of the GameCube it is still notable given the system's eventual death, and the specialized nature of the titles, usually third-party PS2/Xbox games that were ported to the Cube or particularly expansive games designed for the Cube, like Killer7 or Tales of Symphonia. --SevereTireDamage 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Just not encyclopedic. -- GWO
    • Comment- Why not just create a category for this? -- Solberg 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
      • Comment That assumes that every 2-disc GC game will itself be notable enough to cover in Wikipedia. So far, every game but one has its own page, so I suppose it may be true when the list is complete. However, it is similar to my rationale for keeping List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games, if turns out there are a significant number of non-notable titles, a Category wouldn't suffice.. If it turns out every 2-disc game does have an entry, then I'd easily support deletion of this, but it's a little too early to tell. --SevereTireDamage 04:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Good points, you've convinced me. -- Solberg 08:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
    • Keep per SevereTireDamage. -- Solberg 08:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
    • Delete. While I find it somewhat interesting, it's encyclopedic value is pretty low. --Optichan 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Multiple discs for PC games tend to be the rule, rather than the exception as it is for console game. Also per SevereTireDamage. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unencyclopedic. Perhaps just put "Discs: 2" into the infobox of each game. +Fin 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - interesting but unencyclopedic. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete niffy list but it doesn't belong in a encyclopedia. Whispering 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep But clean up, no need for seperation by letter...IMO, though this is a usful article.Owwmykneecap 23:21, 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 DELETE, with 4 Deletes (incl. nom.), 1 Weak Keep/Merge and 1 Merge, we tend toward delete. There's no article to merge to. Should one be created to make a merge place for this article? I don't think so. There are scores of hundreds of congressional candidates every two years. Herostratus 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linnea Noreen[edit]

    As with other candidates, bringing this to AfD for a concensus. Article is about a candidate for office. Until she wins, she would be non-notable, not other claims to notority Wildthing61476 19:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added Noreen, because I noticed information about Darcy Burner (also a non-notable by the above definition) was added for the Eight District election, and I figured informing the electorate is an important function for these entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabrinkmann (talk • contribs)

    • Delete No, generally the purpose of these entries is to advertise/promote the candidates. Darcy Burner doesn't look like she belongs either. Fan-1967 20:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have added Darcy Burner as an AfD as well. I agree, she does not have any notority outside of running for public office. Wildthing61476 20:14, 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 Keep, someone wanting his article to be deleted shouldn't have an effect on its existence here, although it's easy to see why the article would be considered pointless since it doesn't really have much biographical information about the subject. However, that's a reason for improving the article, not deleting it. - Bobet 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark_Pilgrim[edit]

    The subject believes himself to be non-notable and has asked for his page to be deleted [74]. The Wednesday Island 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - It really doesn't matter what a subject of an article thinks about it, besides the fact that we have no way to verify whether the person at the IP which left that comment is actually the subject. Couldn't I pull up the Charles Manson article, go on the talk page, and post from an IP saying "Charlie don't wiki!"? PT (s-s-s-s) 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just a question... how do we know the IP is Mark Pilgrim? Also, just a little curiousity, I ran User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js on the IP mentioned by The Wednesday Island... here are the results. Username 129.33.49.251 -- Total edits 2066 -- Distinct pages edited -- 1394 Average edits/page -- 1.482 First edit -- 16:26, 7 November 2002. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears he posted a file on his website to verify that he does request deletion: [75]. Not that the subject's opinion is relevant. But you did ask. - htonl 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because I don't think that this person is notable under the WP:BIO rules. It doesn't matter what the subject thinks. But my two cents is that this is unsourced and non-notable. Delete. Allisonmontgomery69 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I should point out that there is in fact a South African DJ and TV presenter of the same name (see [76]). He probably is notable, since (amongst other things) he was the host of Big Brother South Africa (dreck though it may be...). So if an article by this title pops up again it might in fact be about him rather than the subject of the current article. - htonl 04:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if rewritten. Mark Pilgrim is not only notable for his book on Python, but also for writing the highly popular Universal Feed Parser tool, being one of the main cheerleaders of Greasemonkey, and one of the designers of the Atom API. All of these can and should be properly referenced. For precedent, see articles on people of comparable notability: Aaron Swartz, Joi Ito, and Sam Ruby, for examples. This is a lazy person's vote, as I am not volunteering to do the legwork. Delete if no suckervolunteer can be found to clean it up. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:33, 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. - Bobet 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Scramels[edit]

    Apparent nonsense/hoax and prodded as such, but prod removed quickly by different user to author (author Scramel, deprodder Scraz - mysteriously coming out of a 3 month Wikipedia hiatus within one minute of the prod to do so...). May be speedyable as reposted content from the previously deleted and protected nonsense/hoax article Scramel. ~Matticus TC 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless somebody can cite a source or something. Otherwise, I think this is probably Original Research or a hoax. Get rid of. Allisonmontgomery69 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete does not make sense. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • scramel can be found on the list of legendary creatures. This proves it is known by others than myself. user:scramel defendant of this artcle
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaydar (website)[edit]

    In the Afd for thingbox it was suggested that this article might not meet the requirements for WP:WEB, therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Please consider my vote on this to be neutral. Artw 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. It's the biggest gay dating website in the world. If it doesn't meet WP:WEB then WP:WEB is broken. David | Talk 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as above. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per David. Fireplace 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Unnecessary nomination, a cite sources tag would have been fine. SP-KP 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for reasons given above. Cadr 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Oh, come on. Keep per all above. Surely it would be reasonable to get a bit of an opinion on the matter before making these nominations? David L Rattigan 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral It does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, but its "biggest in the world" status may be sufficient, so long as WP:WEB is modified or clarified accordingly. ddstretch 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because this already does cite a few sources. Plus I think it's definitely notable. I don't think this fails WP:WEB at all. This is a good article. This should be kept. Allisonmontgomery69 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per nom. — Nathan (talk) / 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep I think everyone else has about said it, as this is pretty obviously notable and the article is fine. GassyGuy 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all keeps ILovePlankton 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Wow, all you people must be gay! Why are you deleting this? It is a notable website. Fredil Yupigo 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Very notable. Most people in London have a profile on it (well, except females and non-metrosexuals). horseboy 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep The huge spread of use and the near-universal knowledge of the existance of the website within the gay community in London justify the existance of this article. It is also a very well known site within the gay communities of many other parts of the world.--Sandrog 15:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If knowledge of the site is so near-universal then it should be easy to document. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Phr (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The nominator is either disingenuous or careless in claiming that the AfD for Thingbox contains a suggestion that the article on Gaydar fails to meet the requirements for WP:WEB. Gaydar is cited there in the sense that "if Thingbox is deleted, Gaydar should be too"; in other words, it's unreasonable to delete either. The Gaydar article provides useful and reasonably balanced information on a prominent international website for the gay community that has played a significant role in changing the courtship mechanism over the past 8–10 years. The article concerns not just the website, but this social environment. The article has potential for expansion. It is no mere promotion for the website and, indeed, contains criticisms of the site. This nomination, IMV, is ridicoulous. Tony 11:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep.but i do believe that the content for the page should be updated. The information contained on the page is limited, and it would be better if this was shown to reflect that of the page and content of the website. If this page is deleted, then it would be a case of discrimination against non-hetereosexual people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.86.3 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 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 closed, TfD is thataway. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:EgyptianRoyalTombDetail2[edit]

