Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion a few years back, with a result of no consensus, but with a majority voting to delete or redirect to Al Gore. I think it deserves more discussion. I'm concerned that there is not enough verifiable information about Gore for a fair article on him to exist right now. He has been ticketed by police a few times, which made the news. But that's the only thing beyond his early childhood that's verifiable, because Gore has assiduously maintained his privacy. As far as I know, he has yet to answer a question from a reporter or make a public statement in his life. Keep-voters in the old VfD argued an analogy with the Bush daughters and Chelsea Clinton, but this seems like a false analogy, because these people have given high-profile interviews and speeches, a point that was not raised in the VfD. Allen 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, for WP:V problems due to lack of reliable sources. This comment is null however if someone should find a trove of info about Gore 3. hateless 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An entire chapter of the new book Inconvenient Truth is devoted to Albert Gore III, including details of his accident, medical diagnoses, and subsequent recovery. There are also multiple references to him and other photos from other points in his life throughout the book. --Elonka 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't read the whole book yet, but I read that section after you posted this. It's four pages long, and the book doesn't seem to have anything it calls chapters. Gore Jr. writes little, if anything, about Gore III as a person. Instead, Gore Jr. focuses on the facts of the accident and recovery and their impact on his own thinking about the importance of global climate change. As before, what you say is technically true, but subjectively I see things differently. --Allen 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Yunipo 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the content per nom. Recreate it only if he becomes famous or if his dad becomes President. For now, it can be redirected to Al Gore. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Amazingly well written nomination by the way. -- NORTH talk 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, thank you! --Allen 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a famous dad doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
  • KeepResource problem was fixed. How difficult was it to do a search on CNN? He being a politician’s son does not necessarily gives him status but his arrests gives him notoriety that people want to know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.129.49 (talk • contribs) 22:07, July 27, 2006
  • Keep. He's still notable enough to be in the press (for example, an L.A. Times article [1]). He's also being referred to in a current movie, his dad's Inconvenient Truth. Those, plus his own notoriety via the legal problems, are sufficient for me. --Elonka 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion; and I can't deny that you have, technically, given an example of Gore being in the press. But I would like to point out that the author of that L.A. Times article spends two sentences in a long feature identifying Gore as an intern working for the subject of the article. He even says explicitly that Gore's identity is "incidental". --Allen 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, it's not about Gore, but I bring it up as an indication that he's famous enough to be mentioned in an article, even if he's doing nothing more than sitting on a couch.  ;) I think the mention in the documentary is more indicative of name recognition. Having said that though, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a merge, and I do agree that the nomination is thoughtful and well-written. But given a choice, my own vote would still be to keep. --Elonka 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a public figure. Or have a page foe every offspring of someone famous.Edison 01:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not delete Chelsea Clinton or George P. Bush? If they have been in the news keep them on here, and Gore III has.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clinton and Bush were in the news because they gave interviews and speeches; Gore was in the news because he got pulled over by police. Not saying you're wrong, but that's why I'd not delete the articles on Clinton or Bush. --Allen 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BIO. Irrespective of the avolitional nature of his notoriety (toward which Allen properly and persuasively adduces the counterexamples of Chelsea Clinton and George P. Bush), that notability exists, if only in view of the sundry legal problems that have arisen (I assume arguendo that Allen didn't mean to suggest that the fact of the subject's ostensibly having undertaken to be a private person is at all relevant to whether we ought to have an article apropos of him; such suggestions have surely been refuted at, inter al., WP:NOT EVIL, the several Daniel Brandt AfDs, Wikipedia:Wikiethics). Were he a biographical subject only in view of his being related to a notable personnage, I'd likely think deletion (or redirection to Al Gore) appropriate (as I did, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suri Cruise), if only because of what we'd expect to be an attendant dearth of biographical information. Sad though I am that the youngest Gore has experienced legal troubles—after all, I volunteered a great deal on his father's 1996 VP and 2000 Pres campaigns, during the latter of which I had occasion to meet Gore—those troubles have made him, à la Michael Dellums (a good analogue, I think), notable. Joe 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguendo; there's a new word for me. Your assumption is correct in reality as well as arguendo; Gore's attempts to remain a private person are only relevant insofar as they are successful. The Michael Dellums comparison is interesting. My impulse is to argue that murderers make the news even if they aren't politicians' kids, while DUIs don't (not counting the police blotter). But I haven't thought about it enough to feel sure. --Allen 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In disagreement with Joe, I believe that the legal troubles have only made the news because of his relationship to his father, and thus that he is a "biographical subject only in view of his being related to a notable personnage". We do not believe in notability by relationship, so he is not therby notable. I see no evidence that he is notable at WP:BIO standards; I judge the legal stories trivial. I could support a smerge and redirect to Al Gore, noting that his accident's impact on the campaign is already in that article. GRBerry 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. It would be much better if there was a part of Al Gore's article dedicated to him. As stated earlier, unless Gore becomes president or Al Gore III becomes a polician/speaker/something else, this article isn't too significant. --Wafulz 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 05:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires units and structures[edit]

WP:NOT this information is clearly only useful in the context of successfully playing Age of Empires. In other words it is a game guide!!! and does not belong on wikipedia. Nick Y. 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BryanG(talk) 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete game guide. -- GWO
  • Delete nn AoE details. MLA 09:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and clean up so it no longer reads like a game guide. Deletion is not a substitute for clean-up. Czj 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What? How would you clean it up to not be a game guide? I don't see that that would be possible. It is fundamentally a game guide dealing with NN components of a video game.--Nick Y. 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czj. It's not a how-to. Kappa 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Clearly a game guide as per nom. BigE1977 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that this is a longer section that has been broken out of the main Age of Empires article. To me, it reads as a list of the various unit and their roles. Although more indepth that most causal readers care to know, it actively explores the various fundamental parts of the game. --Mr Minchin Canada 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cross between a list (WP:NOT) and a game guide. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clearer consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a game guide, and all the handwaving in the world doesn't change that. Want to know how to play the game? Read the manual. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a game guide. If you don't have the manual, go and look it up on gamefaqs on the 1000 other game guide websites out there Bwithh 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Definitely something that should have been in the box that contained the CD's. If it isn't, turn yourself in at the police station, but don't go looking for answers in the encyclopedia. Geogre 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a game guide. No place for it on Wikipedia. --Tuspm(C | @) 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is relevant to the game.--Ageo020 02:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be relevant to the game, but it sure isn't relevant to this encyclopedia. Alphachimp talk 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide Stormscape 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft. linas 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not GameFAQs. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:10, 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. - brenneman {L} 07:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stickpage[edit]

De-proded, but notability concerns never addressed. Article fails WP:WEB and WP:V as its claims of notability are unreferenced. The site currently has ~8,000 members and claims "10,000+ members" prior to a site revamp, and boasts an Alexa rank of 10,296. I'm not impressed, but perhaps the community will feel otherwise. If the page is to be kept it will need cleanup; one editor has assisted in removing some POV and OR claims, but the article requires a serious de-POV workever. -- Scientizzle 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Artw 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember when stick man animation was a big deal a few years ago. Agree that it requires some serious POV work.Arevich 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, the creator of the article (and mostly all of its content), have been struggling to keep PoV out of the article. Many members of the StickPage community continue to add their personal opinions of StickPage Forums, despite the facts that 1) the article is not about SP Forums, and 2) it's pure PoV. Otherwise, I've been going crazy over this deletion issue. I'm not quite sure what it is that needs improving, otherwise I'd gladly change it in a heartbeat. If anyone would like to help me out in cleaning up the article, it would be greatly appreciated. It's an article about a legitimate web-based business, and I believe it should stay. ShadowNinja 14:22 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, decent Alexa rank. Kappa 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10,296 is not a decent Alexa rank. BigE1977 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete was torn on this, but the words "one of many websites" kept jumping out at me; what makes this better than the other many ones? WP:WEB criteria, while steep, is not really addressed even minimally in the article. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clearer consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: does this website have anything special about it? Is it one of the first of its kind? Does it have any other claim to importance? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no article here. "X is Y. Click." What on earth does anyone learn from the 'article?' That there is a site with stick figures? In other words, the article is a web guide, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. This would be true if the site in question were top 5 or bottom 5: the article is a web guide entry. Geogre 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Clearly not a advertising article. would say it is a decent alexa ranking. since we have had websites with alexa ranking of above 100,000. --Ageo020 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no claim to following WP:WEB. Alphachimp talk 02:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no particular notability claimed, and uninformative article. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Lack of originality is not an automatic qualifier for deletion. This could be developed further into an article which gives a better view of the site and mentions the trend as a whole. --Khatores 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is like an expansion of what should be an external link in stick figure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Dhartung. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Totally Spies!. – Sasquatch t|c 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britney (Totally Spies)[edit]

This is an article about a character for a show which Wikipedia doesn't even have an article for. Fancruft. Beno1000 00:53, 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. – Sasquatch t|c 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Yamout[edit]

Non-notable artist with an unsourced article. Very little on google. I came across this at List_of_Lebanese_people#Artists where it's the only entry I've seen that has a weblink which suggests ad to me. I've listed this as AfD rather than Prod in case someone with greater knowledge of nail art than me can add to the discussion. MLA 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As it stands, the article does not assert any notability that would meet WP:BIO. --Satori Son 21:44, 23 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, Avi 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No assertion of significance at all. We find out that he has a day job, and then we're told to click on the links. That's either vanity or advertising, but, without any claim of notability in the field ("has been praised" is a passive voice construction that doesn't give us any actual claim), it's a pretty straightforward delete. Geogre 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, maybe possibly a weak keep. In smaller cultures, such as those found in ex-Soviet Eastern Europe, or third-world or war-striken countries, people like this are sometimes all that the culture has to show for itself. Poverty and suppression can knock out almost all creative talent, and the few who manage to achieve anything at all should rightfully be considered to be notable. In the United States, we are awash in (truly, honestly) great talents on every street corner; other parts of the world are not so lucky. As to this particular fellow, I cannot tell. If someone is notable enough to still have someone writing a bio for him at age 61 -- well, maybe they're actually notable. I dunno. Just careful what you delete. linas 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
    • Comment: I quite agree that we have to be sensitive, but we also need the article to give us indications so that we can be sensitive with wisdom. By its very nature, an article like this comes from someone with computer access, and some reading of our other articles should give the author a sense of what's customary in an article. We can only judge by what they give us. I agree that we shouldn't be unnecessarily snotty about our votes, but the sheer volume of inappropriate articles a day would try the patience of a saint. Geogre 11:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be cleaned up and worked on, but for an artist working on a shoestring salary in relative obscurity, you can't expect a ton of information on Google. Additional research may be in order. Some pictures of Mr. Yamout's work would improve this article greatly.--Khatores 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An artist working on a shoestring salary in relative obscurity, you can't expect a ton of information on Google an encyclopedia article. -- GWO
  • Delete: potentially notable, and linas is right to caution us that war-torn countries such as Lebanon will suffer particularly from systemic bias. However, it is difficult if not impossible to verify the claims of notability, and as such it is likewise difficult to argue that the article should be kept in defiance of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. — Haeleth Talk 10:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The biography was taken almost directly from a page at the first external link, which is the artist's official site. The second external link is just a page from a web directory in Arabic and English where I couldn't find the subject's name listed. There is no clear indication that he meets any of the WP:BIO criteria. --Metropolitan90 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. rootology 22:19, 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 as db-bio. -- JLaTondre 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo_Kim[edit]

Obvious nonsense and possible vanity page ScotchMB 01:02, 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. – Sasquatch t|c 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Sentai episodes[edit]

This article is completely redundant with the episode lists in the articles for the individual Super Sentai series. For the uninitiated, Super Sentai is a franchise, not a single series. It does not make sense to put the combined episode lists of a franchise that contains 30 series' into a single article, separate from the series articles. Furthermore, the episode title translations here are largely incorrect, with many of them seeming to come from an automatic translator such as Babelfish, while the translations in the individual articles are better-written and were translated manually. jgp (T|C) 01:10, 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 Speedy delete per CSD A7. There ya go, Geogre. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsitsi Chengeta[edit]

Delete as no nobility offered and a google search provides 5 results, none of which are contextual nor appear to be this person [2]. Speedy tag removed previously by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 speedy delete: Honestly, out of respect for afd, I won't pull the trigger, but this is a very, very routine A7. The lady might be the most famous person in all of the Russias, but this article just says that this is a model/singer. Geogre 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tuspm(C | @) 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --awh (Talk) 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No hits on Google images --Clappingsimon talk 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. Tagged. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:13, 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 08:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanized Death[edit]

Delete as the entry fails WP:BAND. Speedy tag removed and replaced with re-direct; re-direct removed and content re-added. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only source is a geocities link which already tells me that it should be deleted. -ScotchMB 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pretty much an A7 speedy delete, as this is a Maxell recording artist. The depressing thing is that all those bands in the 80's who made cassettes and sent to "zines" are now pressing CD's in their bedrooms and running websites. It's nice to see the good old days again, when it was easy to tell the significant from the gigging bands. I'm sure they were wonderful, but they're not encyclopedic. Geogre 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Definitely non-notable. Fails WP:BAND as mentioned. --Tuspm(C | @) 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unknown band. --Ageo020 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UndeleteMechanized Death was produced by R.Stevie Moore, an important composer/casette tape musician. Do note delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.5.157 (talk • contribs)

UndeleteMechanized Death see links lists: content already linked to other notable articles

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

The result was delete, WP:V, WP:NOR.  RasputinAXP  c 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inducted members of the International Hockey Hall of Fame[edit]

I have not been able to find any references that this is factual. The IHHOF does not make any references to inductees other than inductees to the Hockey Hall of Fame (e.g. here they mention Sutherland was inducted to the HHOF.) I asked for references on the talk page in May, and nothing has come up. -- JamesTeterenko 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Here is a list of the inducted members --Khatores 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) It does appear that the article references Wikipedia. That was an oversight on my part. Apparently that's what voting at 3 am will do for you. --Khatores 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ummm, Khatores... the articles on Answers.com are direct copies of the ones from Wikipedia. I want to see some REAL references. DMighton 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the IHHOF article if some sourcing can be found, Delete in any event. Given that their own website doesn't make any mention of such inductions, I don't expect any proof to come up at this stage in the game. RGTraynor 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless real verification can be found. BoojiBoy 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Need verification, which could easily be obtained by the creator of this article by contacting the IHHF directly. --Khatores 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this page, I got all this info from visiting the International Hockey Hall of Fame in Kingston. These were the players inducted into the International Hockey Hall of Fame located in Kingston during the era when the NHL was a partner in this hall plus the 1966 inductions which were not recognized by the Toronto based NHL Hockey Hall of Fame. After the NHL seized support in 1958 for this Hockey Hall of Fame to establish the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and were making inductions on there own for there Toronto based hall they decided to recogize all (with one exception stated below) the International Hockey Hall of Fame's inductions as also being inducted into theres, therfore these players are recognized as being inducted into both halls. Officially the actual inductions in the years stated was inducted into this Kingston based hall not the Toronto based hall. With the exception of Bill Goheen (inducted in 1952) who received a life time ban from the NHL in the 1930's as a player due to a conflict with then NHL president Frank Calder and the 1966 inductions which were after the NHL seized support for this hall--JohnnyCanuck 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This International Hockey Hall of Fame is NOT the same as the International Ice Hockey Federation Hall of Fame--JohnnyCanuck 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link above from the Canadian encyclopedia states that the IHHOF, "...has inducted, with one exception (Fred J. "Bun" Cook), the same players, builders and referees as the HOCKEY HALL OF FAME in Toronto." So far, that is the best reference I have seen. However, it does not completely match up with the article, since Busher Jackson and Bill Goheen are not covered by that statement. Also, it does not explicitly state that the overlap ended in 1952. With JohnnyCanuck's admission that it was original research, I still think it needs to be deleted. For now, it lacks verifiability. -- JamesTeterenko 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added a few sources, The International Hockey Hall of Fame and was the place that the first 40 NHL inductees gained entrance to the NHL Hall Source for Dan Bain Source for Mickey Mackay--JohnnyCanuck 06:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source [3] does not verify the content of the page in question. It states that Kingston is the home of the IHHOF and is says that Kingston is the place where the induction of the first 40 members of the NHL sponsored HHOF was done. I do not dispute either of those facts. That reference does not explicity say that members were inducted into the IHHOF. I believe that the essence of the dispute is what institution where the first 40 inducted into at the time. It is very clear that the HHOF claims that they were inducted into that institution. It appears that you are claiming that they were inducted into the IHHOF and the HHOF then assumed that history. As of now, you have not provided a reliable source that says this. I still believe that the article in question should be deleted. The other sources provided are only about single individuals, and do not represent a full picture. The fact that the IHHOF itself does not appear to make a claim to those inductions, you will have to provide a very solid source for me to be convinced that it is legitimate. -- JamesTeterenko 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per JohnnyCanuck, as sources in now provided that the inductions took place and a few sources for some of the individual inductees. --YoungWebster 04:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into IHHoF article. DMighton 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Counties in the UK[edit]

the page should be deleted as there is now a compact, widely-used template at Template:Scouts UK Counties that supersedes it. Chris 02:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom --Ageo020 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use the template. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris. --Bduke 07:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, template is small font and hard to read, list offers easier reading and the potential for additional information, such as populations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenteishu[edit]

Spam for a game in development. Staecker 02:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn, that's not nice. I'm just trying to get some exposure. =/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenteishu (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This line pretty much sealed it's fate "We are currently in the Pre-Development stage of the game". Um...no. Alphachimp talk 02:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that WP:NOT a publisher of original thought, WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:NOT a free host. Alphachimp talk 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please don't use Wikipedia to gain exposure. Non-notable and non-existant game - link to forum with a handfull of posts is only link. Kuru talk 02:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're in development, I didn't type that, I'm not trying to start any bs. If it's that big a' deal, delete it, Jesus. It's not non - existent, we've been developing the actual game for a while, the forum is pretty new, because I don't like using stolen software, so I suggest you become more knowledgeable about the subject you're speaking so strongly about, before you judge it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenteishu (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete Please don't take this discussion personally Kenteishu. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or a place to "gain exposure" for your current project. Once your game becomes notable someone will very likely create an article about the game. DrunkenSmurf 03:18, 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 all. Mailer Diablo 08:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls by state: States: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts[edit]

This is a multi article nomination. It's part of a series of noms of all the lists on list_of_United_States_shopping_malls_by_state The following list articles are covered by this nom:

These lists are bare lists with no explanatory text. Although some of the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Kansas (and etc for the other states) also exist and seem to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why these lists should exist. The talk pages do not give much support (useuall none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept in small chunks to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (note, more chunks coming, doing this in chunks is a lot slower than individual noms per list)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Two days back 'similar articles' were sent for deletion. The list is irrelevant. --Ageo020 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent -- Alias Flood 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous consensus on similar articles. Kuru talk 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless lists. ViridaeTalk 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all lists nominated. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as useless lists. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Koffieyahoo 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, textbook listcruft where categories are more appropriate. Ideally, also delete all the non-notable shopping mall articles, but I guess that's never going to happen. — Haeleth Talk 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. It's useless! --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as someone said, categories could always be used. Stephen B Streater 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless lists for which categories could be used. Benji64 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. This is not Wikicities. Just zis Guy you know? 10:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. THIS IS INTERESTING INFORMATION. ITS EXISTENCE IS NOT HURTING ANYONE OR ANYTHING AND IS HELPFUL TO THOSE WHO SEEK IT. IT ORGANIZES LISTS OF MALLS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA INTO A SINGLE LOCATION FOR EACH STATE. YOU NEED TO SERIOUSLY ANALYZE HOW YOU SPEND YOUR TIME IF YOU GO AROUND RECOMMENDING THAT THINGS BE DELETED SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FIT YOUR OWN VISION OF WHAT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE OR BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MEET YOUR OWN NEEDS WHEN YOU USE WIKIPEDIA. THINK OF OTHERS' NEEDS BEFORE ACTING SELFISH AND OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE. THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete useless listcruft. To the user above, please lay off the caps and sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this (~~~~). This list is too obscure for more than a few people to use. If someone wanted to find out which malls were in their area, they could use a phonebook. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for this kind of thing. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is merely your opinion that "this list is too obscure for more than a few people to use." How, exactly, would you be privy to that information? A phonebook would not have direct links to summaries of retail offerings, location, history, etc. of the malls in a particular state; Wikipedia, on the other hand, does. Why not get a life and stop worrying about deleting other people's information? Too little info is a problem; too much isn't hurting anyone except for wiki-trolls who spend their time harassing other people on here as though they own the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs)
    • There are no links on these articles, nor should there be. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. Please stop asking users to "get a life". This is not your information, if you think it is, you don't know what a wiki is. You are the one harassing users here, and you are the closest one here to a wiki-troll. This is a vote and discussion page, stating my opinion is certainly not acting as if I owned the place. I would appreciate it if you would be more civil, and state your opinion in vote form so the closing admin can more easily take it into consideration. Wikibout-Talk to me! 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am concerned that someone like yourself, who seems to have only a passing acquaintance with the English language, thinks he or she is responsible for writing and editing information in the public domain. I would recommend that you be permanently banned so that those who actually know the rules of English grammar could revise and expand Wikipedia without being harassed by those who decide, willy-nilly, that accurate, well-written information should be removed simply because they personally do not find said information to be useful for their own purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs)
        • As I said before, this is a vote/discussion page. Stating my opinion, which happens to be the same as 15 others, could not be farther from willy-nilly. You must have a limited grasp on the meaning of the words "well-written". This is a list, listing the malls with a hyphen next to the mall stating the city. Being banned is for vandals, impersonators, and users who continually disrupt wikipedia. I would reomment that you read wikipedias policies. Would you please quote some of my bad grammer? Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mikeeilbacher 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - a reasonable start at organizing information that is locally important. Wiki is not paper, and unless these are factually incorrect, not verifiable or notable they are not harmful. Categories work fine for articles that have entries, lists are good for developing those articles. 01:37, 30 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 all. Mailer Diablo 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls by state: States: Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada[edit]

This is a multi article nomination. It's part of a series of noms of all the lists on list_of_United_States_shopping_malls_by_state The following list articles are covered by this nom:

These lists are bare lists with no explanatory text. Although some of the malls are blue links, Category:Shopping_malls_in_Michigan (and etc. for the other states) also exist and seem to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why these lists should exist. The talk pages do not give much support (useuall none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept in small chunks to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (note, more chunks coming, doing this in chunks is a lot slower than individual noms per list)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls by state: States: New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island[edit]

This is a multi article nomination. It's part of a series of noms of all the lists on list_of_United_States_shopping_malls_by_state The following list articles are covered by this nom:

These lists are bare lists with no explanatory text. Although some of the malls are blue links, categories such as Category:Shopping_malls_in_New Hampshire (and etc. for the other states) also exist and seem to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why these lists should exist. The talk pages do not give much support (useuall none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which did not include this one though. Note also that these nominations are being kept in small chunks to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (note, more chunks coming, doing this in chunks is a lot slower than individual noms per list)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls by state: States: South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming[edit]

This is a multi article nomination. It's part of a series of noms of all the lists on list_of_United_States_shopping_malls_by_state The following list articles are covered by this nom:

These lists are bare lists with no explanatory text. Although some of the malls are blue links, Categories such as Category:Shopping_malls_in_South Carolina (and etc for the other states) also exist and seem to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why these lists should exist. The talk pages do not give much support (usually, none in fact). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state which may have included some of these. Note also that these nominations are being kept in small chunks to make it easier on the closing admin, deleting 40+ articles and all the links might be a bit much for one admin... ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (note, this is the last chunk... doing this in chunks is a lot slower than individual noms per list)[reply]

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

The result was finally, crash and burn... - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States shopping malls by state[edit]

The individual state lists seem to be gaining consensus to delete, it's time that this list went away too. Categories can do the job. Note that there was a previous AfD for this list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state, which was a close, no consensus. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, too. The categories are much more useful.--Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Koffieyahoo 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is what categories are for, people. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only thing a list can do that categories don't do better is include redlinks, and we don't actually want to encourage people to create articles on every single shopping mall in America. — Haeleth Talk 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the first of these lists back when they didn't have associated categories. (Personally, I think mid-sized or larger malls are more notable than others seem to give credit for.) Although 70-80% of the listings are blue links now and the categories have been created/expanded accordingly, there are still some fairly large ones that are red that someone could eventually turn into articles. If at all possible, I'd like to have the individual state lists userfied. Thanks. Kirjtc2 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a lot of userification!! it may best to put notes to that effect on the individual noms... I broke them up so that more than one admin could do the work instead of one monster project to delete all 50... but that means that multiple admins need to be aware of your request (more efficient to do it during the delete than to ask later... so make sure they know! ... but if any are missed, ask me, I'll do it) ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took the liberty of doing a copy/paste job for all existing lists and putting it at User:Kirjtc2/Malls - if you feel their histories need to be preserved, then go ahead with the userfication, otherwise, don't be too concerned about it. Kirjtc2 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:32, 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, keep by default - I count 4 clear keep votes out of 17, which is less than three-quarters support for deletion. The 'keep' voters have valid objections. I exercise some discretion in deciding to keep. - Richardcavell 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha - God or Man[edit]

Contains misguiding content (Buddhism is non-theistic); most part of the article has no valuable points and are of speculations, while some minor useful information should be merged with Buddha and is not worthy of an independent page. See Talk:Buddha_-_God_or_Man for more.