    Template changes mean that this template is no longer needed Markh 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus to delete, therefore default to keep. - Bobet 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Bugbee[edit]

    This page should be deleted for a number of reasons. First and foremost, he is non-notable. His name reveals only about 560 google hits, most prominent of which are wikipedia or wikipedia related pages (such as Answers.com), and webpages hawking his stuff. Secondly, the article suffers from being autobiographical, in that almost all of the article was written by Mr. Bugbee and his wife. Furthermore, the vast majority of claims in the article are subjective and completely unsourced. In short, the article is a messy, largely unverified biography about a non-notable individual that fails the criteria for inclusion. Edit: All of sources are either a)tiny webzines, b) concerning a local event or c) mention the subject only in passing. Detruncate 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - 560 Ghits would have been enough for me, but I actually get 1,780 hits, 360 unique. Anyway, can you cite proof that the subject or his spouse wrote the article? Even so, the article asserts notability and cites reliable sources that establish significance. I hate to assume bad faith, but I wonder if this in itself is a bad faith nom? Edit - The nominator has now downplayed the significance of some of the sources. I am not certain, but I feel that this guideline from WP:MUSIC may apply - Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- 360 unique hits, then. Well, a user with no previous edits by the name "Amy bugbee" and another with the name "Shane Bugbee" edited the article several times. The creator of the article user "Cyril Grey" created about 5 longish articles out of whole cloth. The first one wasShane Bugbee, and all the others were subjects that had links to Shane Bugbee, and all lacked proper citation. Given that you're an inclusionist you will presumably be in favor of keeping everything, regardless of guidelines such as notability, which is the one that I'm primarily concerned with. Apologies if you feel that's rude of me to say.--Detruncate 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please refer to the definition of ad hominem - finding fault with my personal viewpoints is irrelevant to our discussion on the merits of this article. Please cite the edits in question, though there is still no proof that the editors you speak of are in fact the subject or his spouse. It is an assumption, even if said editors declared themselves to be the subject or his spouse on their talk pages. Finally, there is still the assertion in the article and the reliable sources, which is more than enough to establish notability, regardless of whether or not the article's subject or his spouse edited the article. If you have issues with specific passages, edit them out yourself. I don't want to assume bad faith, but I feel your viewpoint on this may reveal a possible personal agenda. I have none, not being an associate or detractor of the subject or his rivals. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please just look at the history page. It's not that long, and all the evidence is right there. And I do think it is relevant (though not "wrong") that your stated view is not within the actual policies and guidelines that currently govern article deletion.--Detruncate 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • On second look of the history, I did see the edits you speak of. But I am unclear about what part of my view you're referring to not being part of guidelines. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was referring to the WP:BIO guideline, and how that conflicts with the wikimedia definition of inclusionist. But actually, don't worry about it. Forget I brought it up.--Detruncate 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because plenty of sources and external links are cited. It looks like this person is kinda notable for publishing and doing a bunch of stuff. I think he passes WP:BIO rules. Allisonmontgomery69 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Subject of article is loathsome but that has nothing to do with whether his article should be kept. In an article that cites as many sources as this does, tag statements that are unverified with {{fact}} if you feel they're unverified. Don't bring it up for AfD until there's been a serious, good faith effort to improve it. And no attacking people's general beliefs; attack their specific arguments. Captainktainer * Talk 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Subject is non-notable and it is there is no encyclopedic value to have MySpace type webpages allowed here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 617USA (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 July 2006.
      • Comment On what basis do you claim that he is not notable, given the evidence in the external links that weighs against your claim? He passes WP:BIO easily. Which criteria of WP:BIO does he fail? Why do you call it as "Myspace type webpage?" It would be helpful if you could provide specifics. Captainktainer * Talk 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I hate to dominate the discussion here, (though I started this and I intend to see it through) but to be fair, he fails every single criteria of WP:BIO. He has no widely recognized contributions in the field of politics, athletics, or entertainment, obviously. The only thing he even comes close to is publisher/author, but he has won no awards and has only one review that could be considered notable. He also fails the alternative tests of google hits, autobiography, verifiability, and the 100 years test. If we included everyone who has even been on a tour of any kind or has ever written a book... well, this deletion seems like a no-brainer.--Detruncate 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Publishing ANSWER ME #4 is justification enough. That zine was polarizing and widely discussed. Label the article as self promotion, but keep it.Ghosts&empties 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- To clarify, Bugbee published a reprint of ANSWER Me! #4 seven years after the original edition—the original edition is the one that caused all the controversy. Nearly all of the polarization and discussion occurred long before Bugbee's reprint. Bugbee had no hand in the magazine's creation. A review of all his "accomplishments" would show an identical pattern—attaching himself to noteworthy events or people while creating nothing of note himself. This, I believe, is a crucial distinction. Shawarma Chondroitin 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. What stands out among all of this is the fact that Bugbee himself—as a creator—has produced nothing notable or lasting. He hasn't written anything or filmed anything or recorded anything of note—absolutely nothing. Again and again, he's merely attached himself to notable people. If Forrest Gump is notable merely by squeezing himself into a photo op with LBJ, then I suppose Bugbee is notable. Otherwise, he very clearly isn't. Again, the Google search of his name (as a phrase) yielded only 502 hits. Look closely at the first few pages of hits—every one of them is linked to a site which Bugbee hosts. If that's not evidence enough that he needs to be deleted, I'm not sure what is. Look closely also at early versions of this page—they included an ad for, of all things, a soda-pop company which Bugbee apparently owns. That seems like conclusive evidence that he wrote his own profile. Shawarma Chondroitin 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-This is all all directed from one place, Jim Goad, or a Jim Goad fan.

    Look back on all the notes & edits, they ALL revolve around Mr. Goad, a subject that seems to be attaching it self to me at this point. Let's talk stuff other than Jim Goad.

    Let's talk google... the hit reflect that, yes, I'm still very active in a number of areas... so, yea, I have multiple sites for multiple projects.

    when I run MY name on google I see sources ranging from mit.edu to philadelphiaweekly.com I see it relating to everything from the true crime books I've written to folks I've published.

    I'm not sure if I deserve a listing here, but I do know, if I don't, most in the: Transgressive_artists category don't. Here's a book & author that tells me so: http://creationbooks.com/frameset.asp?p=news.html - Yes, that's my name next to the likes of JOE COLEMAN, GG ALLIN & MARILYN MANSON

    Oh and one more thing - I DID NOT write my own profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Shane Bugbee (talk • contribs)

      • Comment- Judging from what has been presented here, it is possible that Shane Bugbee did not write his profile. There is one other possibility that seems likely: His wife wrote it. The idea that anyone besides Bugbee or his wife wrote it, however, seems highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.86.90 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment- Subject states the following: "Look back on all the notes & edits, they ALL revolve around Mr. Goad, " This is simply not true. The edit history is available for all to see. I uncovered only two edits that mention Goad at all. Nearly all of the edits involve typos, the idea that this page was created by the subject as self-promotion (following the links, this seems highly plausible), and the topic of the subject's notability/obscurity. I was considering a vote for inclusion until the subject compromised his own credibility with the above statement. I must now vote to delete. Adam Burton 10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note - This user's only edits are to this AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think it's pretty telling that he refers to this article as his "profile" — as if Wikipedia were some kind of Myspace-like site. Run down the list of alternative tests at WP:BIO — Mr. Bugbee doesn't pass any of them, with the possible exception of expandability. Taken with the things others have pointed out about the questionability of any involvement at all in a lot of his purported accomplishments, it would take a lot to convince me that this person is notable enough to warrant a biographical article. --Ptkfgs 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Subject links to an unreleased book as evidence of his notability. The page he links to lists a book which also touts names such as John Aes-Nihil, Fred Berger, Jonathan Haynes, Stanton Lavey, Jonathan Shaw, Nick Bougas, and Shaun Partridge. What do they all have in common? None of them have a wikipedia profile. Adam Burton 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. So "Shane Bugbee" has appeared to declare himself notable. Well, this is what his detractors have been saying all along--his wikipedia page is a vanity page, and it seems obvious from a review of the evidence that he was the one who created it. I have never heard of this person until now, although he surrounds himself with famous and/or notorious people. I believe his page violates the spirit of Wikipedia. 63.242.155.58 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note - This user's only edits are to this AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Entire profile appears to have been written by Shane Bugbee as self-promotion. I agree with prior opinions stating that surrounding oneself with notable people does not make oneself noteworthy, unless one creates something noteworthy themselves. A scan of Bugbee's "creative output" reveals no products/artifacts that have sold remotely well or been remotely successful or noteworthy. A small mention in some East Coast free weekly "upcoming events" column seems like little more than a reworded press release. If that alone made someone noteworthy, every indie rock band on the planet would deserve a wikipedia profile. 68.80.86.90 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I dislike the direction this AfD is taking. I suspect sockpuppets are at work and there are personal agendas on both sides. Let the community come to a consensus about this article, please, regardless of your position and ESPECIALLY without personal prejudices based on your relation with the subject or whatever rivals/critics he may have. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Inevitably, dismissing, debunking, and deflating the notability of someone who is attempting to be notable will seem somewhat personal and quite possibly harsh. However I agree in that we should strive to be civil, but also honest. The exact problem we have here is that this IS the community, or at least all of the community who cares about this article, so when you're referring to the community I'm not sure what you mean. Don't bandy about accusations of sock puppetry without any evidence, though. Just because a user is new to wikipedia does not mean that a) their opinions and arguments are invalid or b) they are a sock puppet. Detruncate 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Evidence of sockpuppetry: Shane Bugbee is asking his myspace friends to come here and vote: www.myspace.com/evilnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.86.90 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment After reviewing the "guide to deletion," it's apparent that Bugbee is employing "meatpuppetry" in this case. But the evidence is there (www.myspace.com/evilnow) and should be considered. Shawarma Chondroitin 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for the moment, but excessive meatpuppetry might get me to change my mind. If he's published a book with Gacy, he probably counts as notable.--SarekOfVulcan 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:AUTO --G0zer 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - WP:AUTO doesn't say they have to be deleted. Please judge on merits.--SarekOfVulcan 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You're right, it doesn't. In this case, the article is a non-notable (WP:BIO) case of self-promotion (WP:SPAM) and is a textbook example of a vanity page (WP:VAIN). --G0zer 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Vanity? Maybe. Spam? Don't see that. Non-notable? Seems like his association with Dana Plato should get him at least a footnote, if not a full article. [77].--SarekOfVulcan 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is neat too.--SarekOfVulcan 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This dud is non-notable and his book on Gacy was self-published. Its not like a major publisher produced it 617USA
      • Comment A search of "A Question of Doubt" reveals it was published in New York in 1991. Bugbee is not listed as publisher or co-author. In fact, the only links I could uncover which associate Bugbee with the book are a scant handful where Bugbee himself is claiming this. It's possible he reprinted the book, but it seems as if he's either fabricating or heavily embellishing the facts about exactly who co-wrote the book with Gacy. 68.80.86.90 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Comment The book "A Question of Doubt" is listed as being published by "Craig Bowley Consultants." A search of the phrase "Craig Bowley" alongside the word "Bugbee" yielded zero hits. 68.80.86.90 14:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's been almost a week! I know we haven't reached consensus, so let's either re-list or close and default to keep. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:04, 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 Delete. - Bobet 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tulsi (musician)[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO - 4 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Fails to assert the importance of the subject... forget "notebility" we have a stronger argument here. Also note this article has been in existance for over 6 months now, so it has had plenty of time to improve. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because no notability or sources are provided. I think this fails WP:BIO rules. Allisonmontgomery69 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. Misses WP:BIO by a wide margin. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:54, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Darcy Burner[edit]

    Article is about a candidate for public office. Article does not show enough notority to warrant inclusion outside of the fact she is a candidate for office. Wildthing61476 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete If she gets elected, then we have a different animal, until then please delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep because of the number of sources cited. I think the number of sources indicates enough notability. At the very least, Merge with an article about the election itself. That's what Wikipedia:Candidates and elections suggests anyhow. Elections first, then individual candidates. Allisonmontgomery69 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete many people who've led interesting lives run for office. Until she wins and is elected I cannot see how this meets the requirements of WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per WP:C&E. -- Mwalcoff 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This is nuts. Of course this should be kept. She is a major force in Washington State politics right now and is in one of the hottest Congressional races this year.--8bitJake 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete 31 hits on Google makes my cat mittens more notable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep please she is notable right now article is good too Yuckfoo 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A candidate for office and ,oohh, she worked for Microsoft. And the article is a blatant puff piece. Delete until she is elected. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but clean up massively. It reads like a campaign flyer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 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 delete. The contents of the article have been preserved (userfied) at User:Chambers High Historian/sandbox per the request of the original creator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chambers High[edit]

    Article about a game in a webforum... extensive but nevertheless subject apparently does not meet WP:WEB. --W.marsh 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Does not assert the importance of the subject.... plus a tad on the wierd side. (If importance can be established, my vote is keep) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because this seems very not-notable. I don't understand this or why it's important. Unless the author can cite some notability, I say delete it. Allisonmontgomery69 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's a RP, which is essentially a fanfiction/fangame. It's not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: You might consider moving the last pre-deletion version to the creator's userspace, he wants a copy preserved (per edit summaries in the article history) and I don't see the harm in it. --W.marsh 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. - Bobet 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen strosin[edit]

    NN producer (1 film at imdb) Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Undergraduate student filmmaker. It's a 9-minute short, which means practically nobody's ever seen it. Fan-1967 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as the nominator said. This is kinda WP:VAIN isn't it? Allisonmontgomery69 22:16, 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 per CSD G4 (repost). This is an identical copy of the article considered at Kitty May Ellis and deleted at AfD (as it was reinterpreted by DRV.) Since even the original closer agreed to overturn the original keep, appeals regarding this content belong at DRV. Note that G4 would not apply if this article contained substantial new content, but it does not. Xoloz 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to request mediation and arbitration as soon as I can figure out how. Meanwhile I'm protecting this page in my user space and by mirroring. Wjhonson 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kittie May Ellis[edit]