  • Delete. I say delete this page. There is no need for an article about a speculation about whether Buddha was God or man. It is widely accepted that Buddha was not a God, he even stated he was NOT a God. So no merit in keeping an article about a speculation, even when the person himself has stated he was NOT. Other then that, some contents featured in the article might be useful if add it to Buddhology (the nature of Buddhas). Monkey Brain 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is not about speculation on whether Buddha was a God or man. It is a description of common Buddhist beliefs on the subject. I have suggested a merge of this page myself, but there's no reason to use the AfD process for a page merge. Heck, you could do the merge yourself right now, if you want.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Buddha - God or Man", seems pretty much like a speculation to me. And as for the merging, I have said, it might be useful to merge. But that's only if others can identify the usefulness of these information. Other then that, I myself am in favor of deletion, but the reason for deletion is simply because the article is a speculation in nature. And speculation itself is not enough for an article. And as I have said, merge only the ones, which if others can identify as useful, to the either Buddhology/Buddha's main article. Monkey Brain 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is the speculation in the article? I agree that the title "Buddha - God or Man" sounds speculative. It's not a very good title. That is remediable by using the move function.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have took out the sections which I thought were unrelated. And I have moved some contents over to the God in Buddhism (God as manifestation of the Mind). But the rest that are left, are already stated in Buddhology (the nature of Buddhas). So the article is ready for deletion. Monkey Brain(talk) 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then Delete. After some cleanups the rest useful part is not big enough to stand for its own article. -- G.S.K.Lee 02:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am really not an expert on Buddhism, so can't be sure if the article is Original research or not. --Ageo020 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No serious case for deletion has been made: "misguiding content", "no valuable points", etc. are entirely the opinion of the nominator, who has certainly not demonstrated himself to have any particular expertise on the subject. I don't know what he is referring to by "speculations". A possible merge with other articles has been discussed on talk by the main authors of the article, and this discussion should proceed normally without reference to this AfD.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR & WP:POV This is original research because the authors are not citing the works of noted scholars, but quoting translations of a couple of fragments of buddhist literature and making their own personal interpretations. --Xrblsnggt 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the personal interpretations that you feel are being made here? What is the POV that you believe the authors are pushing?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to be a potentially interesting review as the to Buddha-nature, but I am inexpert enough to judge solely on the content. I'd like to see only proclaimed Buddhism experts participate in this vote, so that votes such as mine could be invalidated by more learned authorities. Having to vote on something like this is one area where WP seems weak. linas 04:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this is not a vote, that final statement has no foundation. And the way that we solve these things on Wikipedia is not by having editors assert subject expertise (which is impossible to confirm), but by citing sources. An expert editor should be in a position to easily locate and cite reliable sources on the subject matter to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and not original research. Expertise is expected to involve knowing where the subject-matter sources are. (See Wikipedia:Expert editors.) I encourage the editors who are wanting this article kept to cite sources on the subject. Uncle G 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that this is not a vote, I imagine, then, that the fact that the editors suggesting deletion outnumber those suggesting keep by (currently) 5 to 2 will ultimately be considered irrelevant, right?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If sources where this topic has already been the subject of analysis are cited to demonstrate that the article is not original research, yes. But despite encouragement, no-one wanting this article kept has yet cited a single such source. Uncle G 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article cites more sources than the average Wikipedia article. Wouldn't a {{fact}} be more constructive? However, I'm no longer very concerned about this matter, because much of the material has already been merged to another article, and the authors of Buddha - God or Man don't seem very interested in defending it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Zero sources (which is what the article cites) cannot be more than the average. Uncle G 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was referring, naturally, to the article as it existed when it was nominated for deletion. There were 5 sources cited. These have apparently been removed by Monkeykiss, the nominator, when she merged text to God in Buddhism.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes. I, not she (remember: there are no girls on the intraweb :P), moved a section (god is manifestation of the mind) over to the God in Buddhism, where I thought it was more related. And the four references that were stated were not removed but simply moved to God in Buddhism article at the near end. The rest of the article is left so that others can see that it is fit for deletion. Monkey Brain(talk) 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR -- Koffieyahoo 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR & WP:POV. Medtopic 08:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are some sources and the main text is full of quotes from named places. Even after removing all unsourced material, there is interesting stuff left. Stephen B Streater 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:OR & per nom. 64.210.19.234 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR & WP:POV. Possibly merge cited material to God in Buddhism and/or Buddhology. —Hanuman Das 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have yet to hear an explanation of what the alleged POV of the article is.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks far too much like a POV fork for my liking. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, failing that, Merge to Buddha. bikeable (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It still seems that some of the text from this article can be merged in the God in Buddhism. If the editors conversant with the topic feel that what is left is either having little relevance or is completely OR, then delete. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this appears to be OR. HGB 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis i. dupont high school tiger marching band[edit]

Non-notable high school band, does not meet music notability guidelines, merge with Alexis I. duPont High School article. Dhartung | Talk 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sorry about the multiple syntax errors, I was thinking of another template. --Dhartung | Talk 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. This is on WP:RM already but I believe AFD takes precedence. There's a smidgen of information here that could go in the school article, but nothing else -- two festival awards? -- is really notable. It's a high school marching band. Lots of schools have them. --Dhartung | Talk 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nom. must agree that lots of school's have musical bands. --Ageo020 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College marching bands are borderline, but high school bands? No way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is sort of ridiculous, and obviously fails WP:BAND. It's only inclusion in the HS article should be in "they have a band, it's name is the tigers." Alphachimp talk 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp. ViridaeTalk 03:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Alphachimp. --Tuspm(C | @) 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The Tiger Marching Band's cadence was created by the drum section and is recognizable to parade goers throughout northern Delaware". If that doesn't establish notability, nothing will. Daniel Case 03:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all delete votes above. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. Also, I am unenthusiastic about high school-related articles which don't use proper capitalization. --Metropolitan90 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clubs/bands/satire magazines/cliques at schools are still non-notable and unencyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, school bands aren't notable unless they were noteworthy on a wide scale. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth keeping.
  • Keep As the author of the article, a few notes: It meets the criteria for a notable organization: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." The organization hat made multiple appearances on the national and international stage, including multiple appearances at the Tournament of Roses Parade, the Lord Mayor's New Year's Day Parade (London, UK) and the Saint Patrick's Day Parade (Dublin, Ireland). I believe this establishes the notability on a wide scale of which Coredesat speaks. I should also note that there are far less notable high school bands present on Wikipedia. Finally, to address the capitalization issue: Rookie mistake. Upon the article posting, an request for migration was made to correct this.
    • Comment. Yabbut Google dupont.high.school+tiger.marching.band and you get 18 hits, three of them Wikipedia and its mirrors. Ultimately, I'm skeptical that a high-school band can be notable. FYI, the capitalization is not a reason for deletion, as that can be fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the school article or delete. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, the article is misnamed (capitalization error). Second of all, I think the fact that the band has been in parades such as the Tournament of Roses and the Saint Patrick's Day parades merits a mention in the school's article. I think that's what the school articles are for. On a serachability note, I think users would look for this information at the school's page and not on a separate page. For all of these reasons, merge. Jacqui★ 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Edit: I have checked the school's page and the information is there. I don't think a redirect is necessary, so this page can go now.)[reply]
  • Merge to Alexis I. duPont High School. --Wine Guy Talk 01:17, 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 Speedy delete, no context and attempts to find the context fall at the hurdle of unverifiability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Thistlethwaite[edit]

Suspected hoax. There is no mention of Joshua Daws or the book series anywhere on Amazon.com. No verifiable information is present in this article. --Xrblsnggt 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, came up completely dry in a search as well. Would love to see any verifiable references to the book, author, or character. Kuru talk 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. linas 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Possible speedy as A1 (very short article with insufficient context to identify the subject), since this makes at least three of us who have totally failed to find any references to the books or author -- assuming good faith, it's possible this is a character from a book-within-a-book or some such, but if we can't figure that out, then... — Haeleth Talk 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy for emptiness: A predicate nominative is not an article, and in this case a trivial predicate nominative about an unpublished book is most certainly not an article. Geogre 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, only google hit with "" is the wikipedia page. -Royalguard11Talk 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN. —Hanuman Das 00:17, 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 SPEEDY DELETE (A7). TigerShark 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Wood[edit]

No verifiable informartion. Either not notable or a hoax. --Xrblsnggt 03:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people); non-notable person. Fabricationary 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's a real story here, it should be written. Until that time, delete. linas 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 speedy delete: The article claims only that she got married. I suppose "important Brownie leader" is a claim, if an oxymoronic one, but I, personally, consider a claim to notability to be present only when there is something more than an adjective. I may be meaner about A7's than other people, granted. Geogre 12:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Just using the word 'important' once should not disqualify from A7 deletion. No other assertion of notability made. --DarkAudit 13:14, 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 wasAuthor requested deletion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Corpse BBS[edit]

This non-notable forum fails WP:WEB. Heck, it even includes an official memberlistAlphachimp talk 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these redirects to this article: The Official Cannibal Corpse Forums, Cannibal Corpse Forums, Official Cannibal Corpse Forums, Cannibal Corpse boards. Alphachimp talk 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why these forums haven't been considered for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Anime_Alliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_Our_State http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_4_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_BBS Well, basically half the forums under this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_forums Haven't been considered for deletion, but the Cannibal Corpse BBS has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCBB (talk • contribs)

OK, so go nominate them. linas 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yup Category:Internet forums could probably use some reviewing. I did not see a WikiProject this would fall under, so note was left on the Portal:Internet talk page. -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a worthwhile entry, if only because it (the forum) is an extension of the site for (again) one of the world's foremost extreme metal bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.141.164 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Dreamcast Web Forum[edit]

Forum likely fails WP:WEB as it doesn't even exist anymore. The article contains a link to web archive. It maybe merits 1 sentence of mention in Sega Dreamcast. Alphachimp talk 03:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete linas 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no there there, as the lady said. The information could well be in the parent article, but there is no justification for a separate article. Geogre 12:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official Delete since WP:NOT a web directory, officially. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. lol. Alphachimp talk 20:32, 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 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miaplaza[edit]

Social networking site with Alexa of 250,101. No real assertion of notability. Oh yeah, fails WP:WEB Alphachimp talk 03:27, 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 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal McCann[edit]

non-notable, advertising, vanity. Crabapplecove 03:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Promo. Daniel Case 03:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising agencies should be held to a much much higher standard. Surely, they can do a better job of promotion than this! I want Well Turned Prose! Pictures! Sound! Catchphrases! Fluff! More More More! Sock It to Me Baby! linas
  • Delete as blatant WP:SPAM and no assertion of meeting WP:CORP, and add the shamelessly inserted e-mail addresses to some internet spambots, just because... I'm not really a jerk, honest! :) --Kinu t/c 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is blatant advertisement. In fact, speedy delete. Valoem talk 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme violence Blatant spam like this does not deserve a five-day discussion period. It's continued presence lessens Wikipedia. --DarkAudit 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, ad, POV, ect. -Royalguard11Talk 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure if the company meets WP:CORP but is sure is one heck of a WP:COPYVIO with the entire article pieced together from their website -- Whpq 19:45, 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 08:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of F.E.A.R. weapons[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game manual. This should be deleted just as the list of Halo weapons and List of vehicles in Halo 2 were. Phoenix Hacker 03:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopaedic cruft. linas 04:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide Stormscape 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then Delete Merge with the main F.E.A.R. article. I will merge now. :) Valoem talk 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft, non-NPOV. -- Koffieyahoo 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge with F.E.A.R. main article not applicable, that article is already large enough. Please suggest what content should be removed from this weapons' article, so that we can edit or, eventually merge with F.E.A.R. if final size is small enough. Berserker79 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then delete Allright, I checked out the contents and must agree most of those made the article look like a game guide. I've already condensed most of the contents into the main F.E.A.R. article, so feel free to go ahead with the deletion. Berserker79 10:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then Delete Merge with the main F.E.A.R. article. Some of our attention spans are capable of dealing with long articles. -- GWO
  • I already merged this ... delete Valoem talk 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the merged information is enough, chunk the rest per nom. -- H·G (words/works) 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and clean up The article could use some pruning, but is fairly sure to still be too long to merge. This isn't inherrently game guide material, even if parts of the article currently read that way. This isn't game guide material and is critical to explain what F.E.A.R. is to someone who hasn't played it. Not covering the guns in a first-person shooter would be like not covering the characters in a novel. Someone seems to have changed this to speedy deletion after less than 24 hours per a supposed consensus, which is bad form. Ace of Sevens 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - first off, indeed the AfD shouldn't have changed to speedy deletion, esp with the AfD discussion having barely begun. I've taken the liberty of reverting it. As for the article, in my opinion the material covered here is already mentioned sufficiently in the main article for F.E.A.R (thanks to Valoem's work, apparently). The separate article supplements it with detail that, while intriguing, still could be considered crufty. -- H·G (words/works) 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at the main F.E.A.R. article and htis is indeed covered pretty well. I guess I underestimated the amount of fluff in this article. So delete as redundant. Already covered in suffficient detail elsewhere.Ace of Sevens 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I'd simply like to point out that F.E.A.R. (computer game) did not contain "redundant" info prior to this AfD nomination: simply I've worked on a "condensed" version of the contents of the weapons article (after its nomination) and added it to the main article, so this may account for the "presumed redundancy". On the other hand, Valoem's previous merge of the full list article resulted in a massive size increase of F.E.A.R. (ironically the weapons article was created because users asked to split the too large main article), compelling me to shorten all the stuff, still trying to make sure the relevant contents were kept. Berserker79 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a game guide, redundant, fluff take your pick all apply. Whispering 18:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the most important stuff is already in the main article now. -- gakon5 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what needed to be merged has been merged. WP:NOT a gameguide. Proto::type 10:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Combination 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then Delete some of the information in this article is important to the game, it should be highlighted in the F.E.A.R. page.--Mofomojo 02:28, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape glitches[edit]

First glance suggests this should be listified, but the more I think about there have to be thousands of these as the intro implies. Certainly their notability would be hard to establish even within the Runescape community, much less outside of it, and if the first entry is any indication this would just be gamercruft. Daniel Case 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. non-encyclopaedic, fails to establish notability. linas 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's any reason why a particular glitch is somehow notable, it (and its notability) can be described in the main article for the game. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fundamentally unverifiable, and of questionable importance even then. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless quality citations can be found, eh? WilyD 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Delete, direct the creator to the RuneScape wiki, where this depth is more appropriate. This article is pointless, as the only entry is already covered elsewhere. It's getting rather annoying, this habit of RS subpages appearing out of nowhere, for no good reason, when they are covered in a much better fashion on another page, and don't deserve their own separate article anyway. Another example is Stronghold of Security, now a redirect. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this doesn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion WilyD 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm sure there is/was a CSD for duplicated content. I might be thinking of reposted content though. I've changed my vote to Strong Delete. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can speedy for recreation of previously deleted content with little/no change, yes WilyD 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill per all. Hyenaste (tell) 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'm a fan of the way the creator used Headline text as the first headline. Hyenaste (tell) 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, plus that glitch was fixed ages ago. It's hard enough covering all the current RuneScape info without also including minor things that are no longer even current. Runefire 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BURN TO ASHES Utterly useless. A royal waste of server space! (And I'm usually pro-RuneScape articles) → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 18:03, Sunday May 5 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is not complaint with Wikipedia:Verifiability (and might never be). Additionally, the extraordinarily narrow topic is non-notable, and the article is written in a tone that doesn't conform with WP:NPOV. John254 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. Including some notable Runescape glitches in the RuneScape article makes sense. This does not make sense. It is, in fact, nearly incoherent. I might have said merge but there is basically nothing here. Jacqui★ 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose the topic creator was bored and fascinated with Durial's exploits. Ugh, and that writing style annoys me. He's writing it as if he was posting in a forum. --That Jason 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminate with extreme prejudice, gamecruft, unencyclopædic, et cetere. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 04:00, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAGNAF[edit]

dicdef, neologism, just plain dumb. Crabapplecove 03:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dicdef and neologism, and Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. However, Google finds some use of the term, so Wiktionary might possibly consider it. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 04:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. I heard this used in my own youth, about 20 years ago. It's hardly new. But it can't be in Wikipedia. Daniel Case 04:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not necessarily a neologism, but certainly not Wikipedia worthy, as it's essentially a dicdef. --Kinu t/c 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Urban Dictionary is the only source, and it appears anyone can add to it, non-notable. -Royalguard11Talk 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense neolojizm Just zis Guy you know? 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--A Y Arktos\talk 02:31, 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, and of course, anything by Bush is BJAODN-able. ;) - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bush administration puns[edit]

Original research, POV, and unverifiable silliness. Crabapplecove 03:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Stormscape 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. (possibly speedy keep ???) This is a list of other, notable, WP articles, covering hot political issues. I don't see how a list of WP articles is "POV" or "original research" -- the criteria for deletion haven't been established. linas 05:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axe this evil article. --Merovingian - Talk 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually only three of the pun links out of nine refer to wikipedia articles that are relevant and only one has external source, which actually gives 0 relevant google hits. Hence, delete by WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a jokebook, or the Onion. Also, these jokes mostly suck. -- GWO
  • Delete no barrel left unscraped... Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic topic, as shown by the lack of an article on Bush administration puns. Usually, an article on X should be created before creating a "List of X." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy POV GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR. -Royalguard11Talk 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BOLLOCKS Rob 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and strong keep per Linas. -TrackerTV 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN per TrackerTV. —Hanuman Das 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While basically true (ha), highly unencyclopedic in tone and not funny enough for BJAODN. Delete. Jacqui★ 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting for non-US-users. Strong keep. --213.155.224.232 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Bucaneros De Tarifa[edit]

non-notable non-article ostensibly about an obscure RPG guild. Crabapplecove 03:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete so way non-notable its silly. linas 04:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yet another gaming clan? They should be happy that they've managed to get themselves on this. We don't need this here. WP:NN, WP:CRUFT. --Kinu t/c 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.--Khatores 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another clan, unless they're worldwide known, in the media everyday, or did something big, then they're non-notable. -Royalguard11Talk 17:48, 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 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstarlings[edit]

"a underground gothic alternative Social community". Doesn't have an Alexa rank but I think that if it did, it would be equivalent to a pretty nice after-tax salary. In any event, article is promotional and seems to fail WP:WEB. Daniel Case 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I typed the article and it wasn't meant to be promotional. I simply have a darkstarlings and came here looking for more info, When I didn't find any I typed an article on it. Also, What would be my motive to promote it? I don't own it or are getting any profits, So therefore it'd be pointless for me to promote it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake12 (talk • contribs)
    Please don't delete the section head next time next time. Whether you gain anything or not is immaterial (ahem). The text sounds sort of like an ad (see our growing site!).
    But the real issue is that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards for websites ... see link in nomination. Daniel Case 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that :-/
    But really I don't think it should be deleted. I know it kinda seems like an ad but I just thought Darkstarlings needed a Wikipedia, and honestly I couldn't gain from it at all so why would I promote it? Not much motives come to mind. But I'm sorry if I typed it wrong or made it seem like an ad. But please don't delete it. Theres really no reason to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake12 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: User's first and only edits. Daniel Case 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted. WP:WEB. See above again. It doesn't look like a notable website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Daniel Case 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well myspace has one and Darkstarlings has about 50,000 members so I thought I'd give it a wikipedia. Seems fair its been up for 12 years and has 50,000 members. It deserves it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake12 (talk • contribs)
Membership counts mean nothing here as far as websites are concerned. Has it made the news? Is it run by someone notable? Does it generate content used by other sites? Basically, those are the three WP:WEB tests, and nothing to support any one of them has been offered here. Daniel Case 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User's first and only edit. Daniel Case 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say KEEP as well. The article needs to be rewritten ASAP (notice the article now). Jeff and Kyle, no one knows who that is. MySpace shouldn't be favored, but the article needs rewritten.--Dess 05:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I have A ds. And kyle and jeff are legnds!! I LOVE THEM. I'M A DORK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.32.233 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 05:41:47
Again, user's first and only edit. Daniel Case 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:69.212.32.233 also vandalized this page a couple of hours ago. Not helpful. Daniel Case 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB; Alexa of 69,647; some Google presence but few links that aren't from blogs, forums, or sites that otherwise do not pass WP:RS. Willing to reconsider if new evidence is provided here. --Kinu t/c 05:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, unless published about includes security vunerabilities at well-known sites recoding these. -- Koffieyahoo 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Underground" and "alternative" more or less preclude "notable." If it's way up in the rankings, it's not underground or alternative, and if it's underground and alternative, it can't be way up in the rankings. That aside, the article is pretty much non-existant, with another predicate nominative and then "click here." That amounts to advertising with one declarative sentence prior. (Oh, and it's still small compared to MySpace but not small...whatever that means.) Wikipedia is not a web guide, dating guide, advertising medium, or news paper. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Geogre 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anything that draws out the socks can not be a good thing. bd2412 T 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... it's certainly not ranked anywhere near my after-tax salary!! =P Failure of WP:WEB and possible self-promotion... Srose (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm in it. Trollderella 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No harm is not a valid reason for keeping a page. Those voting to keep should please take the effort to explain which of the inclusion criteria are met. --Kinu t/c 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's smaller than myspace, and we don't even give myspace sites an entry. -Royalguard11Talk 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above Logicaldisaster 23:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Mansonite/mallgoth. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 11:07, 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 Speedy delete to put the thing out of its misery. Just zis Guy you know? 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Necklace The Friendship[edit]

Reads as if written by a child. Title apparently refers to two different fictional stories. Crabapplecove 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. linas 04:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The talk page suggests this may be an article about fan fiction relating to the Crash Bandicoot video games. The Crash Bandicoot articles don't indicate that there has been professionally published fiction about the character. If the story under discussion is fan fiction, it's unlikely to be notable. --Metropolitan90 04:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD G1, not patent nonsense per se, but "the text is unsalvageably incoherent" in my opinion... would be a strong delete regardless, since it's fan fiction (and supposedly even in English). --Kinu t/c 04:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G1, I'd say that's unsalvageably incoherent. Appears to be the start of a fanfic. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's about some kid's fanfic. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:38, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Dem Back[edit]

Irrelevancy, FDB is a small group of students with a personal grudge against people with certain political affiliations. Their actions and lack of credibility don't warrant an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Merovingian (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. I don't think that opposing fascists and neo-Nazis constitutes a "personal grudge against people with certain political affiliations". The fact that the group claims activity in two countries (Australia and New Zealand) is a point in favor of their possible notability, but I will let editors more familiar with this group judge that point first. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Their activity in NZ is limited to one or two semi-active members. It is more of a cult than a legitimate organisation. They are fairly despised by both anti-fa and left-wing groups alike due to their strange and more-often-than-not inappropriate tactics. The Merovingian
  • STRONG DELETE. Outside extreme left-wing organisations they are not generally known. I dont think they are worthy of note. Delos
    • ...Why are you bringing your personal bias into this? Ansell 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any support for the nominator's allegations about the group or its reputation. I'm aware of them as a leading opponent to the New Zealand National Front and the Australian Patriotic Youth League. They seem to be quite active and notable enough for an article. -Will Beback 05:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has vaule in an encyclopedia. It is an unbias article that contain factual information. This article also has notablilty because student interested in hate groups and racism can relate to this information. This in no way falls in the articles for deletion. Creating a harder than deleting 05:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although FDB might not be that well-known or vitally important, there is still a role for the article. Anyone, for example, researching the contemporary history of anti-fascism in Australasia or in the free speech/hate speech debate would find it useful. However, it is important that the article is kept robust and NPOV. --BobFromBrockley 09:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 160 unique Googles attest to the difficulty of covering this neutrally from reliable sources. Nothing on Google News (although to be fair there's only on Gnews cite for the Anti Nazi League, but that scores many more unique ghits). A laudable enough aim, but this group is not yet of any provable significance. Just zis Guy you know? 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to neutral', article is being cleaned up, but it still looks like it has a way to go before it is fully sourced and verifiably neutral. Give the Aussie authors the benefit of the doubt for now and come back in a month or two to see how it's come on. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Seems mostly to be WP:POV as it is referenced by its own site (links 1,3,5 and 6),an abandoned blog by one of its members (2),and an article written by one of its members in a (possibly defunct) NZ student magazine. There is a link to an article on the Australia First Party site, but I'm not sure one (possibly not entirely unbiased) reference is enough to produce an NPOV article. There also seems to be evidence of a few revert wars which is normally a pointer to POV editing. That said, I think a bit of cleanup would save it. Yomangani 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's been some cleanup and external references added. I'd like to see a more rigourous treatment of the Criticism section and some references for the middle paragraph of the Politics section, but I don't believe this now merits a delete.
  • Keep Numerous articles in all major Australian newspapers, and most major NZ papers. Members have appeared on a number of television news reports, as well as A Current Affair and Today Tonight. I'd like to assume good faith on the part of wikipedian Delos' vote to delete, but according to the FDB website he once said he'd like to hang an FDB member or take him out into the desert and "peg him." [4] Surely you must consider them somewhat notable if you have expressed a desire to kill them? Drett 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless it can be drastically rewritten. The are no reliable sources for the article - it appears to be vancrufspamismentKeep per a couple of decent references being added WilyD 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd also like to assume good faith on the part of the person nominating this for deletion, but it appears that their one other contribution to WP is a single piece of vandalism. Drett 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best course of action then is to assess the article on its own merits, and ignore who is involved in the process. Whether the article is nominated for deletion by Jimbo Wales or 223.181.64.221 shouldn't affect the outcome, the deletion, retention or no decision should rest solely on the qualifications of the article. WilyD 17:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely making the point that the nomination may have been made in bad faith. To assess the article on it's merits: It would appear that the article refers to the group's website itself for trivial information on the group. It also refers to critics of the group for criticism - this seems reasonable. Once it has been decided that this article should not be deleted, it would probably be a good idea to utilize the wealth of information printed on this group in the media to broaden the scope of the article. This conference paper from the Queensland University of Technology may also be of use. [5]
No, before it's decided whether or not to delete the article, these kind of references must be added, or the only appropriate conclusion is delete. The citations are all blogs (i.e. valueless) and the group's own website (equally valueless). Essentially, there's no real evidence presented that the group even exists. Whether the nomination is made in good, bad or indifferent faith is entirely irrelevent. Rather than resort to personnal attacks against the nominator, instead argue the merits of the article. If the article merits inclusion, the result of the debate will be keep. Relying on a group's website for information is terrible, best illustrated by all the nominated band websites - for example, if you read my band's website, you would wrongly conclude that a) we exist, and b) we play music. Without a real reference, the article fails WP:V, a non-negiotable policy of Wikipedia - and thus is deserving of deletion. WilyD 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought we couldn't edit while it was proposed for deletion... it just can't be blanked. Drett 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - you're definitely allowed and encouraged to edit articles while they're up for deletion. Poorly written articles that need rewriting are oft times deleted when an overhaul is in order because overhauling an article is a lot of work. WilyD 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as WilyD says, you can certainly edit articles during an AFD, in fact lots of articles have been saved from deletion because the issues have been addressed during the discussion. If you have something to verifiable and NPOV to add, get in there. Yomangani 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles from newspapers (such as The Australian and the Australian Jewish News) which discuss this group's activities in a general manner (as opposed to members commenting on incidents or issues) - however these articles are no longer available online from their original source, but have been copied onto the group's site verbatim. Is it acceptable to add these as references? Drett 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's acceptable, although obviously not preferred. See WP:CITE for details on quoting intermediate sources. Yomangani 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I added a bunch of references. They can be found online at: [6] [7]and [8] Drett 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no doubt that this nomination for deletion is in bad faith, motivated by the fact that the nominator (203.89.173.120) is a New Zealand white supremacist/neo-nazi, who happens to be one of the investigative targets of FightDemBack.Schmoul Aschkenazi 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could refrain from making personal attacks and stick to the issue of the article and whether it merits deletion, that'd be swell. There are places to resolve differences with other users - those places do not include AfD. Thanks WilyD 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a personal attack if the information is true? FDB are quite aware of the position of the neo-nazi at the cited IP and attempts to baselessly smear or defame the group in efforts to dilute the FDB message. Defaming FDB is their only defence- their politics are certainly indefensible. Schmoul Aschkenazi 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serious? It passes both elements of WP:ORG: Inclusion in third party published materials. and A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject. Drett 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article contains references and there are some references in the Australian media on their activities. They are verifiable and notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:ORG (which is a proposed guideline, not suitable as a sole reason for deletion), and cites media references to pass WP:V, WP:NOR etc. --Wine Guy Talk 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject of several media references in New Zealand and Australia. I am well aware of them and their activities seem notable enough for me. Notability, not credibility, is the issue here. Also, I don't put much cop in an unsigned AfD nomination, although this could have just been a mistake. --Canley 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article passes all the major policies. Since when is a nominators personal dislike of a group a valid question. Also does not give the nominator much credibility not to sign the nomination. Ansell 06:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson's polynomial[edit]

Article appears to be nonsense. There actually is something called a "Wilkinson's polynomial", which can be googled, but this article appears to describe something else; it appears to be original research of some sort. Although an article describing the real, actual "Wilkinson's polynomial" can be and should be written, it seems easier to do that by starting from a clean slate -- there appears to be nothing salaveageble from this article. linas 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The definition is correct. See for instance Hong Zhang, Numerical condition of polynomials in different forms, Electronic Transactions of Numerical Analysis, 12:66, PDF, or the original in Wilkinson, Rounding Errors in Algebraic Processes, published somewhere in the 60s. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless immediately cleaned up. I showed it to a mathematician friend and he says the article is partially correct, but mostly nonsense. Without any valid sources or exposition in layman's terms, there's no way to prove this isn't a hoax. A Google search turned up very little. Crabapplecove 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such option. We're trying to determine whether a topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, not whether an article is any good in its present form. The topic is real, definitely not a hoax. So all that's left is deciding whether it is of sufficient interest for an article. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean, "no such option"? This is a discussion, not a vote; we're debating what should be done with the article, not selecting from a list of predefined outcomes. It's perfectly legitimate to make a recommendation conditional. It's also perfectly legitimate to demand that a particularly poor article on an encyclopedic topic be deleted, since this hardly prevents a good one being written in future; it's better to have missing articles than misleading articles. — Haeleth Talk 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read the deletion policy. Deleting an article just because it's partly inaccurate is not an option. Holding an article hostage by saying "delete unless cleaned up" is not in accordance with deletion policy and such opinions are usually discounted by the closing admin. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Linas is perfectly justified in proposing to start over if necessary. Fortunately, the present text, as cleaned up, seems to be satisfactory. Septentrionalis 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite/expand. Wilkinson's polynomial and the numerical issues it illustrates are quite real. This case should have been referred to fact and reference checking instead of AfD. I'll add a few references now. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jitse. He is a numerical analyst. It is described as Wikinson's Pathologic polynomial in "Numerical Methods that work" by F. S. Acton, Harper 1970. However the second equation is not correct and not a Lagrange form. It needs fixing by someone more expert than I. --Bduke 08:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the second equation is indeed a lagrange form: just use the roots as "interpolation points" plus any other point and you got a "special" lagrange form of the polynomial; the point here is that all coefficients but one equal zero: this could explain why you failed to see the match with a lagrange form... Julien Tuerlinckx 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is now, but it was'nt when I wrote the above. It looked like unfinished work starting from a copy of the first eqn. --Bduke 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but if the above concerns are accurate and the article is incorrect, it must be fixed promptly. It's far too common for people to recommend keeping an article on the assumption that someone else will fix it, only to find that a year later it's barely been touched. I suggest that this should be given an {{expert}} tag, with a view to bringing it back to AfD in a month or two if no expert has deigned to check the article and correct any inaccuracies there may be. — Haeleth Talk 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looks interesting. Perhaps tag the incorrect part for correction. Stephen B Streater 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I fail to see the inaccurate or incorrect part (maybe the numbers added recently can be tagged as inaccurate since it does not use the ad hoc notation (we only have 5 decimals...)). I feel more like a lot more could be said on this topic, so the expert tag seems a good idea. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The topic is important in numerical analysis. I have given the article some of the attention it seemed to need, perhaps enough to sway the few delete votes. --KSmrqT 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems important, and I fully trust the other professional mathematicians here. —Mets501 (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe speedy keep as I am the one who opened the AfD. My apologies. The article is now a fine article. linas 00:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, modified article looks fine now, all seem to agree. --Salix alba (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep this please the article is now modified thank you linas
  • Strong keep This is my first time seeing the article, and it is well-done. Acyso 06:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chardi Jawani[edit]

obscure campus folk-dance team, non-notable. Crabapplecove 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. The photo will need to be deleted as well. Can that be done as part of the entire package here, or do we really have to go through a whole separate deletion proceeding for that? --Icarus (Hi!) 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Jimbo68 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. We'll have to get rid of the photo through IFD. Why isn't there a way to speedy not-needed images? -Royalguard11Talk 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article and scrap the image. Not at all notable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:57, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JCC Maccabi ArtsFest[edit]