    After a lenghty discussion and a deletion review, the article Kitty May Ellis was very recently deleted. The creator now recreates the article under this slightly different name (and relinks all links he created from the old to the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty May Ellis is the previous AfD, this is the deletion review, and the conclusion at Wikipedia:Deletion review was "Kitty May Ellis - Keep closure overturned unanimously (including original closer), article deleted. 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ". I have tried a speedy delete as a repost, but the author objected, so here it is for AfD. Fram 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an outright lie. The article was relisted for further discussion (not by me). That further discussion started on the 15th, and the review was closed *after* that date with no conclusion. Wjhonson 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was not deleted by the original closer, but rather a vandal who has been consistently attacking this article. Wjhonson 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accuse people of something, please say who you are accusing, and give us the username of that vandal that deleted the article. Better yet, contact the person, so he or she can give his or her version of the facts. Fram 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The history of the article as you know, has again vanished. So there is no way to know who, except I see one of the same persons who have viciously attacked this article in the past, running abour deleteing any reference to it. So what do you think? Any *new* review should either be based exclusively on new comments, or should take into account the many responders in the original AfD who voted to KEEP. And should not be done, in the middle of the night, in a few hours. The persons interested in the history of the Pacific Northwest in general are not awake at 3 in our morning to respond to attacks on our published history by people who have no idea what's going on, and who are boldly lied to by others in the response pool. Wjhonson 21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a quick look at the deletion log (obtainable from a link on the edit page) of the deleted article reveals who deleted the article. Never mind. Since a redirect has been created, I believe the deletion log is no longer available. The deletion log is still available on the redirected article's talk page, however. Katr67 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion log page is generated. Try this. It says:
    --Calton | Talk 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "I see one of the same persons who have viciously attacked this article in the past, running abour deleteing any reference to it." If you mean me, I see no evidence of my particular viciousness. If by "attack", you mean I deleted references to redlinks after what I considered a legitimate AfD and DRV, well, yes, I have done that. Katr67 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have and will continue to revert your deletes, which serve no purpose except to censor the history of our region. This person is of historical note. You may not see that, but others do. Wjhonson 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete, I guess I'll be the first vote then. Not-notable person. --Liface 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is one of if not *the* only narrative, first-person, source for many events in early Pacific Northwest history. The original article stated that quite clearly. Now I have to recreate that as well from memory... This is so stupid. Do you people really have no life whatsoever to keep this up for three weeks? Wjhonson 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With "recreate from memory", you mean go back to the link you posted yourself [79] and take the text of the previous article back from there? And the article and the AfD and review revealed quite clearly that most of her diaries are comments on newspaper articles (which means she isn't the only source), and furthermore that your argument does not really matter as long as she doesn't pass WP:V. Fram 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you ever get tired of constantly making things up to try to *win* your point? The point isn't whether "most" of the diaries are x y or z. The point is that *some* of what she says, is very relevant to the history of this region. So stop trying to spin this discussion by masking what's really going on here. You refuse to even read the diaries to see what they say, but suddenly you're an expert on them? And you constantly mischaracterize what's in the diaries, in the Afd, in the Review, and now here. Anyone who reads them can see the value of the source. And if she is valuable as a source, then she needs an article to explain WHO she was. That's pretty simple. Wjhonson 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let the other editors judge the value and truthfullness of our contributions to this bickering. One thing truly is simple though: show, as per WP:V, that your claim that she is a valuable source falls under "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". If you can't do that, then the article fails WP:V and it should be deleted. Fram 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again being intellectually dishonest. You know quite clearly that I've stated, now 14 times, that every statement in the article has been previously published. You know quite clearly that I stated the sources. Once again you try to mischaracterize the conversation. Wjhonson 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the problem. I'll try once more: in which publication by a reputable publisher has it been said that she is a valuable source? Fram 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Undent. Oh I understand it quite clearly, as it's been discussed ad absurdum in these multiple attempts to wipe our history out. Clearview, founders and pioneers, Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett. states :" Miss Ellis' diaries, should they ever be completely published promise to be a significant source for the history of the Pacific Northwest, she having come here in its infancy in 1883 and lived here her entire life. I here give a brief biography and a few pages of some example stories that were gleaned from just a few of her journals, and proofread by my publisher, but space cannot allow me to publish more". Wjhonson 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I fail to see anywhere any establishment of notability -- Whpq 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Her notability is stated. She is a source for local history. Wjhonson 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because sources are cited and I think she is notable as a historical person who wrote about some aspects of pioneer life. She has six sources about her. I think that's an indication of notability. Allisonmontgomery69 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom (and nearly a speedy as an attempt to re-create a deleted article). I recall that past commentors had some serious concerns about verification. I also think it may be difficult to verify some of the claims in the article. One such claim is that Ellis is "one of" or "the only" narrative, first-person sources of information for the Pacific Northwest. For example, one would have to comb the Hudson Bay Co. archives, various university libraries, and state and provincial archives to ensure that there are no such other first person accounts of life in what is now Washington and B.C. for this time period. I am also a bit concerned because the creator of this article verges on incivility (as can be seen in this discussion) and acts in a manner that is overly possessive. That, however, is not a reason for deletion, it's just a concern about the constant appearance and disappearance of this article. The creator of the article is not helping his cause by such behaviour. Agent 86 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per the DRV, most of the claims fail WP:V (unverifiable with reliable sources), figure fails WP:BIO as a result of that. Some of the sources don't seem to exist (particularly "Clearview, founders and pioneers"), and the ones that do aren't about her directly. I would recommend protecting this from re-creation if this gets deleted. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Logically, if Ellis is is "'one of'" or 'the only' narrative, first-person sources of information for the Pacific Northwest", historians covering the time and area should be leaning heavily on her material for their research -- yet mention of her seems notable by its complete absence from Google Books, Google Scholar, or even Worldcat. Delete on verifiability grounds and on making a suspect claim about her uniqueness as a diarist. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument fails logic. This source has not been easily available for historians to consult. The only persons who have consulted the works are the sources I cited, whose works are local in scope, and limited in copies (to my knowledge at least). These is no requirement on wikipedia that a person be widely known already, outside their focal group. In fact your argument fails the notability critieria, which states, in fact, the exact opposite. Wjhonson 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do believe that if an artical has information that is useful for the research of our Ancestery ,Then it should be left alone ,I would like to heaar the reason for the deletion,It is such athrill when you can find out the History in ones family, There stiries are why we are here today .Sio It is so important to keep thes ethings available.and not hidden.Thank you for the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.67.217 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. By 1883 the Pacific Northwest should have been populated enough for other sources besides a girl's diary to exist. Although the article claims that she was a first-person source for "many newsworthy events," the article doesn't mention a single "newsworthy event," except perhaps claiming to have met Chief Joseph. All I see are lists of moves from town to town, jobs she took, and comments on her family members. Where are all these events she is supposed to have witnessed? --Groggy Dice 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if these rambunctious editors would relax, you'd get a chance to see them. As it is, they keep deleting the article *as I am creating it*. It's going to be hard to prove notability, if every time I find another notable thing the article gets deleted again. And she wasn't a girl number one, and I think watching Tarkio get created from nothing is notable, since there is *no* other narrative source which claims that for one thing. That isn't the sole notable thing, but again this comment proves another editor refuses to actually read the diaries. Editors who vote, and yet refuse to acquaint themselves with the situation shouldn't be counted. Just like the one who claim "not verifiable" and yet refuse to attempt to verify. Verifiability is not whether it's *easy*, its whether its *possible* and Kittie passes that test with flying colors. Wjhonson 04:10, 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, having interviews with people is great, and something you'd expect any reasonable gaming site to have, but it's just not useful to list every site here that has ever interviewed someone notable. The size of the community and the general traffic of the site itself have failed to impress the people taking part in this discussion. Just because some people happen to like a site doesn't mean it's necessary to write about it here. - Bobet 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Total Gamer Zone[edit]

    Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB Wildthing61476 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not WP:WEB refer to content, rather than a website? It is true that Total Gamer Zone is host to a forum, but it is not limited to its forum, despite its large member base. It is also a Game News website, a wallpaper and graphic repository, a forum, a game review site, and a place to set up online matchups. Theirfore, I beleive that WP:WEB does not apply in this case, and that this Deletion should not take place. MasterIkrit 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Keep" I think Totalgamerzone deserves to stay, it is a growing site and every single website deserves to be recognized. They have had really good interviews and clearly put there time on making the site. I will be adding this site to my favorites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.109.169 (talk • contribs)


    • Comment The site has an Alexa rank of 2,418,324. Also quoting WP:WEB "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia." (Bold for emphasis.) The site just is NOT NOTABLE enough for Wikipedia currently. Wildthing61476 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • It's one of the guidelines that's used in checking notability for a website however as "retarded" as you think it is. Wildthing61476 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please provide a link stating that Wikipedia requires a certain rank on Alexa.com to be entered onto the site?
    • Delete - fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because I don't think an admittedly "fairly small website" that's been around for less than a year can be notable. I agree with people who say it fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank is important, but it isn't everything. This website is just too new to get listed, I think. Allisonmontgomery69 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Who said WP:WEB was retarded? or was it edited out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MasterIkrit (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment The person who made the statement removed it according to the page history. Also to the authors, I checked out your site, and I LIKE your site, and wish you the best of luck, it's just right now the site is just too new to be listed. Wildthing61476 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep very nice site I might add. Kalciner
    • Delete Nice looking site, but too small and too new per the author's own writing. No prejiduce on recreating the article in the future if the site grows in importance. Resolute 05:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Four months old, 200 members, not yet notable per WP:WEB. --Wine Guy Talk 18:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Looks to be very active, up to date news, relevant features, fast growing community if it went from 200 to 221 members in 2 days. Stiffler52 13:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question How many members would be consindered enough? How high of a ranking on Alexa.com is considered high enough? Where are the ground rules? I believe this site is very relevant to the gaming community and should remain. Stiffler52 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      The assertion that "this site is very relevant to the gaming community" may be true, however that does not necessarily mean it is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Please read the criteria here for the "ground rules" used by WP editors to determine the notability of a website. Membership and Alexa rank are not official criteria, but they can be helpful when there are no verifiable references. For example, if and when the site has multiple reviews published in reliable and reputable sources, then it should pass muster here. Until then, Wikipedia is not an internet guide, nor is it a crystal ball. --Wine Guy Talk 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Before the Web notability changed, a site needed either an Alexa rank of 10,000 or better, or a forum with over 5,000 members. -- ReyBrujo 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You do realize that Alexa.com is a highly flawed system, as it only recognizes internet explorer users and not Netscape, Opera, and Firefox? IE is used by less internet savvy and the less internet savvy usually do not visit gaming sites.Stiffler52 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not the one who created that guide, and maybe that is why it was removed. However, Internet Explorer is being used in over 85% of the computers in the world. -- ReyBrujo 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well it appears as though the site has moved up 600 000 spots on alexa.com to 1.8 million from 2.4 million in a matter of days. Stiffler52 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Maybe due the high amount of links to reviews that are being inserted into Wikipedia articles about games? -- ReyBrujo 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Very active. Notable interviews. Quickly moving up alexa. 68.12.187.34 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The website I work on is actually in the six digits, gets review copies, gets news straight from developers and it isn't nearly notable enough for its own entiry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In response to ReyBrujo: not exactly, we have seen a steady increase in hits in the days prior to the posting of the Wikipedia article.-the mole- 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is pure advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although I am a user of the site, I do not agree. We are not asking anyone to come to the site, we are not saying it is the best ever or anything even remotely similar, so I honestly fail to see the logic behind the phrase "This is pure advertisement."-the mole- 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Would someone explain to me why we are not allowed to post our reviews of games as an external link or review of games that are already in the system? ReyBrujo continues to remove any links to reviews of the games that we have given. Saying that information is non-notable. I can understand you saying that our sight is non-notable, it is very new, and has not had time to grow, however information and reviews of games are immediate things, simply created after a game is created, how can these be considered non-notable? If there is some guidlines for the editing or removal of external links to further information on a subject, please post a link to such guidlines, if there is not, should this user be reported for outright vandalism? MasterIkrit 05:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi there. Wikipedia accepts contributions from every user, however some do not fit Wikipedia. Imagine if people adds every single review from every single site about a game. The first External link style guide about occasionally acceptable states that, for albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. That is the closest for games, it is currently being discussed if general reviews should be accepted. Having reviews from IGN, GameSpot, Gamespy, Eurogamer, 1UP.com and meta reviews like GameRankings and Metacritic, having the review of a non notable site with a forum of around 200 members and virtually no Alexa rank is not acceptable. Also, massively adding hyperlinks without discussing them in the talk page of the articles to see if there is consensus for adding them can be considered spam. Hope that makes it clear. -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe I need to clarify that, when we talk about Non notable, we are referring to Wikipedia standards like WP:WEB, which may or may not acknowledge other kind of notability. In example, the daughter of an actress may be notable by public standard, but an article about a newly born baby, unless inheriting a notability title like Count or Duke, is usually considered non notable. It is not an offensive term, but people new to Wikipedia may find it not appropriated. -- ReyBrujo 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So by your own words, games that have no listed reviews would be fine to add our reviews to, that is funny, because the majority of the games to which I added reviews did not already have them. Also I find that notable intellectual work, such as reviews and along with other things, does not have to be created from something, someone, or someplace in and of itself notable, in order to have reference to a community or the world. I do not think any kind of content should be decided to be non-notable, simply because where it came from is not-notable. Using your own example, that would be like calling a book or some other form of intellectual property non-notable simply because it came from a non-notable person, while calling another book or work of intellectual property notable simply because it came from a notable person. I would equate judging our reviews of games as non-notable simply becuase our site is considered by YOU to be non-notable to be judging a book by the way you, personally, see the cover....MasterIkrit 09:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said that. I was referring to the fact that, existing IGN, GameSpot, Gamespy, Eurogamer, etc, sites with a long life and proved reliability, there is little need of new reviewers. See the sixth guideline. If you think your views are notable, state in the talk page that you are going to add a review from your site. I have helped clean other articles before. We can't include something just because it may be notable in the future, because it has potential, or because "minority views" need also to be included in Wikipedia. Also, I am not the only one considering your site non notable, nor I am the only one considering your reviews non notable.[80][81] -- ReyBrujo 12:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Maybe it will be notable in the future, but as of now it's not. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:33, 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. - Bobet 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristina Coccia[edit]

    Completing malformed nom. Per User:Liamdaly620: "No assertation of notability". No vote from me. Fan-1967 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - looks like a speedy a7. no assertion of notability and nothing that passes WP:BIO looks possible - Peripitus (Talk) 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Resolute 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn. Per her cited home page: "...and has her hopes set on Nationals in 2005." Looks like an old entry for an aspiring gymnast who never made it, or presumably the entry would have been updated. Fan-1967 14:57, 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. - Bobet 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kam Tse Tsuen Aubeck[edit]