Event is still a month away, text is promotional and I really doubt it will be notable even after the fact Daniel Case 04:06, 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 speedy delete, an unremarkable group with no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warders of the 7th sigil[edit]

Article consists of a few opinoniated blurbs about a non-notable gaming guild. Crabapplecove 04:12, 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.  RasputinAXP  c 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian C. Thomas[edit]

WP:N Cartoonist, but not much of a web presence, see article Talk page Clappingsimon talk 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See [9] - appears to have been published in a number of mainstream publications ([Total Girl] for example) as well as myriad non-mainstream comix. Drett 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:Dret Mikeeilbacher 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crises in Israfghyianonanaq[edit]

219 Google hits for something The Daily Show just started doing. Truthiness had legs. This does not, yet. Daniel Case 04:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing really even on the page anyway. If it becomes a popularized segment, it can be made then. As it is now, it's just a one time joke. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Five Questions doesn't have its own article, and that was a pretty established feature. Why? Because there's not more than a few lines to say about it. Same applies here except this one isn't even established or particularly notable. GassyGuy 09:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proto-protologism that isn't notable at all yet. Plus the author left out Iran. (There's an extra "an" between Lebanon and Iraq.) -- NORTH 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario World (pirate)[edit]

I had put a prod on this for being NN, but it seemed to actually be a real thing, not as hoaxy as I first believed. While the prod was not removed, the creator made an argument for keeping on the talk page, so I felt I should change it to an AfD myself. I am no longer certain whether this game (or whatever it is) warrants a page, but the current page is totally not an article, and so even if there should be an article, it may be just as well to delete and start over later. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not going to tell you to keep this article because I have not done research on it's factuality. However, this is the kind of thing that harms Wikipedia. If you are not sure of its factuality don't just recommend it for deletion. Research a little. But, I do agree that it is not article because of zero citations. Creating a harder than deleting 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominating for deletion is rarely a harmful action: where an article should not be deleted, an AfD is often the necessary stimulus for people to research the topic and improve the article. In this case, it is certainly less harmful than letting the prod run its course and having the article deleted on a technicality without any scrutiny from other editors, don't you think? — Haeleth Talk 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be real, but it's not really all that notable. Unless it's sourced with reliable sources, it's unverifiable. My google searches turn up nothing. --ColourBurst 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst: hard to verify, and probably not encyclopedic even if verified. — Haeleth Talk 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can find more information on it and others like it here --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know for a fact that this exists, however it's not really notable enough to merit its own article. An article discussing the Sonic port to the SNES as well as this port might be a better idea. syphonbyte (t|c) 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think it should be kept,just to help make a complete list of games made for the genesis, its an available game for the the megadrive and is part of the history of pirate games made, people like to know about games like these. If it is deleted could i add it with screen shots to a page about cancelled, unreleased and pirate games for the genesis/megadrive, just to let people know about it-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esquire931 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast the Midnight Stars[edit]

Google found nothing ... rather odd for an online fantasy novel series. Anyway, I doubt it would be notable. Daniel Case 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD A1. With no external links, sources, or anything else, it's impossible for anyone who's not already familiar with it to expand. Furthermore, it's a vanity article. Article (if it can even be called that) is by User:SerenRaine; the story is by one "S. Raine". --Icarus (Hi!) 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. "X is Y" is a fact, not an article. Geogre 17:06, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtube[edit]

YouTube for the DIY porn set. Sounds like (I admit) a great business idea, but "beta testing" should not include a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 04:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and bookmarked ;-) Doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Koffieyahoo 05:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reason as above WP:WEB. Monkey Brain 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB.--Chaser T 11:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Is it becoming standard for people to create a WP article when they create a new site? Of course, I may have to do further investigation of this one ;-). Fan-1967 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In beta testing. If they get the kinks worked out, will the make the site vanish? WP:WEB. Geogre 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Groan per Geogre's comment. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh heh. A comedian's only as good as his material. :-) Geogre 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I saw this mentioned somewhere else and I looked it up on Wikipedia, not knowing what it was. I'm thankful I had the option of looking this up on Wikipedia rather than going to the site itself, due to the nature of the site. StaticElectric 07:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crabapplecove 03:09, 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 delete.  RasputinAXP  c 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Bachelor's degree[edit]

Unnecessary article. Everything covered here can be seen at the much more expanded Bachelor's degree. Prod was removed by page author without further expansion or explanation, except for a mergeto Bachelor's degree tag. There really isn't much to merge, though. — NMChico24 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Bachelor's degree; specifically, the explanation of the Bologna process. No need to have a separate article here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, if merge (which I do not support), do so with caution. For example, a law degree is more correctly a post baccalaureate degree than a bachelor's degree. Also be aware there is already an article by the name Professional degree. Agent 86 17:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the title is close to being a neologism. The editors of the main article can cherry pick from here if, indeed, there are cherries to pick! BlueValour 03:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Web Design[edit]

It's hard to even begin to say why something this strange should be deleted. Looks like it exists as a way to drop the creator's site URL. 2005 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:OR, WP:NOT a how (not) to, guaranteed WP:POV problems. Maybe there should be an article on poor web design and adherence to basic standards, but this isn't it. --Kinu t/c 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the examples make it into an attack page. Inherently non-NPOV. -- Koffieyahoo 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment even with citations you are saying I cannot improve this to not be NPOV? All I would have to do is add a section showing the viewpoint of people who say that bad webdesign is not the only consideration. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for all of the items on the list I can personally think of a reason in which case it could actually be part of good webdesign. -- Koffieyahoo 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for pointing that out! Let me look at this some more tomarrow, but what I plan to do is to provide keep most of the lists, but add several veiwpoints asserting exactly what you said. That would be the only way to make the article NPOV after all :) I am logging off after this post, but I intend to fix this tommarow —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me try to salvage... as deletion is not the only way. With a little effort this can become something good. Really a simple {{cleanup}} tag and removal of the links would have done, as the core infomation can be verified. (will do so) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment removed the examples, thus no longer an attack page. (will add non attack links and citations soon)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete seeing what others are saying, I don't see reason to improve this as we already have an article on web design. (Just found today) Hence I change my vote to weak delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, since it is hard to see how it can become an encyclopedia article rather than a how-to guide or tutorial, neither of which is appropriate on Wikipedia. (I also note with some amusement that the linked "top ten mistakes" list includes "not using tables for layout". So much for every advance in web design since 1997...) — Haeleth Talk 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, this is awful, should have been speedy delete.
  • Delete as original research and as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. As an aside, I'm personally rather fond of Vincent Flanders' Web Pages that Suck. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is certainly a valid subject; since the WWW was invented, making fun of ugly or unusable web pages has been around since Mirsky's Worst of the Web; see also the Vincent Flanders site that dpbsmith mentioned, and which is probably an article-worthy web site in itself. Oddly, we have articles on bad web design topics like mystery meat navigation, but no general article. This could become the start of one, but it needs substantial improvement, and what's here isn't all that helpful. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sadly - there is undoubtedly an encyclopaedia article waiting to be written on the many horros of bad web design, but this is the wrong content at the wrong title. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. We have an article for W3C. And while I personally agree with what's there now, I think any article at this title would probably be OR. In fact, it may get worse, with edit-warring about what exactly constitutes bad web design. On the other hand, I echo Smerdis of Tlön's suggestion for some sort of non-OR parent article on the subject, at some other name. Jacqui★ 20:23, 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 redirect. Punkmorten 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston T. Party[edit]

This article consists only of a note about the pseudonym of Kenneth W. Royce, which is already covered in Royce's article. G Rose 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Kenneth W. Royce, since I doubt anyone looking for the Boston Tea Party would spell it as such. Nothing to merge. --Kinu t/c 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kinu. Luna Santin 09:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as redirect as no one is going to disagree with this one. There's really no point in bringing this stuff to AfD. This article barely warranted merge tags.--Chaser T 09:36, 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 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barracoda[edit]

I prod'ed this article several weeks ago, but the tag was removed by the author. The author appears to have done research into this fish called a "Barracoda". That's awesome, but it violates No Original Research. Since my prod, the author added two sources, a fishbase listing of the Sphyraenidae genus of the Barracuda species (just a listing, no real source). And an extremely long veterinary journal entry about shiny eyes in fish.

I have no doubt at all that there is some great research going on here, but it's original research, and Wikipedia is being used as the vehicle for publishing it. The professor (and marine biologist) who wrote it even admits that he just discovered it and is "tickled pink" about his discovery. I'm sure there's some venue for publishing of this caliber, but Wikipedia in its current form just doesn't seem like the right place. Let's add this article after it gets published in a journal. Alphachimp talk 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:NOR. Please come back and create the article when there are published sources that describe this phenomenon and use this name for it. — Haeleth Talk 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOR. --Tuspm(C | @) 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Looks like a big old hoax to me. None of this is verifiable, and the name is a cute pun. NawlinWiki 12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this information has not been published yet, then it is original research. --Joelmills 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook, delete when that's done. - Bobet 13:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lychee Martini[edit]

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Prod removed without comment by an anon. Originally was an advert, now toned down but no references. Quale 05:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) transwiki to wikibooks, perhaps? --ColourBurst 05:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then put it there, thanks. Tychocat 11:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the cocktails articles linked to on List of cocktails are notable cocktails. The others need to be deleted. I have transwikied over 100 cocktails articles to wikibooks myself and then turned them into redirects, but people keep making more. --Xyzzyplugh 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakwood Cemetery (Simcoe)[edit]

Contested PROD with no reasoning. It looks like a non-notable cemetery to me, based on the semi-logical reasoning that (with all due respect to the departed) no individuals who would meet WP:BIO are buried there. Delete. --Kinu t/c 05:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Find a Grave confirms that nobody famous is buried there. But isn't a cemetery inherently notable? Have we been deleting cemetery articles before on this basis? —Chowbok 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I suppose my rationale wasn't worded in the best possible way. My primary reason to suggest deletion was the basis that it's a non-notable location and fell under WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The latter rationale was simply my trying to take it one step further and explore the more general question of what a cemetery's notability has to be for it to be included. If there's been a discussion about this and all cemeteries are notable, then that point is moot and I'm open to withdrawing my nomination and speedy keeping if such a precedent exists... and please point me to it. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cemetaries are noteworthy.--Nicodemus75 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because cemetaries are not inherently noteworthy. Some are, some aren't. To be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, the article needs to contain an assertion of notability. Otherwise it violates the WP:NOT rule against being an indiscriminate collection of information. Some cemetaries are huge, long lasting things. Some have only one or two graves, and nobody knows who is buried there. This article contains no assertion that this cemetary is notable for the history of cemetaries, the history of the area, or for anybody buried there. In short, it is yet another cemetary, and thus the article should be deleted. GRBerry 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry. Great, now cemeteries are being called innately notable, for no reason. Tychocat 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, this article was created by an editor famous for creating bogus or useless articles. I've also submitted his account for possible blocking. Rklawton 14:45, 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. Rje 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lotus[edit]

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Part of an attempt to use Wikipedia to advertize Lichido. No references. Quale 05:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I have edited that page and cited sources. I removed the advertisement of Lichido. This is a drink stub no different from Long Island Iced Tea or Screwdrivers.Valoem talk 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Long Island Iced Tea and Screwdriver (cocktail) get articles because they are well-known, iconic drinks, and both articles duly discuss things like appearances in popular culture. However, this article is merely a recipe, and Wikipedia is not the place for those. — Haeleth Talk 11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Whispering 11:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No room here for every recipe, also not a famos cocktail as mentioned aboveJimbo68 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This recipe is perfectly legitimate, just as all the other recipes on the List of cocktails— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichidogirl (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: If you feel that way your always welcome to prod those articles. Oh and please sign your comments. Whispering 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Remember that Red Lotus is a drink and so is a Screwdriver. It is hypocritical say that Red Lotus does not deserve to be on Wikipedia and Screwdriver does because Red Lotus is not as well known. Obscurity does not classify lack of notability, otherwise any article that is not well-known would not be on Wikipedia. A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency a Red Lotus is known outside of the interest group (which I presume to be people who drink Red Lotus) I for one have never drank a Red Lotus but has heard of the drink before. Valoem talk 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly transwikiing this to wikibooks first if it's believed wikibooks might want this. Notable cocktails such as Martini (cocktail) deserve an article here, mere recipes don't, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 8. --Xyzzyplugh 12:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged to Thanhouser Company, left as a redirect. No real need for Afd here. Friday (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Thanhouser[edit]

This non-notable article fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. It almost looks like a Speedy A-7. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: UPDATE - The above points were well taken and I have transferred all the info from Edwin Thanhouser to Thanhouser Company. It's too bad I didn't think to do that before I nom'd it! While the company's article still needs much work, no useful info will be lost if the bio gets deleted now. My apologies for my own confusion, as well as any I've caused for you :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:59, 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 keep.  RasputinAXP  c 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Folzenlogen[edit]

I think this guy is non-notable, and doesn't fall within wP:BIO. I also believe this is vanity written by the subject of the article. For the lazy, the guideline for artists is "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" and I really don't think he falls within that. He is claiming notability based on his accomplishments as a painter, however almost all of the 116 ghits relate to his connection with the Unification Church, and the article contains a link to the subject's indictment of Hyun Jin Moon, which I think is going to come back and bite someone on the ass (it is at least unwise). The sources for this article are basically local-interest stories in very small local papers (I live in Manhattan and I've never heard of the Manhattan Times.)

  • Delete forthwith. 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Makemi, You might have waited until you read my response to your posting on Talk:Tim Folzenlogen - which I wrote immediately after you posted it without getting up from my computer - before sending this to AfD with erroneous information ([addition]: but I see from the edit conflict that you have corrected some of it). I am not the subject of the article. I am a highly educated professional who has taught at the college level for almost a decade, and I would certainly not have taken the time to write an article about Folzenlogen if I did not genuinely believe him to be a notable artist. It is true that I know of Folzenlogen through our both having a past association with the Unification Church, and that almost all of my edits have been on related topics. It is also true that the Manhattan Times is not a big paper; I was surprised myself when I saw that it has no entry in Wikipedia. There may be better sources out there; I put this initial attempt at an article together today based on what I found on the web. Please read below the discussion from talk page of the article in question.

I wrote:

Before commenting here I would just like to ask editors to read the article carefully. I think there is enough information in the article already to make clear that Folzenlogen is a sufficiently notable artist.

There are a large number of artists (in the broad sense of the word, including painters, writers, musicians, etc.) who have a page on Wikipedia in spite of the fact that, unlike Folzenlogen, they are not sufficiently successful to support themselves full-time. A fair measure of a living artist's abilities and popularity is whether people are willing to pay large sums for his or her work. The fact that even Folzenlogen's small paintings command 4-figure prices and that he has sold over 1000 paintings is an indication of his significance.

At the Virtual Museum of Art, an "on-line exhibition illustrating major achievements in painting, [etc.]," the page on Contemporary Realism states "After 50 years of being practiced in the wings of the artistic community, Contemporary Realism is making a reappearance," and Folzenlogen is listed as one of the 11 references of Contemporary Realism painters or web sites which list painters or discuss Contemporary Realism. Folzenlogen is an important figure within this reemerging genre.

Although I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and am not knowledgeable of every aspect of recommended procedures, I have read much of the material on proposed deletions, but little of it seemed to apply in this case. Because the template instructs "You may remove this message...if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason," I am doing so in good faith. I welcome debate on the issue, however, especially any advice on how to improve the article. -Exucmember 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makemi Wrote:

Have you read the guidelines on Autobiography? This seems to be an autobiography, and it seems that it is being used as a platform for a very very poorly sourced attack (that's not quite the word I want, perhaps assault?) on Hyun Jin Moon and the Unification Church. Do you realise the amount of vandalism, slander, and attack that will earn you? Are you prepared to put up with that? You could remove the notice, go through AfD, and it's possible that it will be kept, as notability is a difficult issue, and many people are far more willing to have more in the encyclopedia than I think wise. However, you should seriously think about whether you actually want an article on Wikipedia. Mak (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote:

Alright, now I understand why you nominated this article for deletion. No, this is not an autobiography! I am not Tim Folzenlogen. I do not even know him personally, though I do know of him (and I am genuinely impressed by his work in addition to my knowing of him because of our both being members of the Unification Church). I didn't know a lot of the details, however, so I did have to do some research on the web to get a lot of the references and quotations, most of of which I didn't know before today. In fact, the reason I put the stub section tag on the "Thought behind the art" section is that I wasn't confident I was encapsulating his thought adequately, and if not I hoped someone would give a more representative quotation.
As to the issue of his run-in with Hyun Jin Moon, this is already well-known within the church. Members who spent any time on the Internet have been hearing about it since the mid-90s, and there are several Wikipedia pages which mention it and several web sites where Folzenlogen's letter to Rev. Moon is posted (though I don't think he has it on his web site; he seems to be free of resentment over his experience while a member). I also harbor no resentments, and am not interested in making personal attacks; I explained my rationale earlier today on my user page for the minority of edits which are unfavorable toward the church but that I hope will lead to reforms. My purpose in choosing the username "Exucmember" was because my original motivation for editing (and the character of my early edits) was to counter the religious bigotry toward the Unification Church. I thought it would be a plus in defending Unificationists against such bigotry for it to come from a clearly identified ex-member. I realized recently that the username is significantly detrimental in making any edits that seem critical of the church. Before you jump to conclusions about me, you might want to look at the explanation on my user page and some of my edits on pages such as Moonies and pages that link to it or used to link to it, favorable comments about my edits from Unificationist User:Steve Dufour on Talk:Sun Myung Moon, Wolli Kangron, Unification Theological Seminary, New Hope Academy (which originally sparked my editing, and where you can clearly see from the talk page that I live in the Washington, D.C. area, not New York), Cult, Love bombing, etc. If it were not for bringing some of the problems into the daylight with the (barest) hope of future reforms, I might well have been accused of being a Unificationist posing as an ex-member. So you really needn't worry about my being attacked. And in fact, before I'd read what you wrote above I had already revised that paragraph in a way that toned it down significantly, feeling that it was disproportionate to the level of detail I had about Folzenlogen's personal biography. I would certainly not have taken the time to write this article if I did not genuinely believe Folzenlogen is a notable artist. I would appreciate any response or suggestions you may have. -Exucmember 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the Unification Church issue, most of the text in the article is just an argument why the artist should be seen as of any relevance (and thus as worthy of an wikipedia entry). "compared to Edward Hopper" ... "50 solo shows" ... "popularity is reflected" ... etc. Is he on artnet.com? No. Is he on artfacts.net? No. Relevant for contemporary art? Unlikely. *Delete. --Jbirken 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. But give some examples of the artist's work. Aye-Aye 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank

He is claiming notability based on her popularity as a writer, however almost all of the 116 ghits relate to her connection with the Jewish religion or their treatment by the Nazis, and the article contains a link to the subject's indictment of an officer in the camp (who according to Frank's diaries from an earlier year engaged in repeated surprise beatings of Frank), which I think is going to come back and bite someone on the ass (it is at least unwise).

I'm assuming Makemi is being honest in the first paragraph above, and it doesn't make sense to me. Of course, her first objection was that the article was an autobiography (which it is not), but this assumption still underlies the rest of her comments (except that the Manhattan Times is not a big enough paper).

She seems to imply that a second area of notability, Folzenlogen's being involved in an important incident with a top leader of the Unification Church and subsequently writing about it, somehow makes the article illegitimate. On the contrary - he is notable in two areas, either of which is sufficient in my opinion - and certainly both areas together are sufficient. For comparison, more than 25 "famous whistleblowers" are listed on the Whistleblower page on Wikipedia, most being famous only in relation to the act of exposing of the misdeeds of powerful people and organizations; only 3 of these do not have their own pages. Folzenlogen doesn't fit this category precisely IMO, but the comparison is helpful. Present and former members of the Unification movement are concerned about the leadership of the second generation, and some believe Rev. Moon has had a tolerant attitude toward the violence of his 3 oldest sons (the second by proxy - I'll explain this if anyone's interested). This genuine and important concern should be addressed by both sides by discussing the facts. It is not appropriate for Makemi to suggest that the issue cannot be mentioned because people will respond vengefully. Besides, this part of the article is very low-key.

Without coming out and saying so, Makemi seems to be implying that Folzenlogen's notability as an artist is just a smoke screen for his notable involvement in violent responses from Unification Church leadership.

  • Keep - 2 areas of notability.

Likewise without coming out and saying so, [User:Jbirken|Jbirken] implies that there is something nefarious or suspect about naming accomplishments of a professional painter in a biography. Obviously, naming accomplishments is very common in Wikipedia biography articles. It is as though Jbirken is continuing the same argument that Makemi is making, using the same erroneous assumptions. When I saw that Jbirken had only 5 edits before jumping into an AfD with bold and emotionally charged comments, it took all the goodwill I could muster to trust Makemi and assume Jbirken is not a sockpuppet. Perhaps s/he is a friend who thinks alike, who Makemi asked to contribute to an AfD, or maybe some situation I haven't thought of (but fervent contribution to an AfD on the first day must be unusual for someone with 5 minor edits who hasn't even been welcomed to Wikipedia yet!). The 3 facts s/he cites were in the same newspaper article (normal biographical writing for a profile in a paper); was the author of that article in cahoots with me several years ago just to set up this opportunity? And naming a couple web sites where Folzenlogen's name doesn't appear doesn't impress me.

For the lazy, the guideline for notability (the only reason this article is being considered for deletion) says: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." The guidelines are clearly uneven; the line right above Painters says "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" - a far more lenient guideline that would include vastly more people. One "alternative test" says: "Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?" Yes, but Makemi argues that the newspapers I got the information from are not important enough. -Exucmember 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say Godwin's Law? sheesh. I tend to be very picky in regards to my sources, aka Verifiability. The main problem I had with the Unification church part of the article was that it was based on a geocities site, and I never appreciate geocities as a source. The other sources are equally lame. Re: the more lenient guideline, I see no mentions of awards, and I wouldn't count any of the sources given as "reviews", but community interest puff pieces. As I've already mentioned, different people have different thresholds, I tend to err on the side of exclusion. Mak (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for your sock/meat puppet assertion, I encourage you to bring it up at WP:RFCU if it's worrying you so much. Mak (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I recommend finding some better sources, adding examples of the artist's work, and remembering to keep the tone scholarly and encyclopedic. --MarkBuckles 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way to be my meatpuppet, Mark :) Mak (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, we're talking about an artist here, which makes both sites I mentioned a lot more notable than any article in a local newspaper. Folzenlogen is neither represented by any major gallery, nor is he part of any mayor collection, nor was he part of any major exhibition (please, correct me if I'm wrong). This makes him an rather irrelevant artist, and this has nothing to do with him being member of one church or the other. OK, I'm not a regular WP user, but as an art historian I thought I could contribute something on a topic while idly browsing the AfDs. --Jbirken 10:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than half a million sites that mention the Unification Church, but very few (that have substantial information) are balanced or neutral. ReligiousTolerance.org is a neutral one, but it represents a superficial perspective and contains errors. The Geocities.com/Unificationism site is balanced rather than neutral, and its quality is apparently appreciated, as it comes up first when "Unificationism" is typed into Google.

The guideline I mentioned is not "the more lenient guideline"; it is the guideline for "authors, editors and photographers," as I said. My point was that the guidelines vary too much across fields, not to apply a guideline to a different field. I know of award-winning writers with many reviews of mutiple books who have never been able to support themselves financially from only their writing. Folzenlogen's paintings are sufficiently valued that he has supported himself entirely through his art for 30 years. I will comment within 24 hours on his shows, gallery affiliation, and prestigeous clients.

I didn't make a "sock/meat puppet assertion"; I said I assumed the reverse (read what I said). I also said "unusual for someone with 5 minor edits" (rather than "irregular" or "suspicious"). And Godwin's law doesn't apply; did you really not understand my point, Makemi? I could just as easily have used the analogy of Moe and Curly, except that Curly didn't put his complaint in writing. -Exucmember 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't know a great deal about art, but geniuses (even in fields that are less subjective) are frequently under-appreciated in their own lifetimes. I don't know whether this fellow is a genius, but perhaps he ought to be given a chance considering that some people think very highly of him. I'd like to respond to the Unification Church issue; I'm a psychologist (Ph.D.), and I read widely on New Religious Movements (for a paper I never finished) some years ago, especially the Unification Church, Hare Krishna, and Children of God. There are some criticisms which seem to be groundless, such as the one about the Unification Church having been founded as a front group for the Korean CIA, and others where there seem to be legitimate grievances. Nansook Hong's writings about Hyo Jin Moon's violence toward her, and Tim Folzenlogen's writings about Hyun Jin Moon's, are an important addition. -DoctorW 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (notability as an artist): Folzenlogen was represented by Allan Stone, who personally bought many of his paintings. (For those who don't know, Stone also represented Wayne Thiebaud, whose work at that time commanded the highest price of any living artist.) Folzenlogen became the favorite of Stone's biggest client, the President of Morgan Stanley. Other prestigious clients include Procter & Gamble, Barclays Capitol, Bill & Charlotte Ford, etc. His more than 50 solo shows were mostly in New York; take a look at the list (fyi, Bunkamura was the premier exhibition space in Tokyo at the time). Folzenlogen dropped out of the gallery world in 2002, and focuses on public art projects now. Take a look at his web site - it's pretty impressive. -Exucmember 05:11, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd-n-Tyler[edit]

Regularly vandalised page for a non-notable radio show in Nebraska. Article has had little real content added to it since January 2006. 571 Google hits for "Todd Tyler Show z92" = 571. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Luna Santin 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7. Tagged as such. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not speedy, but delete as non-notable. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm curious how this is not an A7. Is there something in the backhistory that makes a claim of importance? Radio hosts are a dime a dozen... -- nae'blis (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the radio show, at least notionally, rather than about the people. The A7 criterion makes no mention of being able to delete radio shows unless really, really stretched. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh. I was considering the show to be like the 'group' mentioned by A7, but I can see your point. No harm in waiting a few days. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is nothing salvagable here, otherwise I would say merge and redirect to KEZO but that does not exist either, yet. Yamaguchi先生 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - They are actually the number one radio station in this area and have been selected to recieve media awards and nominated for a Marconi Radio Award. They have again started streaming on the internet again. It is really a great show.. You can check it out http://wmc1.liquidcompass.cc/KEZO or check out the fan based site ran by fans at http://tntu.net/ -- MMMTnTU 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ianuale[edit]

Non-notable. 29 unique ghits, many of which are mirrors of Wikipedia. MyBlackBook has an article about it, and any info worth merging is already there. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:14, 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 by User:Edgar181 with deletion summary "CSD G8". BryanG(talk) 04:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nick Bain[edit]

Besides the fact that the page is malformed (it was created on a talk page), Nick Bain is nonnotable except in connection to Deal or No Deal. The mention in Deal or No Deal should be able to cover him. ColourBurst 06:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm inclined to say delete but perhaps the info should be merged to Deal or No Deal - the low amount won is mildly remarkable. Medtopic 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect - WP:NOT a listing of every guy who bombed on a TV game show. A brief mention at Deal or No Deal should more than suffice. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as a talk page with no article attached or Delete as nn-bio. MLA 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Winning a minimal amount of money on a game show is non-notable. --Metropolitan90 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He should have played better. (ie non-notable). -Royalguard11Talk 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8 - talk page of a page that does not exist. Normally, you'd just *bam* move it to article space since it was clearly accidentally malformed, but per above, the guy's not notable. No redirect necessary, at least not from Talk:Nick Bain. -- NORTH talk 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per North. I've flagged it. Alphachimp talk 01:08, 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. Rje 04:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ryan (journalist)[edit]

A journalist who got fired for plagiarism. Briefly in the news but not really encyclopedic; I don't think this article would have lasted this long were it not related to Wikipedia. Cites the Signpost twice; does now have independent references, all from his home state, one of which is a blog. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proto::type 09:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Interesting at the present, but will age badly Jimbo68 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Interesting at the present, but will age badly, and encyclopedia's don't do passing ephemera. -- GWO
  • Delete. Absent any other factors I'm missing, simply a working journalist who messed up. Far too self-referential, and frankly, the guy's suffered enough (Ann Coulter, on the other hand...). --Calton | Talk 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant sources to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin article. This man gave that paper a black eye. But he doesn't need his own article. Jacqui★ 20:27, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tohea Rpg[edit]

Self-promotional vanity article for a non-notable WP:WEB forum with only 600 members. The URL listed under external links currently doesn't work either ironically. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination - it was previously deleted after a prod. Fabricationary 06:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Medtopic 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Porqin 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If nothing was done after the prod to change it. -Royalguard11Talk 18:03, 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 as the consensus appears to be after relisting. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Majesty[edit]

Non-notable cable access show.--Crossmr 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lol. I was just writing this nom. This is what I was going to say:
This article is a stub for a Dungeons and Dragons TV Show that airs on public access television in New York and LA. That's awesome, but there's no assertion of any sort of notability (per WP:NN, I guess, I don't know the particular standard for this). The author removed my prod (and the reprod by another). Alphachimp talk 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this. It's a major cabel access D&D show. Within the community of TV D&D shows, this is the major one. Airs in LA and New York, as well as on the internet. If you have any doubts, see this [10] By the way, the essay referenced by AlphaChimp says this "This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline." Carfiend 07:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as WP:NN goes, it mightn't actually be a policy or guideline but it certainly tends to be followed a fair bit. BigHaz 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By sheep, maybe, but not by people committed to Wikipeida policy. Carfiend 07:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
watch your tone many people find that an offensive term.--Crossmr 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chill. Read WP:NPA and think about what you're going to say before you say it. Insulting other contributors is not allowed on Wikipedia, period. Captainktainer * Talk 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
policy?? They should chill. Carfiend 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate delete. 990 Ghits [11]. Never heard of Kubla Con, which doesn't have its own article -- while that's not the strongest point, I think it's fair to note it. Given that their main claim to fame seem to be web-based, it might be reasonable to apply WP:WEB, and I'm not convinced that they pass. Judging from the website, it's a public access cable show with about three or four episodes, which is what really settles it for me. May well be notable in the future, but I'd need some convincing. Luna Santin 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen this, and it is remarkable. It is not primarily a web phenomenon, it's public access tv. Kubla Con should definately have it's own article btw. Trollderella 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not debating how good of a show, we're debating the fact that its not notable. Those google hits peter out at 237 and most don't look remotely related to the show, as a web phenomenon it certainly doesn't pass, and as a cable access show in only 2 markets, it certainly doesn't have notable exposure.--Crossmr 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as pointed out about, the concept of notability is not notable. Or, erm, what was the word? Deletion policy, that's it. Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't point that out, Bighaz did. He also pointed out that regardless of whether or not its a policy or guideline people do tend to follow it quite a bit. They apply it to subjects that aren't already covered by guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and other notability guidelines. Lets also not forget its got a total of 3 episodes, which again would make it fail any kind of notability test. With such little exposure, this could be seen by many as just a way to try and advertise the show or gain notability.--Crossmr 17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a pernicious myth. Let's follow policy - there is no reason to delete this useful information. Trollderella 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your opinion. Others don't find it to be such a myth. In addition advertising is covered by policy. Were notability not considered, everyone could create a wikipedia article about thier pet project.--Crossmr 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my opinion" that notabilty isn't policy, it's a fact. Trollderella 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its your opinion that its a pernicious myth. Not that its not policy. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, therefore there must be guidelines on what can and can't be included. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox (Self-promotion) (which is policy) directly links to the Notability page. Policy or not, its relevant per that policy.--Crossmr 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN is an extension of WP:NOT, which is policy. A very large number of editors vote along lines of notability -- without notability, it becomes increasingly difficult to find reliable sources, at which point the articles are far more likely to contain original research, and fail to pass verifiability tests. Notability guidelines are the only thing between Wikipedia and a vanity article (or six) for every man, woman and child on this earth -- they're important. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if we include an article for every club, ever, the whole system breaks. So there has to be a filter, there has to be a line. We can debate all day about where the line should be placed, and whether this article is above or beneath that line, but I feel the line itself is necessary. How many hundreds or thousands of public access shows are there, in the US, past and present? The whole world? Can we afford to list them all? What's unique about this one? What sets it above the rest? I'm not saying there's nothing unique, I'm just saying I and a few others need a little more convincing. My delete vote isn't a vote against the show; I'm sure it's great, and I'm sure people enjoy it, and I hope they do. Luna Santin 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is well intended, but wrong. If an article is not properly sourced, then we should delete it. I see no reason to delete this public access show simply because you have issues imagining how we would deal with articles about other shows. Can we afford to list them? The simple answer is yes, if they are well sourced, verfied, and neutral. WP is not paper. Carfiend 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could just as easily say the same of you -- well-intentioned, but wrong. :) Ad hominem proves little. In my eyes, this is one of the "other" shows. Well-sourced? The only source I see used is the group's own website -- the only claim to notability I can find in the article is itself an apparently unsourced statement. There's almost no content in this article, "this is a show, these are the five cast members' names. Trust me, it's notable. Here's some links!" Three sentences and a five-bullet list. Are you honestly proposing that a few hundred thousand articles like that are a good idea? Luna Santin 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Let it be, and it will grow. I'm not judging those other articles until I see them. Again, notability has nothing to do with deletion policy. Carfiend 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has everything to do with deletion policy. The connection has already been made twice for you. As for telling us to let it be, see WP:OWN. The article isn't yours to control. Its not being deleted because its a stub. Its being put up for deletion because other than a mention in a year and a half old tv show, its not even on the radar. One common theme for notability is being published in multiple non-trivial credible publications. You've got one with G4techtv. Blogspot, myspace and earthlink don't fit that criteria.--Crossmr 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your points in order - notability is not part of deletion policy. There's no way to make it sound like it is. Someone above listed it being very short as a reason to delete it. I am not claiming to control the article. "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete it either. Carfiend 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:SPEEDY and specifically this part "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages." has nothing to do with notability? It has everything to do with notability, and this [12] which clearly states: "This category is a collection of possible criteria/policies/guidelines for inclusion or deletion of articles". Deletion is closely tied with notability. Whether or not its stated in full bold letters on the deletion policy page. In addition to that as someone pointed out there aren't enough reliable sources to build an article on becuase this is so far off the radar. --Crossmr 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought that this was AFD, not Speedy deletion. I was under the impression that Speedy applied only to speedy deletions. Carfiend 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is part of the deletion process here, and notability is part of that. Thus your connection between deletion and notability that you were seeking. Also the second link I provided had nothing to do with speedy and all to do with deletion and inclusion and notability is mentioned throughout. --Crossmr 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is part of the speedy deletion process, but not, actually, AFD. That's quite clear. There are many things that apply in Speedy but not AFD. That's why there are separate policies. The second link you provided does not, unfortunately, provide a link to any AFD policy that says anything about notability. Carfiend 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm not convinced that this has achieved enough notability to provide us with enough sources to write about it with a neutral point of view. My interpretation of notability is that notability exists to serve actual Wikipedia policies, and I think in this case we just can't source the claims that it's highly regarded, and I'm not certain we can be sure that it's aired where the article says it's aired. Captainktainer * Talk 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of evidence that it exists, and it looks like it has quite the following. Gravitor 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it exists is irrelevant. It is just an entirely WP:NN subject. αChimp laudare 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contrair. As someone else pointed out, WP:V is the gold standard, whether or not it is 'NN' is irrelevant. Gravitor 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The notability guideline is used extensively throughout WP:AFD. In almost all cases, an article can be verified but not notable. That's per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is an official policy. αChimp laudare 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But this isn't indiscriminate, it's very discriminate. Gravitor 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not remotely discriminate. By saying this should be kept, you're saying anyone who makes a 3 episode cable access show should be able to have an article on wikipedia. Discriminate is setting notability guidelines for inclusion so that every idea for a show that was ever executed doesn't end up here. You'd end up with thousands upon thousands of articles with that criteria. That is indiscriminate.--Crossmr 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying no such thing. I'm talking about this article, not the thousands of others that you are speculating about. BTW, we already have thousands upon thousands of articles. If they are neutral, verifiable and well sourced, that's a good thing. Gravitor 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not saying that, then this article should be removed. The sole credible source is a year and half old mention on G4TechTv, its had no other coverage by credible sources. Notability requires multiple non-trivial coverage in credible sources. This doesn't meet that. By ignoring notability, you are saying just that. Anyone could fire up a website for any cable access show for a few bucks and then base a wikipedia article off that. That is indiscriminate by not applying any other criteria to its inclusion and is a violation of WP:NOT.--Crossmr 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that, not notability. Which, as has been pointed out, is not part of AFD policy. Carfiend 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the notability connection to Deletion has already been pointed out twice and in several places. The fact of the matter is notability is often used to decide whether or not articles get to stay here and this fails terribly.--Crossmr 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people have pointed to things that are not policy, claiming that they behave as if they are policy, but frankly, the fact that you made a mistake before doesn't mean that you have to make a mistake again. Time to mend your ways! Carfiend 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mend my ways? People have pointed to several things that are policy that reference notability. WP:NN also references a long standing precedent of articles being removed on the grounds of notability. As such notability is a perfectly acceptable reason to put an article up for deletion. If you'd care to address the issue of notability, I welcome it.--Crossmr 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'issue with notability'. It's not part of AFD policy. WP:NN is an essay, not even a guideline. Carfiend 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. That is why its here. Others have other opinions.--Crossmr 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'my opinion'. Notability is not part of AFD policy. WP:NN is an essay, not even a guideline. Whether policy matters may, in your mind, be a matter of opinion, but that's as far as the room for argument goes. Carfiend 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been shown numerous examples of notability being tied to inclusion and deletion as well as policy, so no its not.--Crossmr 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that it crops up in essays, in other policy that does not apply to AFD, and that people think that it should be, but I have not been shown that it is actually in AFD policy. To me, that means something. Carfiend 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to cut in late, but you still didn't address how this is not in breach of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not sure you understand the boundaries standing between someone and creating a public access tv show (none). Are you advocating having an article for every single little thing that ever appears on a television? αChimp laudare 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about this article, which seems to me to be neutral and verifiable, and not to have offended against any wikipedia policy. Please remember that WP is not paper. Carfiend 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. its also not a directory. One thing to differentiate an article between being encyclopedic and being part of a general directory is notability. That is also part of WP:NOT. Almost anything can be neutral and verifiable (and no it wasn't neutral with statements like ...and Riley Swift - the dungeon master! it read exactly like a vanity page or ad. Which is what it is.). Neutral and verifiable are not the only criteria for inclusion. Some people feel that way, some people feel the other way and that is why were here. --Crossmr 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why "...and" is not neutral, but hey. It's odd that some people don't think that policy is important, but you're right, that's why we're here. Carfiend 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because its not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. It reads like an ad or sounds like someone announcing something flashy. And yes policy IS important. There are more policies than WP:V and WP:NPOV. You just took the time to quote WP:NOT by saying its not paper, read the whole policy. You can't use part of it to justify the existence of the article then turn around and ignore 2 other parts of the same policy that would say it doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 07:15, 27 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,--Crossmr 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable. If the girls can ramp up their popularity in a major way, then maybe. But at the moment, less than 1000 ghits suggests that this show has not attained critical mass. Their youtube audience is pretty underwhelming[13]. True, the girls seem to have only tentatively embraced youtube, but 400-600 views per clip after 1 month is tiny by youtube standards (there are over 1 million youtube videoclip views a day[14]) Bwithh 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty inclusionist when it comes to TV shows, but that doesn't extend as far as public access. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cited sources seem to be blogs, forums, the show's own website, etc. I don't think it is possible to write an article about this that is anchored in published sources meeting the reliable source guidelines. When it is mentioned in something like Wired it will be time for an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment it was mentioned on the Screensavers like 18 months ago, but that single mention I don't think brings it near enough notability. At least another mention or two plus some actual indication of viewership (i.e. big numbers on youtube) would be more in line.--Crossmr 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ViridaeTalk 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many above, especially Bwithh (no notability, on TV or on the web) and dpbsmith (no reliable sources). -- Kicking222 23:33, 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 Speedy delete — reposted content. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 08:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Danish: Super Snacks![edit]

Advertisement for machinima production. Article was previously deleted twice. Prod was removed without comment.--Drat (Talk) 07:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete if previously deleted. Medtopic 08:14, 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 move to WP:MFD as this doesn't belong at AfD. The new page is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard.--Chaser T 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard[edit]

One need look no further than the fact that this so-called "notice board" was created [15] by banned User:-Ril- -- This user is banned from editing Wikipedia under any username by decision of Jimbo Wales, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and/or a consensus of administrators. It has been determined by the Arbitration Committee that this user is a sock puppet of User:CheeseDreams. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2 for evidence. -- This so-called "noticeboard," while masquerading as a "NPOV" place is actually violating WP:NOT and WP:NOR designed to attract and encourage friction between editors of opposing views by appearing to be a place where the connection between Islam and Judaism may be compared and discussed, but where in fact only articles critical of Islam and Arabs are noted and by implication it in effect invites incriminating "counter-attacks" against Judaism, Christianity, or any perceived enemies of Arabs and Islam. This is a magnet for a disaster waiting to happen. There is also a huge logical fallacy at work in its opening premise by soliciting for articles that "includes interests in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict" and indeed the articles that have been subsequently listed essentially have nothing to do with Judaism or Islam as such, see Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard#Articles with disputes. Finally, this "noticeboard" is redundant because the very respectable and established Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and their respective talk pages serve as true noticeboards and are degraded by this sham pov magnet. IZAK 07:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. IZAK 07:50, 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 08:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Metal Works[edit]

Vanity/advertisement Ladybirdintheuk 08:44, 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. Kusma (討論) 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Beere[edit]

I'm sure she's a very nice person and a good teacher, but this article does not establish sufficient notability for an encyclopedic article. Would suggest to the closing admin that the page is userfied to the creator, should consensus be in favor of deletion. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some changes to this article since I nominated it for deletion, and while I never actually voted, I've starting to think that it was a poor AfD candidate — the OBE has been confirmed, and the addition of her book helps that much more. I originally mistook this as a vanity article by Beere herself, which it isn't. Since AfD's exist to establish whether an article is appropriate for inclusion here, and others have demonstrated that it indeed is, I'm retracting my support of the AfD and changing my vote to keep. Thanks to those who went through the effort of improving the article since the nom. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nomination. This article was created, went through speedy (with tag removed by author), prod (tag removed by author) and finally to AfD, all within 8 hours.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Keep - the article how has shown nobility and is well sourced. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here that meets WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The article says she received an OBE. Is that sufficient for notability? NawlinWiki 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonna vote Keep with the OBE verified. NawlinWiki 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian - Talk 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! OBE = notability! It's and achievment AND her website is used often by many other teachers as a reference site! Making her NOTABLE within the realms of teachers.--Gainax 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who cares about notability? This woman recieved an OBE. Trollderella 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the nature of her website at [16] raises at least the question of advertising. I see that University of Leicester says she received an MBE, not an OBE. Is there a good source citation for her having actually received an OBE (other than her own website?) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. I don't see anything in WP:BIO about the MBE constituting sufficient achievement to merit a WIkipedia article. Perhaps someone should try adding it to that policy page and see whether it sticks. I'm not going to do it myself, because I don't think it's sufficient. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation found via the BBC for her becoming an OBE in 2002. Added to article. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mattisse 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to correspond to the "notable in her field" criterion. More sources could be found, but I've made a start on probably the biggest one. Multiple non-trivial mentions in major news outlets. 8 hours is way too fast for a progressively saved article, please don't harass new contributors. This article was flagged for CSD in less than 60 seconds, then expanded, then marked for deletion again 14 minutes later, then expanded, then prodded 6 hours after that, while the editor had been working on it the whole time. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a six hour block, the editor wasn't working on it, and lacking any sort of information to indicate otherwise, it suggested that the article had taken the form he intended it to take — hence the prod. If you'd look through the edit history to see who had added the speedy deletion tag, you'd notice it was User:Pap3rw8, who has a history of overeagerness when it comes to article deletion (and is likely not monitoring this vote). And had you looked at the talk page, you'd see an explanation and offer of assistance from me. Finally, I suggested to userfy the article so the user's work wouldn't be lost (and possibly be available for an article in the future if consensus is for deletion but he can later establish notability). Please don't insinuate that this AfD is about harassing a user — it's not, and the suggestion can only breed bad faith. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!
I apologize, I was not trying to insinuate that this was an intentional harassment campaign on Gainax. It's just that, from looking at the article's history (which I did do before I posted here), there's a pattern of quick, terse deletion edits while Gainax worked for several hours to improve the article to try to stop them from coming. By the time you prodded, the article already had the OBE claim (unsourced at the time, but certainly a claim of notability). Only after gainax asked on the talk page did you engage in a discussion, rather than a place-a-template-remove-a-template shell game. I know New Pages patrol is a pain in the ass, and a lot of crap does try to get posted here, I was merely trying to remind folks that AFD should be the last step, not the first one (the initial speedy was appropriate for the state of the article's first edit, of course, but things evolved rather quickly from there). I don't think six hours is all that long a time to take a break... remember Don't Panic! -- nae'blis (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I have to sleep. The page was written around 2am (UK). I apologise for being a mere human, not a machine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gainax (talk • contribs) .

  • UPDATE* I have added 2 new items: One an interview with a faction of Channel 4, a mainstream terrestrial broadcaster in the UK. Secondly a link to the PUBLISHED BOOK of Jackie Beere... I belive these are notable achievments.--Gainax 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both are good additions to the article and will help establish her importance — however, please don't add additional votes onto this page. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OBE, come on. Keep! Aye-Aye 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For God's sake let him finish writing the goddamn thing before you read through and decide on notability. She is notable in her field. Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't mean unimportant. --CalPaterson 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When the Queen of England makes someone an OBE for "services to education", I'd say that makes one notable in the field of teaching. --Wine Guy Talk 08:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

A thoroughly unencyclopaedic article, which fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, or a game tutorial - this article lists how to play each indidivual song in the game (giving notes, and even keypresses!). It also tells the player where to find the Ocarina in each game. This is all game guide stuff, and should be deleted. Proto::type 09:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as nominator. Proto::type 09:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as game guide per nom. — Haeleth Talk 11:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How-to gamecruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wow it even lists which buttons to use. Per above. Wickethewok 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Benji64 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article as a whole does not qualify for deletion, if perhaps some instructory sentences should be deleted. The listing of note and button sequences (which has now been deleted by an unregistered IP; check history) is not a "how-to", but a source of relevant information. At least these relevant listings on the page are not "cruft" or useless, as even readers who are not familiar with the game can gain an understanding for how songs are played through the video game and its console by the "Sequence" entries, and what these songs sound like by the "Notes" entries. I especially deem it proper to have a list of notes in an article on songs where the reader cannot hear the songs being played. Also, the statement by Proto that "It also tells the player where to find the Ocarina in each game" is untrue, in that it does not say this for all the games and the Ocarina isn't always the featured instrument anyway. Nevertheless, any complaints of this nature could be resolved by editing small portions of the page, not deleting it altogether. --Tryforceful 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I deleted the button sequences because there really isn't an encylopedic reason for how to perform songs. As it stands, I don't think much can be done to save the article, unless it is pared down to simply a list of all of the Zelda songs. A few of them (such as the Song of Time) might warrant a sentence or two on their history and importance, but a lot of what is here is a genuine guide on how to play the games. I think a vast simplification could warrant keeping it as a list with an explanation of the historical importance of music and specifically player-created music in the Zelda games, and I encourage people to continue further editing the article to reflect that; however, I know that the newly established precedents and hoards of "gamecruft" calls will end up just deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.61.46.16 (talk • contribs)
  • Further Comment - I've edited it further to remove all game guide material, and now ask editors to weigh in again on this AFD. I think that in its current state, it provides a nice overview of the history of music in the Zelda games. Expandability options would include a more historical treatment of its evolution from a minor feature to a major gameplay element, which could be easily cited, or a more in-depth explanation as to the importance of certain instruments/songs to the history of the Zelda world (while avoiding how they're used in the game): the obvious example here is the Ocarina. 129.61.46.16 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment - If sheet music is added in, could that save the article? Logicaldisaster 23:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm honestly not sure - although at the very least, it would be awesome if we could find it and simply reference it in order to help verifiability. 68.106.198.28 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Keep - The article documents a legitimate element of Zelda games and should not be deleted. In some games (Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker especially), music plays a pivotal role in the plot and this article is used to talk about it. I agree that some of the article is cruft and needs editting but that's just it. All it needs is a little editting. The keypresses may be unnecessary and they've already been removed besides. It's not a game guide since music is so important to the storyline and should not be deleted. Axem Titanium 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would liken this to an article which lists the first sentence in each chapter of some very famous novel; it's crucial to set the tone of what follows, but we don't need this and I would think it unencyclopedic. The problem is that we don't, for the most part, see these analogous articles for none "pop" subjects because lovers of 1984 (novel), for example, don't have the young's passion and single-minded devotion for their pet projects (and let's face it, a lot less time to devote). So the result is ever more minutia from this type of subject forked into autonomous articles. Aren't the sound effects from the game incredibly important?; the artistry; its smooth scrolling system (I just made that up), etc. Sure, they're all important to the game. What should be included in an encyclopedia though. If someone looks up 1984 they should learn about that novel. We shouldn't have and don't need an article listing each fictional placename made up by Orwell for 1984, or one listing each place Winston visits therein. It's enough to give an example in an article on those subtopics which are important. We apparently do need, however, a separate article about every character mentioned in any manga. That songs are important to the game can be mentioned in the article on the primary topic, along with a precis of the famous songs, but forking that into a separate list of every song is beyond the scope and purpose of an encyclopedia (even one unconstrained by the limits of paper).--Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the point is that Wikipedia is really not constrained by paper. If the topic can be covered in an encyclopedic manner (and not as a how-to), then there's no reason not to cover it. Yes, if it is a minor topic, then it probably shouldn't be given its own page and instead mentioned on the main zelda page. If we look at The_Legend_of_Zelda_series, however (which has been rated as a good article), then it's already obvious that it's a pretty large page. At a certain point, you should branch off onto new pages; dial up readers don't want to load a single zelda page consisting of all of the encyclopedic information on Zelda available, and nobody else wants to read all the way through that either. That's the point of new articles. Also, by the logic of your post above, it would be much appreciated if you changed your vote from, "Delete How-to gamecruft." to at least, "Delete Non-notable." The logic of your post suggests that you don't think of it as a how-to, but rather as not being notable enough. 68.106.198.28 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
"Not-notable" is tautological here; "Gamecruft" is one type of not-notable animal. As for how-to, it was until cleaned up into another derivative list. We are not going to agree on whether anything that can be written about, should be. I disagree that this can ever be covered in an encyclopedic manner. It may be that words can be strung together in an encyclopedic tone—that's irrelevant—the topic itself is what I think is inherently unencyclopedic.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree to disagree on the notability of the article - all I want to do is ensure that the debate cannot be decided by WP:NOT a game guide. The rest of this AFD can hammer out the notability of the subject, but I hope it can be agreed that this article no longer construes a "how-to" guide in its current form and should not be judged on the original basis of the nomination. I believe the rest of this AFD should decide on the notability of this particular subject, and not the game guide issue. 68.106.198.28 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Keep per above. It is an important part of the game it should be fixed to take away game guides, but not deleted. -ScotchMB 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Music is such an important part of Zelda that I do think it's worth keeping. The article also has possibility for expansion, as mentioned above, with the comparisons of the importance of music throughout the series. Vickser 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. My love of the series vs. my hatred of fancruft make this a hard call, but I'd have to say a lot of this falls under "indiscriminate ... information". I'd be tempted to reduce this to listing only Epona's Song and Zelda's Lullaby/Overworld Theme (other famous ones escape me at the moment). GarrettTalk 06:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) -- I am reviewing my vote, and will re-vote in the section below. GarrettTalk 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [{WP:NOT]] GameFAQs. These songs have no obvious existence outside the game. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see above discussion. Most discussions of fictional characters, such as Charles_Foster_Kane have no relevance outside of their own fiction - that does not make them a "how-to" guide. 129.61.46.16 12:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Weak merge I am a fan of the Zelda series, so hopefully that is not coloring my judgment in any way. But, as a user, I find searching this article difficult, and I can't think of a way to organize it that would be less difficult, unless we were talking paragraphs instead of these disjointed lists-within-lists. If I were looking for information on the songs, this is not the page name I would enter in the search box, either. On the other hand, the music is a large part of gameplay, especially in the games where you actually play the music on your ocarina. But I think the best place for this kind of information would be in the articles about each game. Jacqui★ 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing the rewrite and subsequent comments, I'd like to clarify my position: do I think the songs of the games are not notable? Would I be unhappy with leaving the article where it is? Certainly not. If the article were deleted outright without at least some of this information being put elsewhere, I would be a little upset. But ultimately, I still think the presentation of the information would work better if merged. I also think the OST article ideas would work better if this information were merged, but that's not why I'm voting this way. Jacqui★ 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

  • Comment: I have just re-written the article into something now hopefully resembling encyclopaedic content, replacing the listing with actual information and shortening/combining sections. However there is still the issue of notability. I would request that all prior-voting editiors please re-review the article and see if it is now any more suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. — Ian Moody (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Ian Moody's request, I reviewed the newer version of the article. I still believe that a listing of these songs doesn't really add anything to an outsider's understanding of the Zelda games that the plot synopses don't. However, articles for the officially released soundtracks of these games would be encyclopedic and notable (if anyone wishes to pursue that), though I don't think any of the content from this article would need to be merged. Wickethewok 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, but you forgot that it's not a listing anymore: there is a approriate lead section and it contains verifiable information, the beginnings of any good wikipedia article. The article needed {{cleanup}} not {{afd}} per WP:DEL#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Furthermore, it is as significant to the The Legend of Zelda series as a Chaos Emerald or Master Emerald (and so on) is to Sonic the Hedgehog series. The nomination is a joke. --DavidHOzAu 05:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 11:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is interesting and important to the game zelda Yuckfoo 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original basis of the nomination is no longer applicable in the rewritten version, so the only issue is notability. Music is an integral part of the Zelda franchise, and has been incorporated extensively in a number of very notable games for decades - that justifies an article. 129.61.46.16 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Keep per 129.61.46.16, with the caveat that i'm assuming a large number of articles about zelda music don't already exist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - Why not create articles for the Zelda OSTs which were released by Nintendo (instead of this article)? These would be able to contain similar information to this article, but be able to present it under a more encyclopedic context imo. I have a couple of the OSTs and they contain the songs mentioned here. Wickethewok 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that could be a good idea for an article, but it seems to serve a different purpose than what I think is being discussed here. The context of this article (as well as the previous version) is to discuss how music is incorporated into the gameplay of the Zelda series as a design element, as opposed to background music. The title, however, should probably be changed to reflect that. 129.61.46.16 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment on Comment - The original page, before it was massacred so, made a note that this article elaborates(/-ed) on songs played by the characters in the game, and to see a separate page for background music that would be titled "Background music from The Legend of Zelda series." In this page's demise, someone loudly removed the link because that bgmusic page doesn't exist yet, although I planned to start it later on anyway... --Tryforceful 22:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is clearly no longer a "how-to" or a guide. It gives valid information about each song, some origins, etc. I think it is a good idea to have it here. Maybe it could include some more information about the songs, like in-game song history, story information, and information about the songs & their origins from the real world. -Platypus Man | Talk 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason to delete this, gamers might need this article.--Cory pratt 19:45, 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 Speedy delete ignoring the sockpuppetry.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterworth Show[edit]

Utterly non-notable webcast by "bored teenagers". Speedy delete weas contested by creator of page. Travelbird 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- This is a notable article. It is popular among teens on YouTube. --202.156.6.54 10:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- --4985tty444 10:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand- definate keep, article needs to be expanded --Operatingroomyeh 10:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin music[edit]