    This subject does not obviously meet WP:BIO though his latest civil service posting may come close. As it stands it has WP:NPOV and WP:VANITY concerns as well, but those can be addressed if he is found to be notable. Eluchil404 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete because he does not have any sources to cite and fails WP:BIO rules about being notable. I think that Eluchil404 is right and it's just vanity. Allisonmontgomery69 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's clearly vanity and I see no assertion of notability perWP:BIO. --Wine Guy Talk 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete A resume and press release concatenated into an article. Sanbeg 16:00, 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 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bjornar Simonsen[edit]

    Tagged db-bio but notability is asserted. Not particularly convincingly, as it turns out. A very short article which more or less completely fails to establish how we would know him from a hole in the ground. Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Info copied from userpage. E Asterion u talking to me? 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because I don't think this is notable under the WP:BIO rules. And also, he doesn't cite any sources. Allisonmontgomery69 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep: I actually found this by doing a wiki search, it is undersourced but the guy is notable. What it needs though is some more detail ffrom someone who is not part of the KFA. Moheroy
      Well, couldn't that be mentioned in the KFA page? I just don't think this person is notable enough. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Allisonmontgomery69. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As written, article does not meet standards of WP:BIO policy. --Satori Son 18:56, 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. – Avi 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brute Force Committee[edit]

    This article isn't verified, and is pretty much vanity. It isn't even remotely notable. Delete Ardenn 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge into University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering if the information can be verified. -- Whpq 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because it's only notable to members of this club. Also, as the nominator says, it isn't verified and is vanity. (And it's not a very "secret" society if they have a wikipedia page about themselves). Allisonmontgomery69 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This organization is described in print in the U of T student handbook and in at least one of the U of T student newspapers, so ample verification material exists. There's probably administrative paperwork about them kicking around somewhere also (there was a crackdown on the group in the late 1980s/early 1990s, which would have left a paper trail). The difficulty (for the Wikipedia article) is that this paper trail is literally on paper, and so not web-accessible. For relevance/notability, per description on Talk:Brute Force Committee, this group is notable to everyone in Engineering at U of T (kind of hard to miss the cannon being fired on random days, or miss the group's participation in orientation), and their activities (though likely not detailed background) are known to other groups both on- and off-campus. Second choice: Merge/redirect to University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering. --Christopher Thomas 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. While information exists on BFC, there's not much there other than "it exists" and "it pranks other schools" (maybe even not that much). It's not even that the paper trail is "on paper" - you'd probably need some sort of privileged access to view it as well, since it has to do with University policies. Anyways, it falls under student organizations and I'm not sure it's notable with that criteria anymore. --ColourBurst 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've checked WP:ORG, and it looks like most or all of the items mentioned would be acceptable as _sources_. Establishment of notability would require a publication that was neither affiliated with the BFC nor a student newspaper to mention the BfC, which is a more difficult test (though I'm pretty sure they'd show up in newspaper archives from the timespan around the crackdown, I'd certainly have a hard time citing one without spending a very large amount of time in a library). That having been said, neither WP:ORG nor WP:N is actually a policy (though WP:ORG may eventually become one in the future). --Christopher Thomas 06:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I believe this group is notable, however the article is unverifiable. Resolute 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm personally doing research on Engineering Student traditions at Queen's University (writing a book infact). From my own personal experience with University of Toronto, I can state that much of what is in the article is true, if not lacking a bit. I have attempted to add what history I know of to the article. --ChristopherBorcsok 22 Jul 2006.
    • Keep Notable. Has existed at least since the early 1980s. Verifiability questionable, but if it were verifiable would it still be a secret society? --Atrian 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable college club. --Cheesehead 1980 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Indef blocked sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg. -Splash - tk
    • Delete. Problems with verifiability and original research. Ifnord 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Obscure Baseball Records[edit]

    Completely trivial, not particularly useful. BoojiBoy 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Obscure records themselves are not notable, but a list is quite useful if it contains many. Allow this one to grow. CJC47 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because they do cite some sources. This could be particularly useful to baseball fans, and its not like baseball only has a cult following or small number of fans. I think this could get expanded. Keep. Allisonmontgomery69 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this looks a bit silly, not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Any info that went on the page could be sourced/verified and would be encyclopedic, so that's not my problem. I don't have any deletion rationale except that I don't think this list will ever be found by anyone aside from those browsing AfD, and thus, will probably expand very little (if at all). If I saw more than one fun fact on the page (the Liriano thing isn't as rare as it seems), I might change my mind. -- Kicking222 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't know enough about the subject to cast an informed vote either way, however if kept the title of the article needs to be changed, as the term "Obscure" is a POV statement in this context. By whose authority are these records considered "obscure"? The creator of the article, or a reference work? You see the problem. 23skidoo 01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete I was about to say I thought this should be kept, but 23skidoo makes a really good point here. How does one decide what is "obscure" or "obsure enough" to make the list. There could be literally thousands of random factoids that could be included here. I guess I could be swayed either way here, but not unless it gets expanded greatly. Having two items does not make it very valuable right now IMO. DrunkenSmurf 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article is only a couple days old and this article could grow into something useful. I would prod tag it and give it more time. Agne 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I guess thats my issue really, what exactly is it going to grow into besides a list of trivial facts that are not really of any importance? How obscure is obscure enough to get listed here? How does this list not turn into an indiscriminate collection of information? DrunkenSmurf 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As the article's creator, I'd like to make a case for it. I've heard all kinds of bizarre statistics and supposedly superlative occurrences in baseball, and I was thinking that it would be fun to see a list of them. It seems like perfect trivia for a list page. To respond to a couple points raised: First, I do think the article can be found via the categories listed at the bottom of the article. In particular, somebody seeing what baseball lists are contained in Wikipedia might be intrigued enough to click on it. Second, "obscure" is a somewhat subjective term, but baseball is so over-statistified that there will be clear cases of obscurity. Every pitcher or hitter has a stat sheet with categories you'd expect to find, i.e., ERA, triples, RBI, etc. The two examples I cited would clearly never be found on a player's permanent record, and likely were only discovered by sports commentators who have full use of highly specialized record-searching software. I would say they are obscure almost by definition. Third, as a couple users pointed out, the list will grow. I was only able to think of two examples offhand, but this is something that will come up semi-regularly. Baseball more than any other sport obsesses about statistics. As a result, some pretty bizarre stats appear fairly regularly. However, people who follow baseball are interested in them in spite of their obscurity. I would say this legitimizes a Wikipedia list on the topic. Finally, I did make a point to properly cite the examples I came up with, and would expect future entries to do the same. Obscure statistics can usually be traced back to articles or sports punditry, so this list can grow legitimately. If the worst that you can say about this article is that it looks "a bit silly," you're falling prey to the same subjectivity you accuse the article of containing. Sparkyfry 17:56, 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. - Bobet 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Poughkeepsie tapes[edit]

    This article was speedy deleted in May under the title Poughkeepsie Tapes (with a capitalized Tapes). It's now returned without a capital. It appears to be a half-truth/half-fiction advert for an "underground phenomenon" independent film. 58 Google hits for it and only 7 when you include the filmmakers' name. Metros232 21:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I don't think this should be here. No sources are cited saying why its notable or who these "experts" are. Allisonmontgomery69 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all of the above. --Wine Guy Talk 17:36, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of television characters who are hiv positive[edit]

    TVcruft DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I don't see what's wrong with this. It's verifiable (though maybe someone should cite sources). It could be useful to people interested in portrayls of HIV persons in the media. Why should this be deleted? Allisonmontgomery69 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above (although the article needs a lot of work). Fireplace 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per Alisonmontgomery69: Put {{unreferenced}}, and be done with this —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, however I find the inclusion of real-life people a bit problematic since this list is supposed to be about "characters". Therefore the Real World fellow and Ryan White should be removed from the list since neither are fictional characters by any means. This could probably stand to have a bit of an introduction added to address the portrayal of HIV+ characters. And while it isn't HIV, it might not hurt to make a reference to T'Pol from Star Trek, who was given an HIV-like condition (later cured) in Enterprise as an intentional metaphor for HIV. Also, if kept, the article needs renaming in order to correct the lack of capitalization on HIV. 23skidoo 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan White I believe qualifies if we consider the dramatization of his life in a TV movie. One wonders whether whatever T'Pol has qualifies as a HIV parallel if it can be cured. anyway, none of this is in the province of an AFD, which leads me to... hateless 05:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, relevant expansion on the topic of HIV/AIDS portrayals in the media. hateless 05:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Allison. Also, if we have something like List of Fictional Republicans, then why not this? I do believe that real people should not be included though as that are not TV "characters". TJ Spyke 06:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. No actual reason was provided for deletion by the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, it looks like this is going to be a keep, which is of course fine by me. However it is apparent that I didn't express my concerns about this article ...
    1. I don't think that this article is at all encyclopaedic - would one expect to find this in a paper encyclopaedia - I think not - I am aware that Wikipedia is not paper, but does that make the article any more encyclopaedic???
    2. The list is entirely unmaintainable - I note that all of the TV shows are western in origin. What about Asia and Africa??? There must have been many TV shows with many characters who are HIV+.
    3. Is it not just a little presumptive that all characters who don't mention that they're HIV+ aren't???? Maybe the characters don't feel comfortable telling their workmates or friends - just like in real life.
    4. Where would lists of this sort end??? With a List of Fictional Characters in Literature who are HIV+??? ..... List of television characters who are NOT HIV+ ... List of television characters who have Influenza ???? DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Maybe it should be changed to "List of fictional characters with HIV/AIDS". That way it eliminates real people(like The Real World) and includes character in other sources like movies and books. TJ Spyke 04:08, 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. - Bobet 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gareth Christie[edit]

    Fixing an erroneous AfD; I did not nominate. -- H·G (words/works) 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fails WP:BIO 2 ghits DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 21:45, 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. - Bobet 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    James Cooper (b.1729)[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO totally non-notable DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Acurazine[edit]

    Article about a specific content web forum that is no longer in existence. The server was down when I accessed the site. However, it is nothing but advertising and fails to meet the criteria in WP:WEB. Pc13 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. - Bobet 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MAC Valves Inc.[edit]

    Delete as complete and total advertisement - call for your free demonstration! Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep This article was created today (20 July 2006 (UTC)) I say put a {{advert}} tag on it and let it go from there. If in a month no improvement, bring it back here. Passes importance test. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete What is the "importance test"? This clearly fails WP:CORP. Advertising is a valid grounds for deletion. --Xrblsnggt 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom - blatant advertising of a non-notable company - Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Xrblsnggt. Creator also added company links to Solenoid valve and Pneumatics. Femto 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as advertisement. --Fang Aili talk 20:55, 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. enochlau (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Queerkas[edit]

    Neologism with zero Google hits, possibly even some kind of subtle attack article. Prod and prod2 was removed twice by anonymous editor, so listing here. ~Matticus TC 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Reads like a teenage attack page, and I suspect that's exactly what it is. Fan-1967 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as attack page on unidentifiable person, neologism and dicdef. --Metropolitan90 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:NEO, possible WP:NFT, and at the least WP:V and WP:RS issues. Not sure if this is an attack page, but if someone wants to speedy it as such, don't expect me to cry a river. --Kinu t/c 04:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged as db-attack as the consensus seems to be it's an attack page (in hindsight I should've done that to begin with, as it's fairly obviously an attack on someone). Doesn't stand a chance anyway. ~Matticus TC 13:54, 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. - Bobet 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EESHAAN[edit]

    Delete as a non-notable band failing WP:MUSIC - call for concert info! Speedy and prod tags removed. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 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 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Assembly of Dust[edit]

    This is partly technical and partly because there is no assertion of notability for this band. There is an extensive history of this article being deleted and recreated, hence the "technical" aspect of this nomination. One of the deletions was because the article was a copyright violation. It needs more than a "speedy" delete in the circumstances. If the article is deleted, it ought to be protected. Agent 86 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - [8 albums] listed on allmusic, [64K] google hits. Albums for sale on amazon admittedly have low sales ranks and most albums are live recordings but they do seem to meet the two or more albums on a notable label part of WP:BAND ( paraphrasing the policy there a bit ) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article does not contain even an assertion of notability at WP:BAND levels. GRBerry 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of notability assertions. The band's listing on allmusic.com has no biographical details, and all the albums are simply recorded concerts. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No assertion of notability that would satisfy WP:BAND. The recording label(s) for the two albums are not even listed in the article. --Satori Son 18:53, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nathan Haselbauer[edit]

    This is a fix of a mal-formed AfD nom. The original nominator, DaturaS, wrote: "Delete or possibly merge - It has been suggested that there is not enough meat in the article, but I believe that is because this individual is not notable enough for an individual entry." Agent 86 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I should point out I'm Neutral on this article as I have not thought about its inclusion or deletion. Agent 86 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original delete nom was by Tonyclifton5, I was trying to fix it by creating the AfD page for discussion. DaturaS 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep "not enough meat", this looks like a article that needs to have a {{stub}} tag put on it. Also note this article has had 10 unique contributors. see for yourself! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I believe there could be enough information out there to put together a more complete article on the individual. A quick google search brings up a video from Forbes featuring the guy and a number of books he has published as well. I would suggest those "10 unique contributors" get to work! DrunkenSmurf 02:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep [4 books] and numerous mentions - appears notable outside the High IQ society - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment These puzzle books are just not notable. DaturaS 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and stub tag. -Quiddity 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It seems there has been considerable negative response to this article that I originally posted, which is why I'm surprised so many of you are voting to keep it. The article is woefully light on material and the only two notable things are that he's the president of the International High IQ Society and an author of puzzle books, both of which are already mentioned on the IHIQS Wiki entry. It's redundant and ripe for deletion IMO. --Tonyclifton5 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup and expand; the Observer piece seems to be well beyond non-triviality but the bibliography should go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 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 d3l3t3. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    H0w0rld[edit]

    Non-notable performer or entertainer. Speedy was contested, so I'm putting it up for fair vote, but it looks like possible vanity or hoax, defintely non-notable Antares33712 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, searches turn up zippity-zip-zip-zip! Antares33712 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm afraid having a name similar to Hossein Tavakoli's doesn't make one notable. Fails WP:V. GassyGuy 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did you stop the speedy? This is an easy delete. 216.141.226.190 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy deletion is not for non-notability. It's for articles that don't, in any way, explain why their subject is significant or important. This one does. Therefore, we need some form of consensus to delete, but I would have used WP:PROD. delete. Mangojuicetalk 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - actually we have the nn-bio tag specifically for a totally non-notable bio. Antares33712 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Can't find much on the guy, and I specifically don't see him on the Neilsen SoundScan list for Canada [82]. -- Mikeblas 16:18, 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. – Avi 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thin slicing[edit]

    User:Dlyons493 prod'd this article, but I don't agree. Reason for prod given as: Non-notable concept with no currency outside a single book.