Self promotional article for a non-notable corporation. Fails: WP:CORP and WP:VANITY. Google hits for "Origin Music Group" = 33. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Could almost be speedy A7. -Royalguard11Talk 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. Alphachimp talk 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article states "The two Philip’s came together in 1993...", now they can leave together per above with a dash of WP:VSCA for taste. --Wine Guy Talk 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 06:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard de la Zone[edit]

Not Notable, just a description of a street. There is not room for descriptions of every road in the world here. People can look such info up on Goolge Maps Jimbo68 10:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I put this up for speedy deletion yesterday, but it was somehow kept. Jimbo68 10:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no explanation as to how this could be of interest and all of the links on the page are red. 86.129.153.190 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest editors review nominators speedy tagging of Jan Boerstoel and history of edits on Steve Wisdom and other financial articles before deciding on Boulevard de la Zone. Dlyons493 Talk 12:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is on a street important for its representation of the location of Paris' former fortifications, 1920's HBM's and more recently-constructed péripherique circular highway. It will be expanded. THEPROMENADER 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of the article Dlyons493 Talk 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2 While I have submitted another of Dlyons493's articles for deletion, this is because I feel he has written two bad articles. I aplolgise if he feels I am being unfair to him. I feel this article can be judged on its own merits as to if it meets the criteria for usefulness, and notability. Jimbo68 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not useful. JeffMurph 09:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I find it odd that JeffMurph has done little else in his few Wiki edits outside of voting for deletion. Is this commonplace? THEPROMENADER 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, there's nothing on this page that isn't at the Josh Hoge article. - Bobet 11:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

360 (Josh Hoge song)[edit]

Article does not warrant its own page. Subject should be expanded on (if required) at this page. Mallanox 10:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cams.com[edit]

An article about a non-notable porn site. Fails to assert notability. An Alexa rank of 540 (can someone confirm this? - Alexa is blocked by my firewall) is not sufficient for self-propagating pornospam - porn sites are expert in gaming Alexa, Google, etc, and so this in itself should not suffice as an assertion of notability or importance. Delete. Proto::type 10:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, what makes this any different than any other porn site. If it is the first, or has someother important or notworthy charecteristic, it is not asserted. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Alexa gives it a 550 at the moment, but I'm at work, so you'll exuse me if I don't do any "research" to see if that's legit. --PresN 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "540" or "550" seems indication of notability. Perhaps a List of live cam websites might be created, and this one added as an entry? (But does it meat meet WP:WEB? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete --Yunipo 09:07, 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 DELETE. Rje 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vamosa[edit]

Advert for company. Company links at page bottom. Fails WP:CORP KarenAnn 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but cleanup. It currently reads like a brochure for the company, and the only links provided are from the corporation itself. However, a google search yields plenty of other results, including a small amount of independent media coverage [17] [18] [19] satisfying criteria 1 of WP:CORP. Scorpiondollprincess 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Massmato 16:18, 22 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, Bobet 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up fast otherwise Delete as advert Logicaldisaster 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is also a partial copyvio from [20] --Brad101 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft III units and structures[edit]

Delete for consistency with StarCraft units and structures (AFD, deletion was also endorsed in Deletion Review), Age of Empires units and structures (AFD), Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures (AFD), Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry (AFD) and many many more. Punkmorten 10:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Hard to argue with the solid precedent here. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I like the article (I also made recent minor changes), I agree that it should be deleted for consistency. --ToKnow 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless we are gonig to delete Rook (chess) I do not see why ones games pieces are to be deleted and another kept. Keeping with a precedent that is only based on peoples opinions and majority is hardly a reason to delete anything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and a good precedent. Why everyone keeps bringing up chess in these AfDs I'll never get, but see the above AfD discussions for responses to that comparison. -- H·G (words/works) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy per nom. You destoryed the one from my favorite game-AOE. :P GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Split and Merge into Humans (Warcraft), Undead (Warcraft), Night Elf (Warcraft) and Orc (Warcraft)? Starcraft has the information in its race articles. Not sure about this one. --ColourBurst 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a chess player, I would be very offended if someone tried to delete the Rook (chess) article. As such, I think the Rook defense is a solid one here. Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally very opposed, but by precedent there's not much choice any more. I also put a prod on, Chess_strategy_and_tactics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.61.46.16 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 18:54:04 (UTC)
    Comment: please review WP:POINT. Chess strategy has had a large amount of scholarship devoted to it. Just the game theoretic aspects of Chess make it notable, as a good case can be made that the modern field of Game Theory was motivated in part by a desire to understand Chess. Until Warcraft achieves anything remotely comparable in scope, any equivalences drawn between the two games is fallacious. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentScope of what, you said "a good case can be made" that means its not a fact but possibly can be argued. So until someone starts arguing that Warcraft is responcible for mathematical theories it cant be kept? There is probably more people playing Warcraft then chess at any given moment. Furthermore just because someone writes game guides on chess doesnt mean there " is a large ammount of scholarship devoted to it", There are tons of game guides on Final Fantasy as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That may be true - but then why is the WP:NOT policy being cited instead of the Notablity guidelines? If WP:NOT is being used, then all of these articles constitute "how-to"s and are therefore not suitable for wikipedia in any form, regardless of their popularity, scholarship, or references. This is a *very* different reason than saying that they are not notable enough. All I'm saying is that WP:NOT should not be used in these cases, or there really is no way to differentiate. If the rationale for deletion is that sources cannot be found to verify the information, or if they are not notable enough for coverage, then fine, delete them. 129.61.46.16 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Kaustuv. Wickethewok 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and I have to say, I'm on the fence about some of the chesscruft. GassyGuy 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and merge I agree with Colourburst. His opinions makes a lot of sense. -ScotchMB 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a computer game guide, and Warcraft is to chess as advertising jingle composers are to Beethoven -- GWO
  • Comment. So does importance of a topic take precedence over the WP:NOT policy? 129.61.46.16 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment Would we then be able to delete Baseball bat as its a game piece that does not date back too long ago and really hasnt been the subject of scholarly books much like people argue for chess. Or is someone willing to finally openly state its because they are videogames that they are not treated with equal footing? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has a baseball bat not been around a long time? Also, they are a generic product manufactured by many individual and separate corporations, unlike, say, a "Crypt Fiend". Wickethewok 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I treat video games on an equal footing. If anyone nominates a video game that has stood the test of time in the same way that baseball and chess have, I will gladly vote KEEP. And if someone adds lots and lots of articles about a modern board game, or card game (say Magic items in Magic:The Gathering, or a page for every type of spaceship in Star Fleet Battles ... then I'll say DELETE. It's not about videogames, its about new and shiny versus time-worn) -- GWO
  • Comment That's all well and good and a legitimate reason - but it doesn't hold up if the WP:NOT a game guide policy is being used as a rationale for deletion instead of the notability guidelines. The "how-to" policy leaves no room for importance of the subject; if it is used as the basis of a nomination and the subsequent deletion, then it absolutely opens the door to deletions of chess and baseball bat articles; that will remain the case unless WP:NOT is changed to say that "wikipedia is not a how-to for the new and shiny, but may be a how-to for the time-worn". All I've been saying in these debates is that we should stop arguing whether they fail WP:NOT and instead argue over their notability. 68.106.198.28 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • That's a very...selective way of quoting..."Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Video game guides are given as an example but are certainly not the only one here - it specifically says it should not give instruction or advice of any kind. The rook article and most of the chess articles do precisely that, if we take the precedent being used for video game articles, which is simply stating the existence and function of a game piece. 68.106.198.28 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Festival (album). - Bobet 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verão Vermelho[edit]

Make this page go away, or at least, remove some of the overly specific information such as Elis Regina humming. Also, the bit about the outro. The outro is the same as the intro, and no one talks about the outro. Mariusz Zielinski 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, I think the outro has more bars than the intro, and it's longer. The outro is dramatically longer than most people can hum, and besides that, the main bit is too short. Mr. Conrad 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The outro is really long, but Regina hums more than one note, and she takes breaths in between. Gm1121983 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite sure how to do that. Gm1121983 20:08, 18 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, Bobet 10:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there were no other votes I took a look. Nothing in that article seems worth keeping. As to the question above on how to merge, just copy and paste what you want to keep. In the edit summary add 'coped from Verão Vermelho'. Vegaswikian 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows vs. Mac[edit]

Contested prod. Personal essay. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good faith article by essayist but Wikipedia is not for original writing.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tuspm(C | @) 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this article any different to Comparison of Windows and Linux? And how is the solution to the problems of this article to delete it? Should you not be pointing the author at Wikipedia:Pro & con lists, mercilessly excising any content that is not accompanied by a source citation, and neutralizing any content that makes Wikipedia have a point of view? Given this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, why do you think that it is impossible to turn this into a sourced article by means of simple editing? Uncle G 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that Comparison of Windows and Linux has 23 citations WilyD 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's rather unreasonable to expect an article to gain 23 citations just 10 hours after its creation. I notice that you don't answer the other questions. Uncle G 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not expect 23 sources to be quickly added. But the difference is that this article fails WP:V so it's deletable, whereas Comparison of Windows and Linux passes WP:V so it's improvable, but not deletable. Violations of WP:NPOV which also fail WP:V are best just trashed. Passing WP:V takes the teeth outta a lot of deletion discussions. But zero references is an acceptable reason to delete an article, even if that's not always enforced under rules of common sense. WilyD 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are erroneously conflating Verifiability and Citing sources. We do not delete articles because they cite no sources. We delete them because they are unverifiable. Zero references is not an acceptable reason for deleting an article. An article is not unverifiable if it does not cite sources. It is unverifiable if it does not cite sources and no sources can be found to cite. I've given you 10 potential sources above, which were relatively easy to find (and using which this article can be turned into a proper article using the normal method of simply editing it — clearly belying your assertion that this article is not improvable). I encourage you and all editors to actually expend the effort in looking for sources when they encounter articles with no sources. That an article cites no sources does not make it unverifiable. Uncle G 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR unless a substantial reqrite, including mad insertion of verifiability is implimented. WilyD 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR, plus WP:NPOV and WP:V to boot as well. With language like "Proprietary hardware is always a bummer," it has the NPOV problems that Comparison of Windows and Linux doesn't. hateless 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be fixed by editing the article in the normal manner (which you and anyone else can do). Why do you think that deletion rather than ordinary editing is the way to fix the problems with this article? Uncle G 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I can't see anything salvagable about the article at all. Not even the title, which implies conflict. You might as well start from the beginning, or say, go to Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X and save that page from its AFD. hateless 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The title should be a redirect, just as Windows vs. Linux is. But deletion isn't the way to do that, either. Again, ordinary editing is all that is required. Uncle G 10:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Windows Vs. Mac will be a debate where no one wins. The core of this argument is what is best for you." It's definetly an essay, not a good one at that. An essay would at least argue one side. -Royalguard11Talk 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily. —Hanuman Das 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 17:34, 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 speedy close, taken to RfD. Kimchi.sg 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global_Justice[edit]

this page redirects to 'Global Justice Movement'; But: 1. these aren't the same thing - GJ is an issue in political philosophy, not a movement; and 2. the issue in political philosophy is dealt with in 'Global_justice' (no capital 'J'). So, this article and redirect just create confusion. Sam Clark 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm too new here to know: is this something I should just do (delete the AFD on the page and replace with RFD tag), or is there some procedure I need to follow? Cheers,

--Sam Clark 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retagged as RFD. --Sam Clark 11:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fick deine Mutter[edit]

Probably a hoax article about a German music producer. An earlier edit prod'ed it as a hoax; the prod was removed with the claim that the title was a stage name for "Andreas Rökker", who has no google hits. When challenged, the original editor claimed that his earlier stage name was DJ Ilan, who is a German producer, (see German WP) but was born in 1976, not 1960. Original author has removed unreferenced tags twice. I am unconvinced. Mr Stephen 11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, that was the wrong born-date. correct is 1976. but that is not a reason for deletion. "DJ Ilan" alias "Andreas Rökker" is also "Fick deine Mutter". End of discussion --History Chanel 12:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above and because author has repeatedly blanked the AFD notice. Looks like a hoax to me. NawlinWiki 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an increasingly obvious hoax. BigHaz 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, it is not a hoax or something like that, see the other articles! do not delete. --History Chanel 12:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of the absence of verification. Deli nk 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no, you can look in the other articles, everything is ok. --History Chanel 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources. Add a section by typing ==External Links== in the article. List your sources below that. Until then, this looks like a hoax to me, so delete unless History Chanel can provide reliable sources. Srose (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now you have reliable sources from the english and the very professional german wiki. The sources are now in the article section "External Links and sources". The article is now ok. Can somebody remove the delete message? Because that doesn´t look very good.--History Chanel 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My German is a bit rusty, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how the one external link or the two links to German wiki articles do anything to support the notability (or even the existence) of Fick deine Mutter. Deli nk 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. My Google search turned up nothing. If he were a Munich Academy for Television and Film graduate, he surely would not have graduated under an alias, and in order to source that claim, we would probably need some reference for his real name. The German Wikipedia articles do not mention Fick deine Mutter at all. --Huon 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a "hoax". The problem is: Which name should have the article? The best Possibility is "Fick deine Mutter", because the other Name "Andreas Rökker" does nobody know. The links show some important Albums and Songs which has "Fick deine Mutter" made. "Fick mich...und halt dein Maul" is one of these Albums, there are many others too, but the source Links just show some of them. I think, it just takes too much time, when we have a long discussion here - My suggestion: Away with the Delete-Message and everything is clean. --History Chanel 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm very sorry if I wasn't clear before, History Chanel. We need external links to establish verifiability - links to sites outside of a Wikipedia of any language. Perhaps there is a link to a news article or official website that you can add to your sources? Srose (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the links may or may not show albums and songs that Fick deine Mutter made, they do not attribute them to him; they don't even mention him. In short: Do you know of any proof of Fick's very existence, except your word? --Huon 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if it of any relevance, but the name literally means "Fuck your Mother". That and "Your mother" (deine Mutter) are apparently Pseudonyms. and there is indeed no mention of this producer in the other two articles on the German Wikipedia (which, by the way, don't seem to be properly sourced themselves. --84.184.108.185 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment anyone interested in this deletion may want to look at Auf dem Weg ins Puff, which also claims to be a German politician, and whose author has repeatedly blanked prods. It's a very similar pattern, perhaps sockpuppets? -- dcclark (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment -- yep, Auf dem Weg ins Puff is a hoax page, cut and pasted from Peter Struck. That author also likes to remove deletion tags. I've added the listing immediately below this one. NawlinWiki 18:20,

25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the other Account was my sockpuppet: I had 2 Accounts but now I am only using this one, because it is not very good when you have two Accounts. Anyway, I somebody should move the article to "DJ Ilan", because this is his famous name. I thougt that maybe "Fick deine Mutter" is better, because on his newest release, he says in a song that this should be his new name. But if you like it, rename the article to DJ Ilan. Maybe I will translate the other informations from the german wiki. Alright? --History Chanel 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Hmmm. Likewise Sheila Voser, an article with no references about a Swiss comedienne, and a similar pattern. Mr Stephen 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax Travelbird 23:24, 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 as hoax. — Deckiller 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auf dem Weg ins Puff[edit]

Nonsense hoax, cut and pasted from Peter Struck, translates as "On the way to the brothel". NawlinWiki 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Huon 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax and lack of reliable sources... I'm beginning to suspect a group of German-language hoaxers is at work here; see Fick deine Mutter and the related AfD discussion. Srose (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and watch out for a group of hoxers. -- dcclark (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is clearly a hoax, nobody would be allowed to name a child to what amounts to "On the way to the brothel" in German. --84.184.84.243 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The bit about being Federal Defence dude is blatantly false, the correct termholder was Peter Struck. 68.39.174.238 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax Travelbird 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 19:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3 Cases like this would fall under CSD G3 if you took the time to explain that this is an article created by using a find and replace using the {{Db-reason}} tag. Jesse Viviano 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Voser[edit]

More German hoaxery, see above two listings. NawlinWiki 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as attack page. Sheila Voser seems to exist, but the article is at best wrong, at worst libelous. --Huon 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I slapped it with a speedy delete template if that is true (Attack). You may want to make use of {{defwarn}} on the creator if it is that bad. 68.39.174.238 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the attck tag, because I can't see why it is an attack page. Please feel free to put it back, but it would be useful if you could explain why it is an attack. Thanks TigerShark 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask the above commenter; I took it on trust that it was an attackpage and so subject to CSD. 68.39.174.238 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fictious German "film titles" given in the article associate her with vaginal candidiasis (Scheidenpilze). I may have overreacted, but I wouldn't like such rumours spread about myself. --Huon 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would tend to agree with Huon. If Sheila Voser actually does exist, this is definately an attack page. Travelbird 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Mr Stephen 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author keeps providing "sources" which turn up nothing on the subject. Given the two hoaxes above with a very similar pattern, I say Delete as very likely hoax Travelbird 23:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 19:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax.--213.155.224.232 10:55, 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 all, but merge information from the character pages to List of Guild Wars characters, except that the copyvio pages will be deleted without merge. I discounted all opinions, whether keep or delete, from editors with fewer than 50 edits; more delete than keep voters were disqualified by this pass. I discounted 2 keep votes because they provided no justification or discussion. About 75% of counted opinons were in favor of deletion. Nandesuka 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Wars articles[edit]

This is a group nomination of the following articles for being gamecruft. Note that there is already a wiki on Guild Wars, GuildWiki, that is linked to from Guild Wars and has all the relevant information.

Characters

Guide-style information

None of these topics are notable enough for articles of their own, and these articles also have the usual WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR concerns.

Concluded AfDs that I am citing as precedent:

One possible remedy short of outright deletion is to merge them all into Guild Wars. If consensus heads that way and there are no volunteers, I will do the merging.

— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I just discovered this after writing the above nomination rationale, but several of the articles such as Prince Rurik are cut-and-pastes from something called "Guild Wars Manuscripts", which Google tells me is the name of the documentation booklet that comes with the game. Thus, these areticles are copyvios as well and might satisfy CSD A8, though I am not tagging them as such. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: I have discovered that these manuals are available from the guildwars.com site itself[23]. I have noted above the two articles that appear to have their text essentially completely cut-and-pasted from the "Prophecies" manual. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, My first thought would be to merge all of the character articles into a "List of" article and delete the other articles because Wikipedia is not a video game guide. However, if these are copyvios, then Delete all is the only response. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These articles could - and should - be improved, expanded on and made into decent substantial articles. If you deleted these, you would have to also delete BlizzCon, Corrupted Blood, Gold farming, Leeroy Jenkins, List of Warcraft characters, Locations in the Warcraft Universe, Pop culture references in World of Warcraft, Warcraft the Roleplaying Game, World of Warcraft: The Board Game, World of Warcraft Forums, World of Warcraft items and equipment, World of Warcraft terminology, World of Warcraft Trading Card Game, .BLP, .DBC, and .MPQ file formats, since they are all to do with a popular MMORPG and are generally of same relevance (I mean, why have an article on a player just because he did something funny? Is Leeroy Jenkins seriously more notable than Guild Wars?). And before you start waving your big red flag of nonnotability, I feel the need to inform you that Guild Wars has over 2 million sales, hitting the #1 spot of video games simultaeneously in Europe and America. Also, I would be willing to bet that if you merged all of those with their respective articles, the page sizes would increase exponentially, which is never a good thing. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The notability of Guild Wars is not the issue and you should note that I have not nominated Guild Wars, Guild Wars Factions or Guild Wars Nightfall for deletion. The question to answer is: is Mhenlo notable? Where (outside of Guild Wars) is he notable? Similarly for the rest of the nominated articles. If you want to "expand" these articles, you should find a more appropriate location, such as GuildWiki or Wikia:GuildWars. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: With regards to the notability issue would adding extra references to where Mhenlo is mentioned (besides the game manual) help in increasing his notability? I ask this since for World of Warcraft there is a list of characters page that has over 100 characters and it doesn't even have a list of references for the characters. Secondly, WoW also has a wiki with all the relevant information. Thirdly, some of the characters listed there aren't even major NPCs in terms of their relevance to the plot (see Captain Placeholder for an example). However, as we can see with the Captain Placeholder example, he is somehow allowed to exist on Wikipedia. The only reason I could fathom why is because of the extra references to his existence on the page which hasn't prompted anyone to mark it for AFD. Deletion of the GW character articles would appear hypocritical taking this information on-board. Just letting you know ;) --Rambutaan 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now curious. Where outside of the Guild Wars games and their associate manuals, web-sites and fansites has Mhenlo become notable? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly my point. If you wish to delete character articles based on their notability outside their fanbase then it confuses me why the GW characters have been singled out for deletion, when there are hundreds of others out there (not only from games, but from more obscure TV shows as well) that have gone under the radar. I've provided WoW as one example but can provide more examples if requested. To answer your question directly though, I don't think Mhenlo is notable outside of Guild Wars - but neither is Captain Placeholder out of WoW :P --Rambutaan 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: just because other games do it, does mean that it is justification for the Guild Wars pages to exist. I don't think it creates a precedent. I mean when you look at the WoW characters page do you think that it's interesting information for a non-wow player, useful information for someone trying to find out the basics of WoW without actually owning the game? Do you think they should exist? Do you think that a Guild Wars equivalent would be any more useful?
    If we add more pages where do we *stop*? I can think of at least 2 characters (from prophecies) not created which I consider more important than those which have been created.
    Finally, the factions article remained incomplete and inaccurate for a long time after the release of the game. Only one person did any significant work on the article post release - me. There is not the interest from the guild wars community in this wikipedia site for the content to be significantly expanded. --Aspectacle 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, "two wrongs don't make a right" but I'm wondering why GW was targeted in particular instead of WoW? I'm trying to get to the root of the problem here. If the style or information is scarce then fine leave it for improvement. Isn't wikipedia meant to be a collaborative and dynamic piece of work that is continually improved by multiple editors? Articles can be made into "perfect articles" but are by no means expected to be one from the start - that basically defeats the purpose of Wikipedia being a collaborative environment. With reference to the characters that weren't mentioned here (I'm assuming you're possibly talking about Vizier Khilbron, Saidra, Evennia, etc.) it is true that they're important too and I would recommend that articles be created on them too. Your final point Aspectacle however is perhaps the only reason I'll probably back down from keeping the article :P since if informed GW Wikipedia editors are scarce then it is unlikely that the articles as they stand will be improved (I'll try my best to improve them when I have time but I'm usually pretty busy). If this truly is the case, if noone else can be bothered improving the articles, then I agree they should be removed - even though it's pretty disappointing in my view considering the initial effort I put in getting them to slot in nicely in Wikipedia :P. --Rambutaan 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD singles out Guild Wars articles in order to remain coherent, but you should be aware that in recent weeks there have been a large number of gaming-related deletion discussions (several of which I have cited as precedent). Note in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadmines that purged a large number of World of Warcraft articles from WP. Please do not think that I am singling out Guild Wars for unfair treatment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've read the other game articles that have been cited as a precedent but NONE of them have had their pages with character bios deleted. 1. The WoW article that got deleted was talking about various "instances" in WoW - this isn't an article on "instances" or various arenas that are in GW. 2. The Zergling article from Starcraft is about one of the units in the game not a character with background story 3. The CS article is on maps you can play in the game, again these articles aren't concerned with character bios, 4. The rest of the articles on RA2, Starcraft and AoE are all on units and structures in the RTSes - not character bios. Putting these articles in the same vein as these articles when GW is an RPG and NOT including any other articles with character bios from other RPGs is discrimination IMHO. All the aforementioned articles are concerned with "gameguide" material whereas the character articles which are being AFDed aren't --Rambutaan 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't dispute your characterisation of these articles. In fact, if you read the nomination, I have marked which articles I consider to be in the style of game guides. I nominated the characters for deletion because they are not notable. Incidentally, I am led to understand that these NPCs ("henchmen") can be used like units in an RTS, which would make them quite akin to Starcraft or AoE units, though the articles currently (and wisely) avoid documenting this aspect. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol if we keep this up we're going to have very narrow paragraphs :P. Alright, now that we've made the distinction between the Profession, location, etc, articles and the character articles we can get back to the debate on them being "not-notable". As mentioned earlier, this is a grey area since how do you decide when a character is notable or not? Judging on other material in Wikipedia that has been allowed I would say that just because the character isn't notable in media besides its native one doesn't imply that it's not-notable full stop (I've provided an example previously). If you wish to say I'm wrong in this regard then I accept that but under protest since an injustice is being committed as there are several other examples of "not-notable" characters dwelling in Wikipedia that are somehow, notable, even though they don't exist in any form besides existing in a game. I can see how people may perceive these major NPCs in GW as like units in an RTS, but it's not one view I prescribe to. They aren't exclusively used as tools to aid the player in PvE exploration but add their own contributions to Guild Wars lore (especially now they've been tied-in with both chapters with the release of Factions). In fact, in preview trailers of the original Guild Wars, Devona, Aidan and Cynn were featured with Devona's character narrating the setting of the game giving further evidence that they are not intended as simply units to be ordered about. --Rambutaan 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- SonicChao> 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion - please always explain your vote, or it may be ignored by the closing admin. Proto::type 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --PetteriH 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion - please always explain your vote, or it may be ignored by the closing admin. Proto::type 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I like Guild wars, but the frst chunk is articles about pretty non-notable NPCs, which belong on the guild wars wiki, and the second group is obvious game-guidery. --PresN 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Game guides can go to a game-specific wiki if they want it. The rest is cruft. Recury 16:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Possibly into the GuildWars article, or as an alternative if there is enough interest, into one "List of GuildWars Characters", in the same vein as the "List Of Warcraft characters" article. There's enough background story of interest to possibly warrant that much, I believe. As it stands, I don't think each character needs their own article, at least not now. --Reverend Loki 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete the character articles they do not have a place in the wikipedia. Guildwiki does a fantastic job of keeping that information up to date and detailed. The rest are Merge. However, I am concerned that a direct merge will result in the main page being too large so a reduction in the content is necessary if this is to go ahead. I believe wikipedia should be a terse summary of the games, leave the detail to guildwiki. --Aspectacle 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Suspected copyright violations, such as Prince Rurik and King Adelbern should be tagged with {{Copyvio|source url}}, and posted on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, not deleted through the AFD process on the basis of the apparent copyright violation, since process on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems allows for a fuller examination of whether the work was licensed so as to allow use on Wikipedia, whether the use qualifies as fair use, whether the work was copied from Wikipedia, etc. As for the remaining articles, Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, not a policy, and thus does not supply a policy basis for deletion. Additionally, articles about characters in a popular video game would seem to be just as notable as articles about narrow aspects of any other similarly popular field of endeavor. Articles about video game characters aren't per se non-notable. John254 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am not putting those two articles through the {{copyvio}} process because even if the copyvio issues were fixed they would continue to be articles on non-notable NPCs. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, except merge condensed and cleaned versions of Professions and Equipment to the main article. None of this is notable outside of Guildwars. GassyGuy 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge - I agree that there are suspected copyright violations for the Prince Rurik and King Adelbern articles but they can be worked on. Reading the fancruft page, I noticed these points: 1) "This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline." - as such this is only a viewpoint and is not Wikipedia policy.

    2) "While 'fancruft' is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative." and "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research."

    With this in mind the article cannot be deleted on the grounds of it being "gamecruft" although if you do find the information unencyclopaedic or not well written then I suggest that this warning is placed instead and hopefully others will contribute (Note that the articles are already mentioned as stubs on fictional characters and as such are not complete. There is still a great room for improvement as there are several quests and background lore that can build a picture of the characters mentioned).

    I would be supportive of merging the character descriptions into the main article or into a Guild Wars Characters page, however I anticipated the articles to become quite large (although this obviously hasn't happened as of yet) hence my justification for creating separate articles.

    I think the addition of articles on fictional characters is allowed since I've already seen numerous ones listed here on Wikipedia and considering at least 1 million (perhaps 2 million, although some may be duplicate accounts) have played this game coverage of these characters may be insignificant when compared to lets say characters out of the Bible for example, but still considerable enough to not be completely obscure.

    Anyway that's my two cents worth.

    Rambutaan 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: note that "cruft" is an extremely common shorthand for failing WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which you can read as the reasoning behind the nomination. With regard to articles that are simply not encyclopedic, the counteroffer to expand them is without merit because an article of any length on a non-notable character will still be worth deleting for the same reason. As has been repeatedly stated, there is no danger of the reader not having access to this information as there are much more comprehensive wikis on the topic of Guild Wars that WP directs interested readers to. Also, and once again, the notability of Guild Wars is not being disputed here— merely the individual notability of various NPCs within that game world. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it be suitable for the wikipedia to use external links in the text to link to complete articles in the guildwiki. For instance Prince Rurik because if we are going to expand the wikipedia articles on the characters would we ever want to say more, or say it better, than what has already been written elsewhere? --Aspectacle 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I noticed after reading the article on "cruft" that it usually hints towards those issues but by itself doesn't necessarily indicate an article has those issues. That aside though (since that's not the crux of the argument), I am aware that your issue with the article was that the characters are "not-notable" and that is a fair challenge to make. As I mentioned earlier there is a lot of background lore and information on these characters available through the course of the game (which will be hard to verify for anyone who hasn't played the game) and through the GW Manual and Lore section (which will be easier to verify since this information is publically available from the Guild Wars website). I guess one of the interesting dilemmas about fictional characters in games is "Does anyone actually take notice of them?" This will depend on the game's player demographics and the genre of the game. Characters and storyline tend to be crucial to the success of games in the adventure and RPG genre - although whether a majority of the gamers actually take any notice of the NPCs in Guild Wars, I'm afraid I cannot give a definitive answer, although my view is that they do - hence the inclusion of the articles :). --Rambutaan 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Indeed there is some information in GuildWiki and best of all, it gives practical information on the NPCs too. My aim on adding them to Wikipedia was to expand on the actual character traits derived from Guild Wars fiction - sadly I may be alone in this regard as the current state of the articles testifies --Rambutaan 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all character articles, as well as 'Equipment in ...' and 'Character Builds in ...' as those contain no encyclopedic value, and those pieces are better covered in the various fansites, including the above mentioned Guildwiki.org. Merge 'Locations in ...' and 'Professions in ...' into the Guild Wars product articles as a summarized version of the locations and professions may be useful to give someone an idea of what's in the games - although they should be condenced prior to merging. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After further review, I realized that the Guild Wars product articles already contain some profession information. The location information could still be expanded within the product articles, but just to summarize the regions, no need for an outpost-by-outpost listing. This can be done without doing a formal merge process - so I would change my recommendation to delete of all above nominated articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: I still support deletion of all nominated articles. However, I recently spotted this, which to me appears to be a WikiProject created for the sole purpose of finding ways to get around all the policies that would otherwise require deletion of those articles as well. While I am against keeping any of these articles, if that project succeeds, then in fairness I would have to support the existence of these types of articles in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the characters and fix any copyvio problems, neutral on the rest for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information "Many" of the articles aren't copyvios. Only the King Adelbern and Prince Rurik articles. Just setting this straight in case anyone is misled :). --Rambutaan 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please these are informative erasing them does not help the encyclopedia Yuckfoo 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the pages flagged for deletion serve a purpose for persons that do not own Guild Wars. Neither are they useful for people owning Guild Wars, since all that information is presented on various other pages, most notably GuildWiki, in a wastly superior way with completely wikified articles. Compare Character builds or (Brother) Mhenlo. --Xeeron 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GuildWiki link is all that is needed, and the "guides" don't tell anything useful. Skuld‡ insult 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main articles for the Guild Wars campaigns are what the wikipedia needs. The rest of the info, like NPC descriptions, should be found on sites specifically documenting the game, eg GuildWiki. 82.181.108.10 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (User:Gem from guidwiki)[reply]
  • Delete the game style information. It is very useful for those who own Guild Wars but is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is suitable for a wiki, that wiki being GuildWiki. Keep and merge the character articles, either into their own list or the main article. Obviously the copyvio problems need to be sorted out. — blobglob talk 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I'd argue there's not enough to learn about each character to make it worth separate articles; however, information such as their role in the game is hardly cruft, and I don't think its so horrible to have some information about their personalities or motivation either. We already have a List of Locations in the Guild Wars Universe, so why not do the same for the characters? Definitely no reason to delete.--Blue Crest 04:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Nothing here constitutes information that is "significant" to someone outside the Guild Wars community. On top of this, there is a very good resource that contains this information, linked from the Guild Wars article. Arguments about whether the information is "good" or useful are irrelevant, it's not useful information outside GuildWiki. Delete the lot.Martin Thomson 12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The articles listed under "Guide-Style" information, most especially "character builds", which is most definitely OR. The "Guide-style" articles seem to contain statistical information/small details that really don't add anything to a non-player's understanding of the game. That said, the character articles could be merged into a single list and hopefully re-written with better tone and only NPOV/verifiable info, though I would like to see some references in the article of course. Clearly the copvio information should be gotten rid of. Wickethewok 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: multiple people have said to merge the character articles into a list-of, and there is certainly precedent for such listified pages according to WP:FICT. It is a compromise that I am happy to accept, as I indicated in the nomination. I have initiated a merge on List of Guild Wars characters and invite all interested parties to contribute to that page. I propose that a deletion consensus on the individual character pages not be taken as a consensus to delete the character list page also, but that it be put through AfD separately if anyone wishes it deleted. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What do you consider to be the consensus for the equipment, builds, locations and professions articles? They were also a part of this discussion. I note that several discussed the character pages but ignored these other pages. --Aspectacle 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peephole 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its sad that "precedent" is being used as a reason to attack video game articles, yes I said attack. Noone is putting baseball bat up for AfD even though its just a game piece, noone goes and deletes "Robert Langdon" even though he is a fictional character with little notability outside of the people who read the book or seen the movie. A better example would be the article on "Cattie-brie" which is little known outside of a specific series of books. Deleting cahracter from a game is equiv to deleting characters from books and movies, especially since their notability outside of a book review is scant. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Precedent is not the reason. Cruftiness is. Or, if you prefer guideline and policy citations, WP:OR, WP:V (from WP:RS), and WP:NPOV. There are very clear guidelines for notability of fictional characters: WP:FICT. If you think there are other articles about non-notable fictional characters, bring them to AfD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue then isnt that it fails WP:FICT as it states:

    Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).

    SO then the issue is WP:V and WP:OR meaning these articles should just be given time to be cleanedup, the ones on specific characters and some are sourced per WP:V already. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been repeatedly pointed out in this AfD, these characters are not notable. Notability of a character does not increase with the quantity or quality of text written about them, so this is not a simple matter of cleanup as you make it out to be. The game manual does not count as a reliable secondary source for citations of notability (because of a clear conflict of interest) and no one yet has shown where outside the Guild Wars fanbase these characters have become notable. The game certainly is not a reliable source as it cannot be cited. Even ardent Guild Wars players in this AfD have argued that these articles serve no purpose. The compromise I have suggested a few comments up is List of Guild Wars characters, as the character articles are unlikey to ever become larger than stubs; however, if this list itself is brought to AfD I will vote to delete. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you play guild wars to say such a thing? The idea isnt that they are notable to everyone on the planet, as per WP:FICT they are main characters given a spin off article on the basis they no longer fit in the main article. Also WP:V doesnt state that sources have to attest to notability, just that they have to say the item exists, is real etc. Which the manual does state them as main characters in Guild Wars. As for notability if the character is noted in the games manual, then they are obviously a main character. Please again read over WP:FICT, these main characters are given spinoff articles on the basis they do not fit in the main article. THe manual is a WP:V valid source because its a first party source talking about itself. How can the manual by the game company about the game not be a reliable source about the game. Its like saynig a book by an author cannot determine the facts of what happens in itself. There is no more reliable source then the creators themselves. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you are arguing that the game is notable but the story is not. Furthermore a book is a valid primary source, you do not need someone saying Drizzt is a main character in the Dark Elf Triology, the book already states him as a main character. So no its not a valid secondary source, its a valid primary source. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about sources for different things. I want reliable secondary sources that assert the notability of Mhenlo, for example, not that he exists as a main character, which I don't dispute. And no, I don't play the game, but several people who do and are regulars at guildwiki have voted to delete here. In any event, whether I play the game or not is irrelevant to the nomination. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldnt you be basically admitting your guage of notability is if you know about it then? If the people who created the story assert him as a main character then he is obviously notable to the people who engage in that story. The story itself determines who the main characters are, not reliable third party sources. Unless of course your guage of this is if you yourself without doing research know about that topic. But NN isnt about your own knowledge, we arent asking if you know of topic X. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to miss my point. I have never disputed that these characters are "major characters" in the Guild Wars plot, but the question continues to be whether detailed exposition on these characters is necessary, i.e., whether these characters are notable. As it currently stands, every single character article is a stub, and, based on the very comprehensive guildwiki, I find it hard to believe that these articles can be expanded significantly without entering game guide territory. You should refresh your memory of what a reliable source is for Wikipedia; remember that we cite secondary sources, not primary sources, for critical topics such as notability. An assertion of notability in a primary source is not valid. It appears from your comments below that you do not consider this AfD to be in good faith. I am sure the closing admin will take your opinion into account, and there is no reason for us to keep repeating the same two points. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your inability to read whats right below you does not change its existence. Now once again I would like to see some proof that main characters in a story need to be verified by third party reliable sources. Until then you are making stuff up. Again please read below these character get their own articles according to WP:FICT when they cannot fit into the main article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indented)Just because you want something doesnt mean its required. A primary source has been provided.

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

(indented)Again the primary source is all that is required. That is from WP:V. Fictional characters do not need their main character status verified by third parties. Show me this policy you are quoting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the character of Mhenlo at least is cited as a key character on the guild wars website[24] and so popular users in another MMO make costumes that look like him [25] He even has a ringtone based on his theme song in the game. Spitting out a bunch of accronyms saying they apply to a group of 10+ articles is not a proper AfD--zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Characters who appear in the manual as main characters should be kept. They are main characters and as per WP:FICT they are allowed to hae spin-off articles as long as they do not fit in the main article. They are notable to the population of the game 2+ million people, and they are verifiable as they are in the manual of the game, by the creators, who say what does and doesnt exist in Guild Wars. As for WP:OR unless they articles are asserting facts not supported by the manual, then that needs to be brought up seperatly and addressed, not have the article deleted.

  • Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).

That is the exact point in WP:FICT, as of now I have no opinion on the other articles. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zer0faults, you have quoted the reason why these characters do not deserve their own pages and why the list page which Kaustuv has created is the best compromise solution for the characters pages. (if there is enough content for the character) - most the characters have no motivation or back story beyond what is given in the manual and their actions in the games add little more. The manual content is all the information there is on the character, hardly more than a paragraph of content when it is distilled down and re-written to be encyclopedic. Kaustuv's page represents the best solution which compromises between our different opinions on notability, quantity of available content and wikipedia standards. --Aspectacle 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am an avid player of Guild Wars, and I was shocked to see these pages contained on the real Wikipedia when they are more than adequately covered by the GuildWiki. Fancruft of epic proportion (such as Guild Wars information and Homestar Runner material) is given a Wiki all its own for a good reason. Keep one or two general pages describing the phenomenon of the Guild Wars game series, but delete every one of these minor pages. Guild Wiki is awesome in its sufficient detail. --TheTriumvir 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I dont understand the basis here. Are you saying if another Wiki has the information that we should not haev it here as well? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep If this game is mega-notable, then perhaps keep it. Otherwise delete, or simply put a small description with a link to the Guild Wars Wiki and then lock the page. --HResearcher 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guild wars is a major MMO title I think in the top 10 in terms of player base with over 2 million players worldwide. The game is highly notable and carried in all major retailers. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / nonsense Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin fun-horse 4[edit]

Hoax computer gaming system; look at the image author attempted to upload, [26], which is a Photoshopped ad for an old VCR. NawlinWiki 12:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note author has now put the fake image in the article, and blanked the AFD and hoax tags. NawlinWiki 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the above, 0 google hits [27].--Fuhghettaboutit 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note While there are still no google hits, the google search above contained a typo. --Porqin 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusing, but Delete. BigHaz 12:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things that are made up. --Porqin 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giannakis furs[edit]

Google gives the wikipedia entry of this hypothetical firm as first result, then no other hits. Maybe a vandal/joke. Cantalamessa 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regardless of what it is, that suggests a considerable gulf between the subject and notability. Delete. BigHaz 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no assertion of notability. --Porqin 12:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable if it exists. Deli nk 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax (zero Google hits for a company dating back to the 15th century???), but would be notable if it existed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Benji64 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fur wasn't popular in Europe until at least the 17th C (aka, the time of the Hudson Bay Company). Hoax. Non-notable if true (very, very slim chance). -Royalguard11Talk 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 14:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Actors Guild Awards statistics: Most Nominations Best Ensemble-Comedy[edit]

This page could have been included with the recent AfD for ten similar pages that was closed with "Delete All" as the result, but wasn't. I found this page while cleaning up articles that linked to the newly-deleted articles. If anyone else finds similar pages, please feel free to add them to this AfD. While this is a technical nomination, I do recommend delete. Paddles TC 12:33, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will McBride (candidate)[edit]

Per WP:BIO, senators are notable. Not candidates for senator, and certainly not nominees for candidate for senator. This is a generic political biography. Current indications are that his candidacy will fail (which goes to prove that it would be better to wait until after the event to allow for proper historical perspective). Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NN. --Porqin 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like campaign material, failing WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not for promoting your campaign. --DarkAudit 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Spam-quality is not a basis for deleting an article on a notable individual. Subject is notable because news coverage indicates this person is not a gadfly, but a serious challenger for the nomination. See McBride seeks traction in race against Harris: "Although two other Republicans also filed late to challenge Harris for the GOP nomination, it was McBride, with deep pockets, a Latino political base and high-powered connections to the conservative Christian movement, who was considered a bona fide threat." An individual recognized by news sources as a serious contender for a particularly well publicized U.S. Senate nomination race is probably notable (see Ned Lamont) and more so in a large and politically key state like Florida. Note also, it is McBride who has the strongest poll numbers against the incumbent Democrat.[28] Cheers! bd2412 T 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands now reads like a campaign press release. Little of what is mentioned above is in the article itself. --DarkAudit 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the above quote and citations to the article. I have no objections to anyone cleaning up the press-release-sounding bits. bd2412 T 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even a nominee yet. If he wins the nomination, then we could consider him for an article. But he's not even nominated yet. Non-notable. It's great he has stronger numbers than the democrat, but if he's not even chosen... -Royalguard11Talk 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lots of news articles about him, verifiable candidate. If he goes, then Ned Lamont would have to go, too, and I would fight like hell to keep the Lamont article. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lamont has gotten much more national press. And wikipedia is run by guidelines, not precedent. Each article should be judged on it's own merit, not because another article was kept or deleted. Especially where political candidates are concerned. --DarkAudit 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This political candidate may have been hand-picked by Karl Rove to challenge Harris - "[McBride] would not comment on reports that he promised to spend $5 million of his own money on his campaign or that Rove had asked him to run".[29] That alone makes him inherently notable. bd2412 T 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • May have been. Note the "may" in that. Would not comment on reports -- or just strategic leaks? This is pretty feeble stuff. -- Hoary 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that he's in a position where people would make (or believe) that assumption is significant. It's not being said about Collins or Monroe (the other Republican candidates). Do you not suppose that someone may come to Wikipedia seeking information on this candidate? bd2412 T 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
            • That's certainly a possibility. But what a strange place to look him up in, considering that he's news, that Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a newspaper, and that (as of the last time I looked) Florida is served by pretty good newspapers -- newspapers that even put a lot of stuff online. -- Hoary 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he wins elective office or is notable for doing something rather than just wanting to do something. -- Hoary 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bd2412 and Zoe, candidate is verifiable with several news articles about him. Yamaguchi先生 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'd normally vote delete, but he's got enough of a spotlight on him to warrant a keep for the moment. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: legitimate political figure in notable senate race. Calwatch 05:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if he loses, then delete. --John Foxe 19:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted Sundayze[edit]

non-notable business. Fails WP:CORP. Written as an advertisement. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Copyright Service[edit]

Article is an advert for a service that does not appear notable. Harris 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I knew there would be some guidelines somewhere - does not appear to meet notability requirements of WP:CORP Harris 08:33, 26 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,
  • Delete as per Wine Guy. --BrownHairedGirl 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're generally accepted to be the top copyright registration service in the UK. Darksun 12:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Kafziel 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — Results in search engines seem to confirm it's known, 18,700 on google mboverload@ 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom and Wine Guy --Cassavau 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete advertisement. A private service is hardly required to establish copyright protections, at least in the U.S, but then I don't know about the UK. --HResearcher 02:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axis of medieval[edit]

Axis of medieval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article constitutes original research by synthesis. It takes a relatively obscure phrase, used three times by Nicholas Kristof and once by Alex Kirby, and builds a framework that is not clearly supported by the underlying sources. As such, the article violates WP:NPOV and fails verifiability. It should be deleted because it doesn't meet these encyclopedic standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As neologism. All of 176 Ghits, the lead one this article, and the overwhelming majority blog entries. Great, it's a nice pun, har de har har, but there's no evidence that this is more than a catchphrase in the mouths of a few bloggers.  Ravenswing  03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this is actually in widespread use. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This has been at AfD before; Twinkle seems to have overwritten the old version. Perhaps someone more confident in such matters could fix? Regardless, delete per nom, as this seems to be a synthesis of primary sources which happen to use the term somewhere, not secondary sources which discuss the term itself (WP:NEO). Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worthy of the 'pedia! --Camaeron (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism U$er (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Boerstoel[edit]

Poem is copyright, and the majority of the text is not in English author is not notable Jimbo68 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Suggest editors review nominators speedy tagging of this article and history of his edits on Steve Wisdom and other financial articles before deciding here. Dlyons493 Talk 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted on the talk page after the first speedy attempt by the nominator, this poem has been released for online use by the author. There's no problem editing it out if the amount of Dutch in the article is felt excessive - the reference section titles need to be in Dutch. Dlyons493 Talk 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems notable enough. Spearhead 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep author has written texts for well-known Dutch artists. -- Koffieyahoo 01:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please supply a translation of the poem. --LambiamTalk 11:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was hoping it would encourage a Dutch-speaker to translate - but seeing as it hasn't maybe I'll take a stab. Dlyons493 Talk 11:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look - it's gone :-) I don't have strong feelings about it either way, and seeing as it'd be a fairly amateurish translation anyway, it's probably best left as is. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 11:47, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrido[edit]

Non-notable, not-yet-broadcast show, extremely few Google hits, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, prodded, prod removed by author. Delete --Huon 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; also, has very little context. --Porqin 13:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable future webcast. NawlinWiki 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. When and if it's brodcasted, we'll talk. -Royalguard11Talk 18:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Jennifer (Saved by the Bell)[edit]

  • Delete. Fancruft, has a big section that is original research. Character appeared in one episode of the show, and really only warrants a section in the SBTB minor characters page. Ckessler 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already adequately covered as an entry in the minor characters page. -- Whpq 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That is a lot of information for a minor character. --ColourBurst 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to From Nurse to Worse or merge valid info into the character list per precedent and per the last AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nostalgic kids TV sex fantasy worship shrine page as per nom. They don't make network teens-for-tweens dramas today like they used to... Bwithh 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NOR. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't even have an article on The Zack Attack. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I authored a large majority of the Minor Characters page, and found that Jennifer's entry was sufficient enough to leave it that way. This page does not expound on her character much at all, and instead gives a run-down of the episode and a questionable list of clearly off-the-cuff "clichès" etc. Keep page only if the entry is changed to "From Nurse to Worse" and merged with several other episode descriptions as seeds for a new SBTB section.
  • Comment Just as a side note, From Nurse to Worse redirects to this page. Ckessler 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please. --*kate speak 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts - The Prophecy[edit]

Google brings back 115 results, but probably padded by unrelated pages due to the popularity of the topic. The original author's only edits are on this page, and the subject seems to be a credit list for a non-notable game. Perhaps CSD/prod would be more suited, but I thought I'd bring it here first. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there,

This is a new page: a work in progress. We are still working on it, and would like it if you don't delete it, at least until we have completed it.

We are a constantly-growing community, and we think that this page could be used to gain more members. This is my reason for creating this page, as well as offering an insight into our game. We think of ourselves a bit like Runescape, which has its own page on here....

--No. 1 Chelsea Fan 14.06, 25 July 2006

  • Delete per what Chelsea fan just said. even if it actually does exist, its non-notable, has no players, and the article was posted here to "gain more members"-----> advertising. get rid of it. Benji64 14:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no players?? We have 201 registered members on our site. Go check it out if you don't believe me.

[30]

If you're gonna delete it, fine, but I never said we have no members. We want it, yes, for adveritising, partly, but secondly, for information on the rpgs that are out there. There are probably people who want to know about harry potter rpgs, and we want to tell them about our one.

--No. 1 Chelsea Fan

  • Delete per above: not notable, and as admitted by the article author, advertising. Runescape is notable because it has hundreds of thousands of players. 201 players is not notable. Dark Shikari 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. 201 registered members is practically nothing - perhaps if you had a million registered members, I would take a second look. Fabricationary 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of members fluctuates, it would be sky high if like Runescape we didn't remove inactive member accounts. Admittedly we do not have a runescape gathering and this article is not solely advertising. The site is celebrating its 3rd birthdya a month from now and that shows it has stood the test of time and even a complete site move and overhaul. This actual point of such an article is to mark the history of the site itself. The article on the history is currently being written so that it is of an acceptable standard for such a prodigious site such as this. We wouldn't want to submit a sub standard finished article.

Seba Nile - 15.45, 25th July 2006

  • Comment. Runescape's subscriber numbers are listed at http://mmogchart.com/ as 800,000 active paying subscribers. Comparing this to your tiny online RPG is silly: if your RPG was listed, there'd be a hundred thousand new Wikipedia articles about similarly non-notable web RPGs. Dark Shikari 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fan-created RPG per above, fails WP:VAIN spectacularly. -- NORTH talk 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is one of the best rp boards i have ever been on and I've been on my share. /We want to gain more members so that people will experience what a message board rpg can be like. i've never had a greater experience in my life, and you can check out http://s15.invisionfree.com/HogwartsProphecy/index.php?act=idx and see for yourself, just because we don't have hundreds of thousands of people, there are very few accounts that don't post on a regular basis. 

But those are not our main reasons for deciding to create this.  Our main reason is just to put information out there to inform those who may be looking for an RPG to join.
  • I'm trying to figure out why you people care so much about this article being deleted. It isn't harming anyone and it helps the people of the site. The site might be small, but to the people on the site, it is important.
  • The site itself is not what you might think, a littel group of people in a tiny village in some unknown state. We have members from all over america, england, lebanon, austrailia, europs, asia. Our member number fluxtuate over teh summer which is approaching now. Remember that this is a site aimed at anyone and everyone and seems very popular with the kids. Teenagers come on to express themselves and do a great job at it. Do you want to deprive other teenagers of the same priviledge.
  ~Seba Nile 03.05 27th July (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Design Theory[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designism.

Original research. Zero google hits on the phrase "ordinary design theory". Also, the references listed don't mention this theory. They do mention a technique used to tell if a painting is a forgery or not, but the article is much broader than that and therefore not verified. Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Term is not notable/in common use, content is largely original research. FeloniousMonk 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Apparently some sort of alleged mathematical test for the presence of Dennett's intentional stance; seems like original research to me, and likely redundant to the intelligent design article. Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WAS 4.250 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as subsection of intelligent design. See, you just run this program and it says there is a designer for the universe, but looking around, he may not be so imtelligent.Edison 02:04, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designism[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinary Design Theory.

Original research. The sources given do not talk about this overall theory, but about small portions of the text of the article. Much like an article claiming "Zippy the Kangaroo is God" and using articles on kangaroos, God, and the word "zippy" as references Xyzzyplugh 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article cites several sources. The second cited source says: Actually the proper designation — for there is nothing new in the basic argument of this book — is "intelligent Design Theory". The first cited source says outright that it is talking about Intelligent Design in in its very first sentence. Uncle G 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Again, another instance of Postdesignist (talk · contribs) using original research and creating articles with terms so uncommon that they don't even qualify as neologisms yet. Term is not a useful redirect and the content cannot be merged. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete While I haven't had enough depth in philosophy to know if this has any serious academic supporters, I recognize the structure as being an academic approach to the idea) and I support delete because any measure of notability I can personally check shows it as unnotable, but I'd still like to point out that sometimes wikipedia editors are too quick to say "no google=no go" In my own field(computer science) I've seen things that were the among subjects of courses that I've had to take that would fail the internet tests of notability... although I could be overdoing the WP:AGF for this article. i kan reed 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an ugly neologism, and the article seems to be about notions that are covered better under intelligent design and various other creationism titles. Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intelligent Design by another name so just redirect. WAS 4.250 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Byrgenwulf 07:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Glazer[edit]

I don't think starting a local ISP (even at age 15) makes one notable. Can't verify the student magazine because it's not named in the article. NawlinWiki 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clear nn bio, created by subject of article. StuartF 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently he "ceases" opportunities - sounds like a right killjoy :-) ChrisTheDude 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 As non-notable bio. -Royalguard11Talk 18:38, 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, high school. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal West High School[edit]

This looks like a school. The article lacks any notable references and even has no references or links at all!! It seems vanity to me. I do not think we keep articles about every high school. Beralighthand 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC) user's 3rd edit [31][reply]

  • Speedy Keep Beralighthand, High Schools are notable. Also on a side note, you have not been on Wikipedia long be sure you know what you are doing before you nominate, in fact you only started editing today. A user should have more Wikipedia experience before nominating anything for AfD. Valoem talk 14:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy says, "Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations". If you think new editors shouldn't nominate articles, get the policy changed first.--Xyzzyplugh 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should, but unfortunately is not, this is an example where a new user nominated an article before fully knowing the criteria for deletion. Valoem talk 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Valeom, I would like to direct you to WP:Assume good faith. I see no reason why this editor's nomination is improper. Agent 86 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Absolutely agree with Agent; see also WP:BITE. It is also altogether likely that a user who properly nominates an article for deletion on the day he arrives is somewhat familiar with the project from his having contributed anonymously/under a different account, such that the ascription of the term new user (especially where intended derisively) is inappropriate. In any case, the question of the notability of secondary schools is probably well-settled (notwithstanding that some, as I, disagree with a categorical rule, as evidenced by some users' supporting delete), but it's eminently unlikely that even a longtime user who doesn't frequent AfD would be cognizant of the relevant history, and, so, where a nomination is sincerely essayed (with encyclopedic purpose in mind), it seems better to advise than to upbraid the nominator, especially where an AfD isn't particularly disruptive; our discussing an issue a bit more isn't harmful. Joe 06:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, personally i think keeping all these high school articles is bs but the precedent has been set. many times. Keep. Benji64 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Benji64, please point me to any policy page confirming any such "precedent." I don't believe there is one; it is all "proof by repeated assertion." There is no established policy or consensus about what schools should be included and it is perfectly appropriate to discuss them case by case. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is an overwhelming predecent established over the past 2 years where not a single, verifiable high school article has been excised from wikipedia. Remember, this is a discussion. Benji64 never said he was stating a "policy", he was giving the rationale behind his vote - which is that there is a clear precedent that high school articles are not deleted through the deletion processes on Wikipedia. Stating that no high schools are deleted is not "proof by repeated assertion", it is a fact. Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive clearly shows the results since January of 2005 (as I am sure you are well aware). I would also like to note, since you referred to it another AfD discussion, that Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools includes many nominations from the year 2004 which ARE NOT high schools (despite the title) and that the great majority of high schools which are listed on that page that were indeed deleted have since been re-created and in some cases survived subsequent AfD discussions. With all due respect, the only "proof by repeated assertion" that I see in this context is that you have stated mulitple times that it isn't true that high schools are not deleted, however as the record shows, high school articles are indeed not deleted through deletion processes on wikipedia (obviously hoax, copyvio or non-verifiable schools notwithstanding).--Nicodemus75 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; having been around since 1894 is notable enough, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a high school. Check the school project I believe. Concensus was reached that all high schools can have articles and notable middle or elementary schools can have them as well.--Crossmr 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This meets my personal standard of notability for high school articles (since there is no accepted group standard). Sorry but I don't find the usual repeated arguments for deletion compelling. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Dpbsmith (I also agree with Benji that (blindly) keeping all school articles is, ahem, bs, but disagree that we are bound by any "precedent"). There is no inherent notability for schools. Each school article ought to be judged on its own merits. This article is not sufficiently encyclopedic. Agent 86 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's a high school and should not be deleted. The school project has established that no school should ever be deleted. Notability has nothing to to with it. Capit 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment user created brand new account specifically to participate in (or influence) one particular vote or area of discussion, see [32] "I got involved with Wikipedia because I was told there was extreme hostitity toward high schools and that it was very necessary for me to vote to defend them." Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hipocrite used this (see his comment above) to block me as a sockpuppet because a friend got a Wikipedia news letter warning about school deletionism so I did sign up and enter a vote as my friend told me to do -- he had to help me because when you are new at Wikipedia, it's hard to figure out voting. So Hipocrite put a big ugly yellow banner on my page that I was a sockpuppet - and I still don't know what that is, but I do know that is how these school deletionists treat you when you are new. Why should I have to defend myself for signing up and voting? Capit 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Who is your friend? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If the school project has established that, then they're wrong. Notability is (almost) everything. - fchd 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We do keep articles about every high school, welcome to the complete sum of human knowledge. Silensor 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those are primary schools, not high schools, and all of them are quite old discussions. --Skeezix1000 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, let me wratchet myself down a bit. No verifiable article about a high school has been deleted for nearly the past two years. P.S. If you think "many" is equal to 2 (out of hundreds), you can spare me the lectures on accuracy. And thank you for the pointer to the Eastern Technical High School article, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Silensor 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the issue of precedence. Once one goes, they all will be nominated for AfD. -Royalguard11Talk 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This issue has been decided many times before. --Skeezix1000 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - All verifiable high schools have been kept for two years. That's a fairly strong precedent. Please see WP:AFDP (education section). Srose (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - on the issue of precedence as stated above. If one goes they will all be nominated. We have been warned before about this type of attempt to delete schools. Do not let these school deleters win, per RJHall above. Trunk 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- The tradition of all high schools being kept really needs to be turned into an official guidline, as per above, noen have been deleted in years. --PresN 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, please turn it into an official guideline, then, and establish that this is really the Wikipedia consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article conveys the historical importance of the school. Yamaguchi先生 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle for all the usual reasons.--Nicodemus75 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh?
  • Keep, and list at WP:EiC#Cleanup needed...which I've just done. --Stephane Charette 23:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen quite a few people with good intentions and miserable writing. This is probably just one of them. It does need cleanup though. Thanks for putting it up for cleanup, Stephane. Badbilltucker 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Schools are notable per consensus reached @ This page -- Librarianofages 02:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a not a policy or guideline, that a subpage of a user page. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a speedy candidate. General cosnensus is that high schools are notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Notability is not applicable to schools per School Project. The general consensus, as stated above, is that the fact the school exists is enough. As Dpbsmith noted above, many many schools have been deleted by the school deletionists who rally together to delete all schools. Listerin 12:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. High schools are not inherently notable, but a high school with a long and well-established history such as this is. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not just a school, but a school that no longer exists. Catchpole 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Should we delete all articles on things that no longer exist? The fact that the school has closed doesn't mean the article goes away. --Stephane Charette 17:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No just delete articles on things that no longer exist that aren't very interesting or useful. Catchpole 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia should cover the past as well as the present. Piccadilly 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is historical erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm always up for keeping school articles. A storied school is definitely notable. Mikeeilbacher 00:40, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as previously deleted content. Blue link is due to a deletepage template being placed and the page protected to prevent future incarnations. Mo0[talk] 05:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STEFANICLE[edit]