    • Keep, hard to estimate usage with Google. Well known author lends weight to the term, regardless of spread of usage. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I don't really understand what this articles means, but that doesn't mean its nonsense, for the person who wrote the article should. Massive Cleanup, if not deleted. Kitia 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Blink (book), Gladwell comes up with a lot of neologisms and I'm against having articles for all of them. Recury 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete The following search attempts to find how whether this term has an existence independent of its creator %22Thin slicing%22 -Gladwell -Blink&btnG=Search - it shows 85Ghits, none significant. Seems to me to be a nn neologism. Dlyons493 Talk 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge is fine by me (although I'd prefer delete). No longer think merge is appropriate given info from Pim below. If the article is kept the original usage of the term should be added. Dlyons493 Talk 08:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the form "thin slices", this term seems commonly used in psychology and long predates Gladwell. The origin appears to be: Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256-274. Pim 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to Blink_(book), the book which discusses this concept. This neologism does not need its own article. --Wine Guy Talk 06:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not worth a redirect. Every catchphrase can not have its own page. Daviegold 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I would usually have voted merge on something like this but this is such a minimal part of this book and the concept is a neologism outside of that. Ifnord 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Thin slice and include more information on the origins and scope of the psychological term which predates Gladwell. MarkBuckles 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. - Bobet 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Melchionni[edit]

    He was a benchwarmer and was a bad player. Unless he's a professional or prominent amateur player who made news, this article should be deleted. Averaged 5.7 pts, give me a break. LOL. Squadoosh 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This nomination was formatted incorrectly because it was the article's 2nd nomination; I have fixed this now. -- H·G (words/works) 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this was nominated for deletion only 10 days ago; result was no consensus. Isn't it a bit early for another AfD nomination? I also have doubts about the nom's good faith when he comments that the subject "was a tool" on the talk page. -- H·G (words/works) 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Again The JJ Redick article says the Melchionni was a co-captain of the Duke team. In addition he has signed a contract to play professionally in Italy for Benetton Treviso[83] which is one of the top European teams, having produced current #1 pick Andrea_Bargnani. In addition I find it troubling that this is being resubmitted for AfD when the first nomination just concluded a couple days ago. DrunkenSmurf 02:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was the original AFD nominator, I did so because I inquired about his notability months ago and never received a response. As far as I can tell he still fails WP:BIO (ie: playing pro). The referenced article about the Italian team states "Melchionni said he expects to play for Benetton but has not yet signed the contract." and he is not listed in the roster at said team's website. If he is actually signed and with the team, than I think it should be mentioned in the article. With that said, I'm staying neutral in this AFD as I have no particular motive to get this deleted. I'd be content to wait until the beginning of the Italian basket season and see if he is playing. ccwaters 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fair enough, questioning what does and does not belong here is healthy and makes for the best possible set of articles which is what we all want. Doing it twice in the span of a couple weeks does not sit well with me however. (I know you personally did not do this, just a general comment regarding this second nomination) My feeling is that a former captain of one of the top teams in collegiate sports [84] would make someone pretty notable. In addition the article linked above states that Benetton offered him a contract, and he expects to sign it. I can't imagine a senario where he would not be playing for them in the upcoming season, but as you say maybe we can just wait a few months. DrunkenSmurf 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Borderline college players who get a contract offer from Europe tend to wait a while to be sure that an NBA team doesn't pick them up as a free agent. That's not very likely to happen in his case, so signing with Benetton is a formality. He'll be playing pro on one of the best European teams unless he gets a better offer. BTW, as above, I also question why this was AfD'd again so soon. --Wine Guy Talk 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep against nom 216.141.226.190 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep U.S. college stars who play professionally in Europe are notable. Eluchil404 22:37, 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 redirect. Kusma (討論) 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Buffy the Vampire Layer[edit]

    Inaccurate article about hardcore pornographic film without any merit or notable features. Parody title doesn't deserve an article. VivianDarkbloom 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete - I'd be shocked if there WASN'T a porno movie with this title. Nevertheless, no claims of notability, etc. A mention somewhere in a BTVS article maybe. - Richfife 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Good grief. Doesn't appear to be notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE:The article has just been significantly expanded and improved upon, votes above will not have been able to take this into account.
      • Adding more pornspam to an article just don't improve it. VivianDarkbloom 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is actually a point of interest to fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, therefore an inkling of notability has just about been passed onto it from the high profile series. Also I found another review of the film a Buffyverse review site: Angel.fcpages.com. The film is at IMDb: "Buffy The Vampire Layer" entry. The film has 941 Google results (with use of speech marks for exact matches). This includes dozens of mentions on Buffy forums. It's not that notable, but it is a little bit notable :) and now IMHO it is a much better article than it was when it was nominated for deletion. --Boffy Layer 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect I'll change my vote to redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies, maybe the film by iteslf does not need it's own article. -- Boffy Layer 15:14, 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. - Bobet 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DALiWorld[edit]

    contested speedy. Reason for Speedy="nn website. no asserion of notability." Reason for contest="How many p2p aquariums do you know?" --Pboyd04 23:42, 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 for now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kemal Gözler[edit]

    My languages being inadequate mean that I'm not able to study the sources but the subject is not a full professor and seems not to meet notability requirements. Can anyone help, further? BlueValour 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete - seems like a man with some interesting contributions, but nothing of massive notability just as yet. BigHaz 00:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Assistant professor, shortish career. Not yet. - Richfife 00:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. I probably would not have nominated him myself, but as he's here, I agree to the letter with BigHaz. --Wine Guy Talk 06:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per discussion above. BlueValour 16:04, 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. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanquish Labs[edit]

    Spam, nn notable, un referenced advertising, vanity, authors name is same as article name

    • Delete, nn notable, spam, vanity, advertising.--Ávril ʃáη 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A "spam-fighting" company pushing their spam. What a poetic ending if this article were deleted with scarcely a thought, just like so many spam messages. --Xrblsnggt 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hangon Please tell me how this article differs from the acceptable description of the other companies mentioned here: Anti-spam appliances --Vanquish Labs 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In some ways, it doesn't. Those articles are unsourced, too. If you wish to write about yourself or your company, always write using only published works sourced entirely independently of you and your company as your reference material, and cite those sources from your very first edit. This implicitly satisfies our WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. You have not done that, here. If you cannot do that, do not create an article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. That's Yellowikis' job. Uncle G 01:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Vanquish makes a very good point. They should all be deleted. "Wikipedia is not an advertising service". That means if your company does not follow these guidelines:WP:CORP It is fair game for deletion. --Xrblsnggt 04:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Pure WP:VSCA. How ironic that a company "best known for antispam technology" is spamming Wikipedia. I don't think I'll be needing their services. --Wine Guy Talk 06:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per nom. Massmato 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as advertising, etc. (per above, except the parts about "spamming" [because it's only this one article, right?]). Ardric47 23:58, 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 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Snyder[edit]

    Local news anchormen don't pass WP:BIO. BoojiBoy 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Normally I'd disagree (there are several well-written articles about local news anchors - see Jim Gardner or Chuck Scarborough), but this one isn't even linked from his station's article. Even if it's kept, it needs a serious rewrite/expansion. Kirjtc2 11:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • D GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Tip to nominator : Consider using the proposed deletion process for unanimous deletions, such as this one. Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20&oldid=1081095794"