Probably hoax, not a single Google hit, prodded, prod removed by author. Delete --Huon 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. useless gibberish. Benji64 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Zero Google hits, incoherent nonsense. --Porqin 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, note that creator is User:StefanandAlexei, who keeps blanking the AFD notice on the page. NawlinWiki 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. I have replaced the AfD tag again and sent a warning the the user on their talk page. Wildthing61476 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G1 as patent nonsence. Otherwise just delete. -Royalguard11Talk 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT, I do recognize a number of the headers and sub-topics on the page as part of the Bionicle character/location naming from Lego. From what I can discern, this is a User:StefanandAlexei fan fiction story for the Bionicle world. That may help clear up some of the incoherency, but it still doesn't validate the article for notability, etc. ju66l3r 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G4 and nom. Article is recreation of previously deleted article. -- Gogo Dodo 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even after finally receiving a suspension for repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article, the user has clearly come back on AOL IP:195.93.21.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to continue removing the AfD tag and editing the article (but not for notability or anything else that would have it be kept as legitimate). ju66l3r 07:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. --Ixfd64 20:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brown (British politician)[edit]

non-notable, held no office, failed candidate, conviction confers no notability Mtiedemann 14:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; as well, the marijuana thing may have provided notability if it was widely covered in the press, but i havent been able to find any evidence to support this. Benji64 14:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failed candidate. They don't need articles. -Royalguard11Talk 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic bigot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 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 merge whatever is deemed useful to Autism. Since I don't know how I'd best put it on the article, I just added the mergeto tag to it and will let someone who knows more handle the actual merge. - Bobet 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism and blindness[edit]

There are already separate articles on these. I don't see why there need to be this one. The source is a PDF that looks non-notable. Article is poorly written. I recommend we split it up into the Autism and Blindness articles that already exist. Beralighthand 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't notable to have its own article; however, if relevant, inside the Autism article can contain a blindness section. --Porqin 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into Autism and delete article. PJM 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge While the content of this article does seem to be drawn from the pdf file, there does seem to be several resources for autism and blindness here [33] including books on the subject that have turned up in a google search. It looks like there is certainly enough for an article if someone wanted to write it. Keep if someone wants to clean it up and source it appropriately, otherwise merge the current useful information to the main Autism article.--Crossmr 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Same reason as user PJM. Monkey Brain(talk) 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:PJM Stubbleboy 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless someone cleans this up and sources it better, per Crossmr. MarkBuckles 09:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this decision was a "no-brainer" for me. --HResearcher 02:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael abowd[edit]

according to WP:BIO Benji64 14:17, 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, the merge notice is already on the article and whoever wants to can merge it at their convenience. - Bobet 13:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fursonas[edit]

When I came across it, it had a suggestion to merge to furry fandom and people sounded like they agreed on this in the talk page. There also was a tag for original research. The article has NO SOURCES WHATSOEVER. It is an obvious neologism. Beralighthand 14:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as above, though I disagree that this is a neologism. It gets 84,500 Google hits and Google Groups shows it in use going back at least to 1996. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've added 3 published usages (one of which has a definition) to the article as well as an information site that defines the term. Its also used extensively on numerous commercial art sites. The definition is easily found via google and consistent. Not at all original research.--Crossmr 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Furry fandom article per above. Yamaguchi先生 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. --HResearcher 02:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hayes[edit]

Article is an obvious hoax. cited source does not exist NF Martin 14:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The source cited on the article appears not to exist. The title of the book, and the author gain only google hits back to Wikipedia. Regardless, the person appears to be non-notable. --Porqin 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination- no sources to verify WP:BIO, and the text is laughable. Fabricationary 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did brief research on google. No information has come up relating to Christopher Hayes. I only looked on first page though. Possible hoax/vandalism or lack of notability. Valoem talk 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agree that the cited book does not appear to exist. No book with that title has been copyrighted in the United States. www.amazon.co.uk has no books by F. Martin Naisbrough. No ISBN is cited for the book, a puzzling omission. I'm 99.8% sure the book does not exist; if so, the supposed "reference" was provided in bad faith, further comfirming the likelihood of a hoax. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is highly probable that this article is a hoax. I couldn't locate the book on altavista, amazon.com, or in the catalog of a large public library system. John254 01:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maton/Johnson Films[edit]

Delete as NN film company. {{PROD}} constested by IP user without comment. Website shows stills from a few amateur videos created by them, but nothing to indicate any legitimate notability. Crystal ball-ism regarding their debut film. Imdb link shows only uncredited appearances. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yer man i agree with the guy who said we arn't encyclopedic because we are not but as for 'bugwit' he just talks crap because we are a legit film prodction compant and our debut film which is nearly finished is professtional and having a professional premiere and as for his comments about my acting career, he didn't read it properly because they are not all uncredited and our film will soon be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.98.204 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Maybe you should try to create the article again once your film is there. I think the message board posts regarding "One Second Film" on the IMDB listing say a lot about notability and legitimacy of the film company at this time. That is not to say that there's no future for the film company, but until that future happens...well, you said it yourself: not encyclopedic. As far as your acting career, I stand corrected. Of the 11 appearances listed on the IMDB listing, there is one credited role. If you think that I am just talking "crap", so be it. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 21:21, 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 G4 speedy deleted. Fang Aili talk 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigFooty[edit]

Already been deleted by consensus once for non-notable and commercial. Previous AfD result was delete (Archive is here) ju66l3r 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete as recreated. -Steve Sanbeg 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material --Icarus (Hi!) 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{db-repost}} tag added. Afd tag remains. (Is this proper protocol?) --CPAScott 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. However, deletion via CSD without closing AfD is not. I have placed a message on Fang Aili (the closing admin)'s page asking her to close the AfD. ColourBurst 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I created Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

In there a NPOV rewrite of this page, when its deleted, should go. Also please pass on to Deutshland friend that this NPOV title exists.--Cerejota 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict[edit]

The article, both the title and the body, is far too POV, original research, and reads like an op-ed piece. It's clear that this was written to prove a specific POV. All the major statements are unsourced (To wit, the entire opening section: "Iran and Syria are the two main powers who support during that conflict the Hizbollah. An intellgence officer said, the true leaders of the operation are in Tehran and Damascus. Iran and Syria had supported the Hizbollah in the past. ... Although Iran has welcomed the fall of two of its historical enemies ... the presence of U.S. troops in two of Iran's immediate neighbors is seen as a threat."). Some minor points are sourced, but not from particularly well-known news agencies. I have no history editing the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but this is obviously a POV fork from that article. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi am against the deletion. It should be important to point out what's the role of Syria and Iran in the conflict. The reason is many even president bush and the israelian gouverment say Iran and Syria tried to make use the crisis for their own goals. So it should be clear, which reasons could the two countries have to make such a strategy and what is their role in the conflict. U can't put all of that in the main article cause if will be too much of it. I had (RFC)just started the article. And in the german wikipedia is also such an artcile. I think such an article is important so u can point out what US and Israel say why these countries are part of the problem and it is also important because when Israel is going to attack Syria and later we will ask why they had done it, so we have sucn an article and find out why this was happen and so on. There was a fast deletion and it was failed. Now that entry. I think it would be better to work on the article. :( It's also sad that the person doesn't wrote a reason why the article should be deleted. So please keep it! i know there can be much better. But this is a wikipedia, so I had hope the others will help me. :) --Japan01 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note, "the person doesn't wrote a reason why the article should be deleted" was because you jumped the gun a little: I hadn't finished nominating this page for deletion. "There was a fast deletion and it was failed": Someone nominated this for {db-attack}, but it wasn't. The person who removed the deletion noted it was AFD-able. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Bad English. In any case, it's merely suspicion and could be mentioned in the main article. __earth (Talk) 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad English is no deletion reason. --213.155.224.232 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason why the German wikipedia has an article about this is because User:Japan01 made it there too. I note it is also up for deletion on the German wikipedia too. If we were to write an article, it would need rewriting effectively from scratch, as the present article doesn't actually make any sense and violates innumerable policies and guidelines. I'm not expressing an opinion on whether we should have an article about it, but the present article is not it and should be nuked. In any case this is also a terrible name for the article. Many of the reasons given by User:Japan01 are bogus with respect to Wikipedia: "it should be important to point out things" - this is not our mission, we are reporting on what secondary sources say. Morwen - Talk 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in the german wikipedia we have atm the problem that some people want to delete many articles bout that conflict. --Japan01 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Agreed on all points asbestos. This sort of thing belongs in a blog, not an encyclopedia. Infinitenoodles 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who thinks that title is POV may not understand much of the conflict and geo-political issues going on. The title is about as POV as it gets, neither country has ever denied funding Hezbollah, so they obviously have a role in the conflict. To delete this article because of a lack of other countries having articles is kind of silly, we do not remove content because we do not have equal content on all portions. However the article needs moer information and possibly a rewrite, I think a PROD / Cleanup was more in order then a AfD. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article, begining with the title, is POV, OR, and a bazillion other stuff that ill let wikicounsels get on with, but its main wrong is that it excludes the role of other non-combatant countries in the conflict. For example, it excludes the role the USA in the conflict which, to paraphrase you, anyone who "understand much of the conflict and geo-political issues going on" is aware of.
An alternative that the existence of this page raises is that there might be a need for a page on the role of non-combatant nation states in the conflict, not just Iran and Syria in particular. Althought I don't know if this is really neccesary considering there is an "International reactions" page, which could be re-tasked. Dunno, ill raise it talk in the main article.--Cerejota 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete POV fork. It sufficies to raised sourced statements about this in the main article. If at some point in the future we get a separate page on general international influences on the conflict, for example, covering US support and funding of Israel, then this page, havily rewritten, might be a section there.--Cerejota 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article wasn't nominated because of "a lack of other countries having articles is kind", it was nominated because all of the most important statements in the article are entirely unsourced original research written from a single point of view. And stating it would have been better to "PROD" the article is surely not what you meant: WP:PROD is used to delete an article when everyone agrees it ought to be deleted. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didnt say you nominated it for those reasons. As for my WP:PROD error, I thought it would still be clear but, what I am saying is a call for sources should have been made before a call for delete. I think a cleanup and asking for sources would be in order unless you find it to be a POV fork, which there is no POV, these countries do support Hezbollah, or factually false information. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Hello32020 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best, merge it with an existing related article or, like Sa.vakilian stated, create a The role of foreign counties in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Having such a specialized article with so little useful information will undoubtedly spawn additional articles of similar caliber to either balance what people see as POV abuse or else address topics that could not otherwise be addressed in this topic's narrow focus.--Epsilonsa 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork, as suggested by Stifle on his de-tagging it for speedy. I also agree to a degree with Epsilonsa's evaluation that the information here might be better served as far as NPOV goes in a more centralized article regarding all foreign involvement. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. POV fork. No reason that what is verifiably reported about roles of various countries can't be reported in the main article. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. POV fork. It is polemic essay, at best.Behaafarid 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a deletion discussion about the German version of this article because of we have deletion proposals on any article related to the conflict. don't understand it as a POV fork but a valid way of dealing with a complex crisis and a fast growing article. Keep.--213.155.224.232 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it deffinetly needs to be rewritten but this is an important article which is not strictly POV since numerous news agencies report on it and it is a key factor that is driving political moves on the conflict. Also it should be mentioned that no one really disputes the claim of Iran and Syria supporting Hezbullah. People Pro-Hezbullah would likely see it as a badge of pride. Heavy editing must be done and some unverrifiable parts removed but a seperate article on this topic is deffinetly warrented.
  • Delete POV fork. It sufficies to raised sourced statements about this in the main article. If at some point in the future we get a separate page on general international influences on the conflict, for example, covering US support and funding of Israel, then this page, havily rewritten, might be a section there.--Cerejota 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per user Talk and user Epsilonsa.--Mani1 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone please explain this POV issue? I keep seeing it mentioned as a reason for deletion, yet noone seems to get that everyone, including the countries in question, agrees that Iran and Syria fund Hezbollah. What is this alternate POV being left out, or what is this supposed POV that is being used as justification for deletion instead of rewriting? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we don't need an entire article to point that out. That could be mentioned in the main article, properly sourced. Creating an entire article with this title gives the appearance of WP having a POV. And sure enough, when I go to read the article, it's full of POV all over as explained above. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I dont think that helped, however I appreciate the attempt. The question is, what is this POV everyone keeps talking about? The countries who support Hezbollah do it openly and proudly, the countries who do not like this, despise it openly. What is this POV that is being enforced if the article stays with a rewrite? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you see POV and I don't there's a chance there is some there, and vice versa. If you and a LOT of other people see POV and I don't there's a really GOOD chance there is POV there. A LOT of people see POV in how this current article is written. So it's almost certainly (not 100% certain, I guess, but almost certainly) there even if you don't see it. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it doesnt as you didnt actually say anything. I am sure if there is a POV in the article title, someone can surely say what it is instead of just stating there is POV. Its ok however since Vjam was nice enough to point out a misunderstanding I had. I personally have never seen Syria deny funding Hezbollah, but he was kind enough to actually present a source. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone is able to do the subject justice PDQ. It's too much of an eyesore to wait around for that to happen. On the POV question raised by Zer0faults, I think it very likely that Damascus and Iran support and even, to some extent, direct Hezbollah. However that is my POV. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence for this. Iran and Syria certinly deny it (where do you get your information to the contrary?). There are some claims coming out of Washington that its a well known fact, certainly, but that's not evidence. Remember where you were when you found out there were no WMD in Iraq? --Vjam 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is this mystical POV when Syria and Iran both admit to funding Hezbollah? and proudly I might add, supporting them. Everyone keep stating its POV, but what is this POV? They deny running Hezbollah, I never seen them deny funding them, do you haev a source of this denial? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Iran: [34], Syria [35]. Note these are also not pro-Arab sources. --Vjam 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take this was in trply to me so I moved it up. Again I am not stating they are fighting there, they support the group diplomatically and financially. The article states "no Iranian Revolutionary Guards fighting alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon." If that is the impression I gave, that I am stating Iran is at war or giving troops that was not what was meant. Again Iran and Syria openly support this group, so what is the POV? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Syria article denies sending weapons, not funding or supporting. Furthermore it goes on to state "Syria says it does have influence it could exert on Hezbollah. But it's also telling Washington: Play ball with us and we'll help you; don’t, and we won't. " But anything taken from that would be OR. Again both countries openly support Hezbollah, so where is the POV? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's support as in "side with" and support as in "help". We're concerned with the latter here. The article on Iran says: "Iran claims it gives only moral support to Hezbollah. On Saturday Abbas Ali Kadkhodai, spokesman for Iran's powerful Guardian Council, reiterated Iran's assertion that it has no influence over the group". The Syria article, you are right, only has them denying shipping weapons, but, since a negative apparently needs proving, here's another which is more explicit: [36] "We do not provide Hezbollah with arms," Moustapha insisted in a conversation at Syria's embassy in Washington. He also denied charges that Syria had provided Hezbollah with financial support or that Syria enjoyed decisive influence with Hezbolla. Now, I don't really believe any of that, but it doesn't seem there is any evidence to say otherwise (although there are statements made in Washington etc which get repeated in the media, and people end up believing that some evidence must exist. But it doesn't seem to).--Vjam 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge any worthwhile parts into an article for the role of foreign states in general. At this point, the references for the entire second part of this article are from the Irani Government's own news agency, and the out-of-quote references to "the Zionist Regime" by the main contributor seems to reflect the accusations of heavy bias. --S.B. 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with a more abstract article. Qoqnous 09:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys when the article here will be unfourtanatly deleted, we try to work it out in the german one. Atm i looks like the article there will survive and then we try 2 work the main development out. Perhaps later we can try to write a better article so i won't be deleted again. :)) Thx 4 ur feedback. --Japan01 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think any explanation is needed, the article clearly does not belong in Wikipedia, just like the Misconceptions about Iran article. --Spahbod ☼ 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork from a current event article that is attracting a lot of POV itself. MLA 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. par Spahbod.--Zereshk 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV issues Alireza Hashemi 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(RFC)*edit & keep user:infocop411 14:14 7/28/2006 (EDT) think this needs sources verified and edited but deserves to be kept due to the current event happening & will be in the history books

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle (networking)[edit]

Relisting after prod was removed. This is not a feature new to Windows Vista. No documentation is available on the subject, no independent reviews are available, and Microsoft themselves have said that this isn't being included. Since Wikipedia isn't in the crystal ball business, this article needs to go -- if Microsoft introduces the feature at a later date (which they said they will), then we can create an article with the correct name at that time. -/- Warren 14:54, 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 merge. Wickethewok 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet crash[edit]

The Ogame article is decent, but this one-sentence "article" describing a single term from Ogame is unnecessary. In the original Ogame article, countless other terms are defined as necessary, but this one in particular links to its own article. It should be merged to the original article (to define the term instead of linking) and the Fleet crash article itself deleted. Dark Shikari 14:55, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD A7 (deleted by TigerShark). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Richardson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Vanity page. 'nuff said. Dark Shikari 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete textbook example of an A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No claims of notability. --Porqin 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Goodness gracious! --nathanbeach 16:29, 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 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Whaley (writer)[edit]

Vanity page: check history, it was created by Simon Whaley. Googling for his name plus "writer" gives 774 results. Possibly notable, but doubtful, and even if so its still just a vanity page. Dark Shikari 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Finland[edit]

Fails notability criteria. Also has only 53 google hits. Dark Shikari 15:42, 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 attack. Please tag attacks for speedy when you see them. Just zis Guy you know? 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly family tree[edit]

BJAODN. Enough said. Dark Shikari 15:56, 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 - Richardcavell 05:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of action film clichés[edit]

Previously nominated, but kept. Issues of original research have never been addressed, and the article doesn't cite any sources besides the films themselves. List of film clichés by genre has been deleted, so per that precedent I'm renominating this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this is the wrong place for this. You want to go to Deletion Review if you have any procedural problems with the AfD. Otherwise, I believe there is a six month mortatorium on repeat AfDs? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote Wikipedia:deletion policy: "there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations," and it has been several months since the last nom. There has also been a new precedent set in the mean time, and I feel this article should be considered in light of that. Deletion review is to restore deleted articles or dispute an admin's ruling on an AFD, not delete kept articles months after a proper afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can understand the re-nomination due to the new precedent. But I also want to point out it's only been TWO months since nomination, not "several." I'm not voting, just asking questions. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is all original research and has no WP:V to be found. While funny, should be deleted. Thε Halo Θ 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. I also like to suggest the same for:
if they can't be sourced, and maybe some of the other stuff lists included in List of cliché lists. -- Koffieyahoo 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or edit mercilessly to remove all uncited ones (and by uncited I mean any entry which does not have a reliable source stating that it is a cliche). Just zis Guy you know? 10:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. These "list of cliches" articles are all opinion, no sources. Someone else has to say that these are cliches, Wikipedia cannot say it. The article's fundamental concept is based on an original research assumption, and encourages other editors to freely add their opinions to the ever-growing list, like a parlor game. wikipediatrix 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. I'd point out the bias and unverifiability of the article. I concur that even with examples given, this is still original research and very UNWikipedian IMHO. And I also agree that this article will grow and change like LISTeria if it is allowed to stay. But I don't feel the need to explain these views, as I expect most actual Wikipedians will share and explain them far more elaborately than I could. HOWEVER, I WILL point out that the grammar throughout the article is (IMO!) disgusting, or at least.... If it's written in my language and dialect, it is intolerable and should be deleted ASAP.

Why do I think it could not be not simply edited? Such editing would only be a viable option if changes to the article could only be made by (for example) a specific administrator. What I'm trying to say here is, the article is virtually unreadable. I believe that it is garbage and will remain garbage if something drastic is not done "NOW". BEAN (unregistered) 17:33, 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. DS 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrow, Michael[edit]

Vanity, no assertion of notability, etc, etc, etc... Dark Shikari 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete meets speedy criteria. --Porqin 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weird. Why is the deletion notice not showing up on the page? --nathanbeach 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was cute -- this was some html in one of the previous edits: "C:\Documents and Settings\Michael Petrow\My Documents\My Pictures\Family and Friends\Summerhouse and Thanksgiving flowers:wiki.png" --nathanbeach 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion notice was removed by the author, I have since reverted it back. --Porqin 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy with extreme prejudice He removed my speedy too. Pat Payne 16:34, 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. The consesus conclusion of this AFD appears to be that this subject is not verifiable with no reliable sources (blogs are not reliable sources, nor is anecdotal evidence). Anything after we have determined violations of WP:V and WP:RS is not relevant. This is more a problem with reliable media sources not wishing to cover these type of games (probably for the reasons mentioned by SevereTireDamage) than with the notability of the subject. Wickethewok 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario_Adventure[edit]

Its a fan made game, a ROM hack. Since when are ROM hacks notable? A similar discussion is going on at Pokemon Brown, for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodoodoo (talk • contribs)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

  • Delete per WP:NN. All ROM hacks should suffer the same fate >:) Thε Halo Θ 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NN is not a guideline or policy. You also seem very biased against them. --172.198.201.49 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ROM hacks, like fanfic stories, are inherently nn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above comment. However, I must add that fanfiction usually doesn't recieve much attention; however, this ROM Hack has achieved notice on several sites, including joystiq. --172.198.201.49 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments in Pokémon Brown AfD. We need tangible proof of this thing's popularity... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.creationrobot.com/2006/02/mario-adventure-the-best-nes-game-hack-of-all-time "The Best NES Game Hack of All Time?"... This is by far the best Mario hack ever, if not the best Mario game ever.

http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/63 "The Best NES Game Hack of All Time?"

The rom community is abuzz! It's really a damn shame an article like this can't be displayed because of someone's "NON NOTABLE" viewpoint,(which isn't even an official wikipedia policy) when it's just about as popular as any rom hack can come. What else is needed here? Toastypk 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Print mentions? Even mentions in BIG gaming sites, not just some random blogs? Jubilations from Nintendo themselves? Congratulations from notable figures in the industry? Regrettably, it's hard to get people excited about a fan hack... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As described in the article it is virually a different game. not just a hack —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dean randall (talk • contribs) .
    • Which is no reason to keep the article. I could invent a version of chess with exploding pieces, but no one would still make an article about it. If the entire chess world would concur that this version is indeed a novel approach to the game, well, that would be article-worthy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please some rom hacks are notable like this one Yuckfoo 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then could somebody explain my sources? You have your sources, what else do you need? Toastypk 05:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is with the sudden holy war against rom-hacks? If you're going to delete one of the most popular rom-hacks of all time from Wikipedia, you may as well just delete the "Rom-hack" article itself. Shadic 20:51, 31 July 2006.
  • Keep This is one of the most well-respected rom hacks ever released and has enough significance, given its popularity on the Internet, to warrant an entry. I agree that not every hack made should be mentioned on Wikipedia; only the select few that are the cream of the crop and have made an impact on the rom hacking scene in some way should be indexed. Colin 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since when aren't ROM hacks notable? For that matter, if ROM hacks aren't notable, why is any non-commerical product notable? Why isn't the Cave Story page pending deletion then? Just because it wasn't created via manipulation of a ROM? There are enough people active in ROM hacking to afford the consensus best hacks a page. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.204.239 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - this is a prime example of the best of the best when it comes to ROM Hacking. Why not just delete that article too? --172.198.201.49 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability (or lack thereof) does not appear to be a valid reason for deleting an article; or, at least, a few hours browing the various policies and guidelines make no mention of it, other than it having never been made into a real policy... though it does make mention of many WPers abusing it as if it was so. Hm. --172.198.201.49 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But notability guidelines are frequently cited in deletion debates as reasonings behind the feelings of individual editors. The notability guidelines summarise the "gut feelings" of many, many editors, and as such, they do have weight in deletion debates. It beats having a long, dull library of precedents. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this doesn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for deleting articles. I don't see any reason why each and every ROM hack in existence couldn't have its own page. They don't violate the policy on pages, so where's the harm? --145.229.156.40 11:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I feel as if this ROM hack has received enough attention to merit an article on Wikipedia. I think it would be better off with some sort of expansion - such as references, listings of media attention (WITH references), general cleanup, etc. --GUTTERTAHAH 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this hack is famous, having been mentioned in gaming magazines and large game-related web sites. It's practically a whole new game and nearly commercial quality. I do agree that sources are needed and that few hacks deserve their own page, but this one is famous enough that it does. 64.231.193.187 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is one of the few hacks I've heard much about, years ago - it actually is one of the most famous hacks. As always mentioned on these ROM hack AfDs, it's really hard to judge the notability of these hacks since most legitimate news sources won't cover these things, partially because of their questionable legality, and most magazine or sites won't risk appearing to condone it. Crazy Ottos don't really happen anymore. In addition, some larger blogs have mentioned it (Kotaku, Digg), though I am speaking much from my own anedcotal exposure to when the hack came out. --SevereTireDamage 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why hacks should be automatically treated as non-admissable. From the article it appears the game has merit and is sufficiently different to its source material to make it individually notable. Mallanox 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This hack's received plenty of mainstream gaming coverage, I'd say it's notable enough. I do agree with GUTTERTAHAH's assertion that it should be expanded/cleaned up a touch, though. --Drjayphd 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Same reason as above. Apofisu 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per abbove reasoning. The media coverage seems to make it "notable enough", although not by much. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Movement[edit]

Procedural renomination, with it semi-protected, following the mess of sockery at the first AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement). No vote. Proto::type 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nearly all the material in the article fails WP:V. As long as the article attempts to cover multiple organizations, this article will be subject to edit wars. I suggest a separate article be created for each individual organization that meets WP notability requirements, rather than trying to cover a "movement" that has not been written about in any reputable third-party source. —999 (Talk) 16:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about edit-warring but I disagree about the response. Namely, given the proliferation of articles and AfDs, it might be better to put all the different movements in one article and give them each a section. There would be edit-warring (I don't want to be around) but hopefully fewer AfDs, which drain the broader community. I don't know, though; you may be right -- it's a muddle.--A. B. 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that most of the available material about the orgs will be from their web site. Such autobiographical web references are only allowed in articles about the org itself per WP:V. I've actually dealt with this same sort of thing before with respect to an article called the Golden Dawn tradition, which attempted to cover a number of small organizations, many of which had web-only sources and which were edit warring with each other. Splitting the article up and requiring that the articles be fully cited did eventually end the edit warring. -999 (Talk) 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your experience on this one.--A. B. 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - "Delete" because notability still has not been shown. POV, vanity, etc can always be cleaned up but an article is either notable or not. I'll be happy to change my vote if notability is shown. "Weak" because I think collectively there must be something notable about the various Gnostic Movement groups that keep getting articles about their individually non-notable groups; these articles keep getting deleted amid controversy. It would be good to have one article that combines all these groups in one place (see my response to 999 above). Having said that, my thought that there's something notable about the groups collectively still has to be proven so in the meantime I'm voting to delete. If an acceptable Gnostic Movement article isn't doable, perhaps give them each group one bullet point each in the Samael Aun Weor article, assuming it's notable. --A. B. 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very limited ability to verify the article contents other then self sourcing. Since I have had it on my watchlist is constantly being edited by different groups within the movment to reflect their POV. These edits show that the sources being used here are self-serving --Trödel 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup/npov. POV isn't reason enough for a delete, IMHO. Honestly, the notability of the subject matter should matter lot more. As noted above, there's a lot of history to this article and the subject matter seems notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. To delete an article because its easier than actually putting in the work to make it a GOOD article is, in my opinion, a less-than-optimal choice. As a matter of full disclosure, this article was prodded a while back and I removed the prod for similiar reasons (POV not sufficient for deletion). However, I have no other investment in this article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to clarify that I am not saying above they should be deleted because they violate NPOV; however, I am saying they should be deleted because the article does not have good references, is self-serving and independet references do not exist - see the talk page for some results of the research I did - I only found materials self published by the groups themselves. --Trödel 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 999's argument. I also remember the outcome of the Golden Dawn tradition article. SynergeticMaggot 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 999's argument. I came in at the tail end of the Golden Dawn wars, but they seem to be over now. —Hanuman Das 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 999's argument. --Percevalles 11:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films Not available on DVD[edit]

There's no list on this page yet, but it seems like there might be. Even if someone somehow filled out the whole list, it would be unnecessary listcruft. Dark Shikari 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was just about to propose its deletion for original research and violation of WP:NOR. --Sbluen 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That would be fun to keep updated... (kind of makes my head swim) --nathanbeach 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unmanageable, unnecessary list. --Porqin 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands now, the article-stub is pointless. And if it were to be expanded, it would be unmaintainable and constantly being outdated. I would, however, support an article that discussed films and TV shows that, for one reason or another, are not and are unlikely to ever be released to DVD for legal or licensing reasons. (For example, the 1960s Batman series, or the uncut European edit of Malena, etc.) But this article ain't it. 23skidoo 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (future) Listcruf Thε Halo Θ 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what'll we have next, List of things which do not have list articles on Wikipedia? —Hanuman Das 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay. Go ahead and delete it. But it is not as silly as it sounds. It just needs regular updating
  • Delete per Hanuman Das. Mikeeilbacher 00:43, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Zone (book vs. series)[edit]

Violation of WP:OR. Dark Shikari 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is WP:OR and doesn't WP:CITE any sources. --Porqin 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copy 'n' Pasted Content. --nathanbeach 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: I'm the author of the article, and it is entirely original writing. If the article warrants deletion on other grounds, then so be it, but it isn't copy/pasted, and doesn't require citations for content. --Tonyfuchs1019 14:42, 25 July 2006 (EST)
    • Comment - All information on Wikipedia has to have citations. Otherwise it is considered original research or unsourced. Neither of these is accepted as content on Wikipedia. Please delete. Srose (talk) 20:48, 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 repost, earth salted, spammer blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlexPoint Source, LLC[edit]

This has already been deleted once, and its been put back up. An admin needs to protect this article from being recreated. Dark Shikari 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Recreation of the same previously deleted article is speedy criteria. --Porqin 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrible name for a company, too. --nathanbeach 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete —Hanuman Das 00:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racstudios[edit]

Not notable, advertisement, spam, vanity... Dark Shikari 16:17, 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, keep by default. - Richardcavell 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam glogauer[edit]

Don't know if this qualifies for speedy, but its yet another non-notable musician page (100 google hits). Dark Shikari 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Porqin 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --nathanbeach 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MUSIC is pretty clear on notability, and though this musician may not be very notable as an individual, he was a member of a band that was clearly notable, and I think that warrants a page. That said, the article needs to be slapped with {{sources}} as, in its current state, it's just poorly written and totally unsourced. -Harmil 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He left the band in 1995, their only clame to fame comes in 1997, with a different drummer. I don't think he becomes notable, because the band releases a hit single with different band members after his time. He in himself accomplished nothing. --Porqin 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you getting that date? Cherry Poppin' Daddies claims "Adam Glogauer – drums (1996 – 1997)". If this is incorrect, can you cite a source? What about his role with Uncle Charlie Osborne? Can we source that? Keep in mind that I don't want to "save" the page if it isn't notable. I'm doing RC patroling too, but this one just seemed to be notable enough to comment on. -Harmil 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From senior year in high school, 1988 until 1995, Adam played drums for Uncle Charlie, Now William, Jasper and The Cherry Poppin Daddies.
    He back to Los Angeles in 1996. He is currently the singer/songwriter (among other roles) of the band Cute Phase.    "
This is from the the page in question.
Also: Tim Donahue – drums (1997 – present), he is the one that I believe currently brought this band to fame. Uncle Charlie Osborne appears to have a somewhat interesting story himself, but doesn't seem to have much notability, especially Adam Glogauer's role. --Porqin 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he seems to have played drums (among others) on Kids on the Street which was released in early 1996 (thus he would have played drums for that album in 1995). It's not clear if he went on tour with them for that album or not (if he did do an international tour with them, then he'd sneak by on WP:MUSIC, but I'm willing to admit that it's a close call. *shrug*. I've cleaned up the page, and I'll leave it at that. He was a small (potentially non-notable) part of the history of a mildly notable band (hey, if Weird Al does one of your songs...) Everyone can make the call themselves and vote. -Harmil 20:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The album Kids on the Street didn't hit big. But the single that debuted in 1997 did. Anyways, other Wikipedians feedback is needed. --Porqin 20:09, 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, no consensus on the move - take it to the article's talk page. --james(talk) 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Championship Car Racing[edit]

From what I can tell, this article is about whichever open-wheel racing series was most popular at the time in the US (note that there has never been anything called "American Championship Car Racing"). Organizing this information like this is borderline WP:OR. It could be split or merged into about a half-dozen different articles, but it would be better to just delete it so people can concentrate on contributing to the articles on the individual series. Recury 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to something like History of Open Wheel Racing in the U.S., unless something like that already exists. The strife between the series is very notable, and it would be nice to have the transistions between series in one place. Plus, the article is a very good start and could be improved. Logicaldisaster 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but rename and expand per Logicaldisaster. We do need a Wikipedia article about the very convoluted and contentious internecine warfare that has dogged big-time open-wheel racing in America since the 1970s. FCYTravis 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Yunipo 13:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typically, we give a reason why or at least say "per" whoever we agree with. Recury 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article is the page for generic information about Championship Car racing and the place to link to when not wanting to link to one specific series. Without this, text in articles would be more unwieldy as multiple links and over-explanation would need to be added to them. Closer reading of the article will show that is not about the "racing series (that) was most popular at the time", but rather the evolution as AAA was the sanctioning body from 1909-1955, followed by USAC 1956-1978, battle/evolution to CART in 1979-1980 and then the famous IRL split in 1996. A driver who raced across these transitions would need additional article text. You should note that >100 drivers link to this page through a redirect of Championship Car. If a rename is necessary, I suggest that the redirect be reversed, but I feel that this should not be done here, but rather via a poll on the article talk page. BTW, "Open Wheel" is not appropriate, as that topic is too generic, including F1, sprint car and midget car as well. --Brian G 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only source I can find that calls it "Championship Car" is rumbledrome.com, which in fact calls it "American Championship Car Racing" exactly (same author?). Most of the other results are referring to Champ Car. Are there other, more reliable sources for this term that I am missing? Recury 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and possible Rename. The article spans the gap between the different sanctioning bodies that sanctioned a "breed" of cars called Champ cars or Indy cars. The article name isn't very good. I go with Brian G's suggestion of "Championship Car racing", or with the rename to the redirected "Championship Car". --Royalbroil 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For over 70 years the series was/were referred to as "Championship Car" and I wouldn't be opposed to a rename to that. Anyone familiar with the subject would agree that no article on an individual series could adequately describe the history of this series and race lineage. Chris Economaki still refers to open wheel racing as "Championship Car". -Drdisque 06:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There needs to be a central article that people who aren't aware of the convoluted history of the top level of American single seater racing can go to - articles on CART, IRL and the rest should be daughter articles from here. I also support the proposal that there should be consideration of a rename, but I don't have sufficient background in US racing to help much in deciding what it should be. Ideally this article should be called whatever it is that Joe or Joanne Public is most likely to type in when searching for 'the top single seater series in the US'. I've got a nasty feeling that would be 'Indycar' however, which takes us right back into the IRL/CART split. Maybe each daughter article could have a brief explanation at the top: "This article covers the history of the Indy Racing League (or whatever). The overall history of top level single seater racing in the US is given at (Insert name here)". 4u1e 30 July
So why don't you think it should go to IndyCar? That actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. Recury 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both Champ Car and IndyCar are now more specifically used to refer to the Champ Car World Series (formerly CART) and Indy Racing League respectively. In fact, the IndyCar is now owned by the IRL. I believe that Championship Car is the proper term to use for a generic reference. --Brian G 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you have sources for this? It's not exactly an obscure subject, there should be plenty. Recury 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is spinning out of control. This is an AfD, not a Requested Move. Per the deletion policy, this result of this discussion can not be to rename or move this article. If you wish to do so, please retract your nomination and get an admin to Speedy Keep this and then take up the article name in the proper forum. --Brian G 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Now that you have to back up your claims, it's "out of control," eh? How funny. Recury 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while Indy Car has a more specific use now, it used to refer to the types of cars in this article. Recury 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Logicaldisaster. -- DiegoTehMexican 12:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (as Brian G claims only keep/delete votes county) and rename per Logicaldisaster. -slowpokeiv 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 07:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Zoo[edit]

Violates WP:SPAM, WP:V and others, but mostly the first one WilyD 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Also violates WP:VAIN. --Porqin 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Haakon 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this spam without prejudice against a proper article on the company, which may pass WP:CORP. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article does not violate WP:V — every bit of information is sourced. It also fulfils criteria for WP:CORP, which states that an article is notable if it meets "any one of the criteria". It meets this one: "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself (Forbes Magazine, Atlanta Business Chronicle etc)." Do a google hit of this site, and you'll be presented with a hundred results. Additionally (and perhaps secondarily), the article is modelled from other similar articles like Simply Hired or CareerBuilder, which are notable.
To the above voters: instead of simply voting "delete per all" or "delete, violates ...", why don't you cite specific examples from these policies and show how this article fails to fulfil them? Orane (talk • cont.) 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like this has been cleaned up since the nom, and it verifiably passes WP:WEB. --Wine Guy Talk 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -I just read an article that mentioned this company and looked them up on Wikipedia to get the quick lowdown. I like being able to just go to Wikipedia for the quick summary and then if I want more info I can click over to the site. My vote is keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.110.78 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: User's first post. Haakon 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this article now meets all the necessary criteria (specifically WP:V, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB). MarkBuckles 09:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to K'Nex. - Bobet 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest k'nex coaster[edit]

I love this project, but unfortunately, I don't think it's really encyclopedia material. Perhaps the image could go in the K'Nex article, and the external link could be included there? It's a wonderful demonstration of large-scale projects that can be done with K'Nex, and it's great amateur engineering, but there's still a lack of notability to address. - Tapir Terrific 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge The K'Nex article can possibly contain a subsection to include such information as this. It definitely doesn't need its own article. --Porqin 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not the Guinness book of records. -- Koffieyahoo 02:11, 26 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,
  • Merge to K'Nex. Worth noting, but certainly not in its own article. fuzzy510 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Thatdog 08:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Michael 08:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would vote for merge, but the picture is lousy, shows no scale, and it just isn't notable. --Cassavau 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is not notable enough to warrant its own article. --HResearcher 03:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Sanatorium in Matheran[edit]

Article appears to be an ad for a health resort in India. Even NPOVd, I don't believe the subject merits an article. Kurieeto 16:29, 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. Kimchi.sg 13:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mason (philosopher)[edit]

Article makes unsourced claims of dubious parentage, and as a philosopher and politician without a basis. Original research and reads like vanity, no ghits found. Mtiedemann 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a hoax article, and I believe the nominator that no relevant ghits were found. I certainly found none for the supposed forthcoming album once I eliminated Wikipedia and Answers.com from the search. Starts with "This article relates to Charles Mason, the philosopher. For Charles Mason, the astronomer, see Charles Mason." but has an intro that says "Charles Mason (born 14 September 1950) is a pro-Western political revolutionary and musician." (note - no mention of being a philosopher in intro). Later it says "Believed to be the illegitimate son of General Carlos Suárez Mason, a hardline general at the heart of Argentina's pre-Falklands dictatorship, he eschewed his grandfather's political beliefs." (There is no antecedent for the pronoun phrase "his grandfather".) GRBerry 03:17, 26 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,
  • Delete, with a little hesitancy. The absence of sources or verifiaility are sufficient grounds to delete, but if half what is claimed here is rue, it's a an account of a quite remarkable person. But without sources, have to assume it's a hoax. --BrownHairedGirl 08:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The lack of verifiable sources is a clue, but for me the giveaway is: the article states he was born in 1950 and was the son of General Carlos Suárez Mason. However, if you check the history in the original version, he is the grandson [37]. Carlos Suárez Mason died in 2005 aged 81, so would have been 26 at the time of the supposed birth: both he and his son would have had to be 12 at the time of the respective conceptions. Fairly unlikely, so it was updated to be more believable. Aside from that, without sources it is WP:OR so should be deleted anyway. Yomangani 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. I've seen this before though - was a version of it on AfD months ago??? Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Radbourne[edit]

Subject is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry - it is nothing more than a vanity entry (something that is borne out of the fact that the Wikipedia account that created this entry - twosheds 316 - is the same account name that he used all over the internet for Instant Messaging programmes, websites and the like). With that in mind, and that it goes against Wikipedia's content policy (don't write entries about yourself), I would urge you to consider this subject for deletion.XstraightX420

  • I absolutely agree with the above claim. It's a complete vanity piece and is completely undeserving of an entry in Wikipedia.Famous Mortimer 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just adding my full two cents again. There are plenty of other wrestling and MMA writers who deserve Wikipedia entries - people who are actually known throughout the world, rather than to a small audience. The fact that he feels the need to boost his ego by citing a list of "awards" that he allegedly won by voting multiple times for himself on a website.

Also, writing for a web blog on a website that takes just about anyone (see Eurosport) does not make you a credible writer, in my view. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was a Wikipedia entry that he/someone has done to put on his resume - something that you can tell by the lack of depth that the writer has given to each section of his "life".XstraightX420

  • Delete As above, yet another blogger. I reverted a semi-amusing vandalism to this article earlier, otherwise I wouldn't even know it was here. Soulresin 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Optichan 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, vanity, vanity. There seems to be a spate of vandalism today, as well. --Gekedo 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete nn-club. Just zis Guy you know? 10:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baku Bicycle Club[edit]

Doesn't seem quite notable enough; Google returns six results. Crystallina 16:55, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AccessPlace[edit]

Fails WP:SPAM, WP:WEB. Article reads like an advertisement. No independently verifiable sources. Prod removed without comment. Only rationale given was that other sites which probably should be deleted haven't. ColourBurst 17:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinkCentre[edit]

Fails WP:SPAM, WP:WEB. No independent verifiable sources. Advert box removed, contested by article creator by saying he wasn't finished, but end result still reads like an advert. Also gives rationale comparing to major search engines, but major search engines can be verified in major independent sources and this can't. ColourBurst 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while Spam may make for a good sandwich, when fried and served with plenty of ketchup, it does not make good encyclopaedic content. WilyD 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prefer green eggs with my spam. --Wine Guy Talk 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Blasphemy[edit]

Advertisement for non notable company that fails WP:CORP. Mattisse 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's spam, someone please get a flamethrower. WilyD 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Benji64 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it wasn't an advertisement in the first AfD, it certainly isn't now. This site is notable for being probably the oldest 3-D wallpaper site on the internet. I remember it from 1998, and it was already well established then.[38] If it were any other wallpaper site, I would vote delete, but this site was a true web pioneer. The first AfD notes that he has been mentioned on TechTV several times; if this can be verified, it will meet WP:CORP#1. (Full disclosure: I have several of DB's images in my wallpaper rotation.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable website per MDD4696 in the original AfD. hateless 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom as spam. As much as I have admired the artwork, this website is still a small business. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think digital wallpapers as a whole have somewhat declined in popularity but this is a notable site, or at least was at one point. --ColourBurst 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non notable my ascot the article just needs some work. Slap a cleanup tag on it and go. Whispering 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as one of the best places to go for wallpaper there is, especially among the Linux community. Has been for many years. --DarkAudit 01:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments in previous AfD. They're a reasonably well-established and well-known site that have been around forever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I am biased as a loyal subscriber. this is a notable website, and I think most people have seen the famous mushroom picture 'Fluorescence' which adorn the home page. could use a bit of a cleanup and maybe once I learn wiki I will try and do that =)Xenocidic 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have nothing against the article about the website or the website itself. Contributors just need to ensure that any future added text is not used to provide free advertising. I believe this would conflict with WP:NOT. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I just removed a rather POV and unsourced line from it, but the site is definitely notable. Check the 162,000 "digital blasphemy" google hits if you're that sort of person, but a quick browse through the Google hits and the first AfD pretty much sums up notability. Doesn't look like spam or advertising to me. [disclaimer: several images from the site are in my wallpaper rotations on both my computers :)] --james(talk) 13:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this website is very notable both for its longevity and the high level of its artwork, both free and for sale. Also, the article does not to me seem to be an advertisement. Jrbbopp 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Richardcavell 03:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jointness[edit]

Previously deleted material, see first nomination. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That nomination had nothing to do with the article now being discussed being deleted. This article was prodded and no one challenged the prod. The reason for prodding was Non-notable neologism. Kimchi.sg 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a US Sevices neologism, that is not even common across partner nations. If it does stay it can probably be summed up as
Jointness is a neologism coined by the US Services to describe cross service cooperation in all stages of the military processes, from research, through procurement and into operations. Nuttah68 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This entry should be cleaned up, not deleted. It is not Non-notable neologism as there are thousands of links on google/google scholar using this terminology. --AvivaS 09:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Jointness is not a neologism, Jointness in the form defined and used by the US Military is. Nuttah68 09:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In this article's first nomination for deletion, the sole reason it was nominated was because it was linked to three other entries all of which cited material by a single author and therefore deleted for 'orignial research'. It is no longer linked to any other terms and it now sites material by the U.S. Army War College Library, an extremely reliable source. Jointness is a well known terminology used by many countries; it is definitely not original research or a Non-notable neologism. If you search the phrase on google, you will get thousands of entires. This material meets the relevant content criteria for Wikipedia and I do not think it needs to be deleted.--AvivaS 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:This term appears multiple times in reliable internet sources; it is definetly not a non-notable neologism and should not be deleted on this basis.Ispivak22 07:11, 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 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Elementary School[edit]

While it seems that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong and as a result high schools have this false patina of "notability", I cannot believe this extends to elementary schools. I quite like Dpbsmith's "BEEFSTEW" test (which I keep meaning to refine for my own personal analysis). Without imputing any endorsement by Dpbsmith, this school gets one point (for having a photo of the school). Schools are not inherently notable, WP:SCHOOLS did not pass and is not binding one way or another, and precedent is not supposed to apply. Without a firm policy, each article must be judged on its own merits. I'd say that this article, based on its own merits, has no encyclopedic value and must go. Agent 86 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article says that it's an elementary school. That's pretty much a restatement of the title. Oh, and it's at a specific address (thanks, Yellow Pages) and part of a district. The school may or may not be the center of the known universe, but the article gives us nothing to work with but a Photoshopped picture. Geogre 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It doesn't matter what kind of school it is. The school project has established that there is an organized group of people at Wikipedia out to delete all schools. You can't let them get started with their deleting. That is why the school project exists. Capit 18:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment user created brand new account specifically to participate in (or influence) one particular vote or area of discussion, see [39] "I got involved with Wikipedia because I was told there was extreme hostitity toward high schools and that it was very necessary for me to vote to defend them." Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, let's not have debates with straw man sock puppets. --Rob 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take a look at WP:Assume good faith. I take umbrage at the suggestion I'm part of some sort of organized conspiracy. Furthermore, there is no policy that says that the creation of a Wikiproject conveys any sort of notabilty. Agent 86 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Capit was blocked indef as an sockpuppet Jaranda wat's sup 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. schools are notable. Benji64 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A very few elementary schools might be notable, e.g. historically important schools founded by famous educators to demonstrate an important educational philosophy. Maria Montessori's "Children's House" in San Lorenzo, Rome, Summerhill, Froebel's 1837 Play and Activity Institute in Germany are notable. Most elementary schools are not notable, and this one isn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Hmmm. Play and Activity Institute is a redlink. How about Pflege-, Spiel- und Beschäftigungsanstalt? Nope, that's red, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete For the love of god, WP:SCHOOLS FAILED! Even if people can argue that high schools are inherently notable (upon which I generally- but not always- agree), elemntary schools are absolutely not. There's no special significance stated for this school, and as a result, it should be deleted. -- Kicking222 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep I (being the author of the page) do not see why people may say that this school is not "notable". This school has consistently been rated in the top 100 elementary schools in the state, and I thought it would be nice to showcase it. I'm trying to build pages for all of the schools in my town. In response to Geogre's comment, this picture has not been photoshopped. I do not see why an attempt at showcasing an elementary school is seen as total misuse of Wikipedia. You may delete this page if you want, but I find that a true injustice. Mikeeilbacher 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - all schools are notable. There should be not quibbling about this. The school project is maintained because of this continual threat to delete school! Trunk 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User has less than 25 edits, mostly voting keeps on AFDs Jaranda wat's sup 01:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, sockpuppet of User:capit, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Listerin. Kevin_b_er 23:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:SCHOOL is a failed guideline, and the creation of a wikiproject does not confer notability to all its subjects. Furthermore, I move that any keep votes citing only a conspiracy for deletion be disregarded, as they violate WP:AGF. Just because one school article gets deleted doesn't mean they all will (and don't try to persuade me otherwise). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - There is no school guidline, and for all of you who think that all schools are inherantly notable due to precedent, you're wrong. The nom had it right- the precedent is for all high schools to be inherantly notable, not for all schools in general. --PresN 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- What makes a High School inherantly notable? There is no way that you can give evidence that one school has precedent over another due to the type of school. Deleting this page would be an injustice. What is the point of writing about something important to you and your town when another article takes precedent over it purely by type? Mikeeilbacher 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) duplicate "vote" has been striked. Silensor 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please only "vote" once. If you have further comments, then please make them, but as this is really a discussion towards consensus, repeated keep "votes" don't matter. To answer your (rhetorical) question, I say that nothing makes a high school inherently notable. Wikipedia isn't a local directory. Agent 86 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm sorry for voting twice, that was not what I intended. This page was not set up as a local directory. It was intended solely for informational purposes. Mikeeilbacher 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Schools are notable, and Wikipedia:Notability is not policy, it is an essay. Silensor 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Westfield Public Schools unless significantly expanded. (edit conflict) Yamaguchi先生 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Dpbsmith and Kicking222. Among elementary schools (and I'd also say middle schools), only the most noteworthy should be included here; the average ones shouldn't. Else, we should be including pages on every church (not just very large or otherwise well-known ones), every sports venue (not just professional ones), every restaurant, every gym, and so forth. We're not a web directory or a telephone directory. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, "notability" or the lack thereof is not a valid deletion criterion for schools, and attempts to make it so in previous discussions have failed. I understand that the nominator does not believe that schools are inherently notable and that belief is fine as a justification for a vote or even a nomination, but just because you say that schools aren't inherently notable doesn't make it so. I believe that schools are inherently notable as do many others and it is partly the rationale behind my vote. The failure to reach a consenus at WP:SCHOOL does not mean that elementary schools or indeed any schools are thusly to be excised from wikipedia. Many of us who participated at WP:SCHOOL who support the expansion and inclusion of school-related articles also rejected that proposal as too restrictive.--Nicodemus75 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did not say my basis for deletion was lack of notability. If that was the sole reason, I'd have kept my peace. My main basis was that it is not encyclopedic ("this article, based on its own merits, has no encyclopedic value and must go"). I agree, an article cannot be included or excluded on the basis of notability alone, but it would be foolish to say that notabilty cannot be a criterion which is considered in the light of all other factors. To determine whether something is encyclopedic, we have to have some sort of rational criteria to make that determination. One of those means is WP:NOT. How does this article expand our knowledge and understanding of schools? How is this article not just an indiscriminate directory listing? All in all, argumentum ad infinitum has prevailed to make high schools "inherently" encyclopedic (or notable). Now that proposition is being extended to elementary schools (a slippery slope the nay-sayers said wouldn't happen). It strikes me as an odd double-standard that the local elementary school is now somehow worthy of an article, but the church next door to it or the little league playing in its field is not (not that they should be). I need to provide a reason why the article is not encyclopedic (which I believe I did, you're free to disagree). It is not for me to prove lack of notability; however, if someone wants to maintain that something is encyclopedic because, in part, it is notable, they'd better offer more convincing criteria than repetition. Agent 86 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consensus has been that elementary schools are not inherantly notable, and there is no other claim of notability. There isn't, really, any useful info any anyone looking up the page wouldn't already know. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite your sources for this "consensus" you speak of. This page suggests otherwise. Silensor 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one line entry with a photo that is about to be deleted due to copyright infringement. Not to mention the resolution is so low it is not that useful. How many Franklin Elementary Schools are there in the US? Is this one more notable than the others? David D. (Talk) 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never said that this Franklin School is anymore important than any other Franklin School that might exist. No other school has stepped up and created a page. Mikeeilbacher 16:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daycd, if that fails, Merge Jaranda wat's sup 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content Luigi30 (Taλk) 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Westfield Public Schools — information, but not worthy of its own article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Non-notable elementary school, WP:NOT a directory, no content. --Fang Aili talk 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. If article doesn't expand much, then merge with Westfield Public Schools. JYolkowski // talk 02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete wikipedia is not a directory listing. Also per nom and Coredesat. -- Koffieyahoo 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article contains no assertion of notability. If the subject is not notable, keeping it violates the WP:NOT rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Librarianofages, shouting, like repetition, is not persuasive (and I thought shouting was not allowed in libraries). Neither is a critical review of the so-called Schoolwatch page. It is not a record of consensus, and it is not accurate. I should note it is not entirely wrong for Schoolwatch to be biased (and as a user page it's not subject to WP:NPOV), as its creator is obviously of the opinion that all school articles must be kept and he is entitled to that opinion. However, what is wrong is for it to be misleading, depending on what purpose it is used for. As a record of "keep" and "delete", it's fine. However, if used by anyone for the purpose to "prove" consensus or anything beyond a track record, it is not. I've spent (wasted?) a ton of time actually checking the actual discussions of many, many of the articles. If "Schoolwatch" was really being fair, and if it was required to be of a neutral point of view (which a user page does not), then it would indicate which "keep" results were really because of a lack of consensus. I've counted at least a dozen high schools that in the past few months only survived because of a lack of consensus. It's also not an exhaustive list - there are school articles that had AfD discussions that are not on Schoolwatch (some were keep, some were delete, some were no consensus - to be fair, more were keep than delete). I also don't think it's fair to include in the count articles on what are not individual high schools or elementary schools, but are school-related subjects, like school districts or the odd university (although these do not puff up the numbers in a significant way). To say that the Schoolwatch list is "proof" of consensus (which Schoolwatch does not expressly state, but other users rely on that summary) is not at all correct. Based upon my long review, I suggest that Schoolwatch does not provide a reasonable basis on which one can conclude that there is a consensus, one way or another, keep or delete. Agent 86 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is true that the page being linked is anaemic and incomplete. The user in question was banned long ago and others sporadically maintain that page. Tha being said, Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive is an accurate and virtually all-inclusive listing of all school article discussions since January of 2005. There may be the occasional AfD missing, but it would be very rare. A number of editors contibute regularly, who hold mulitple views on the noteworthiness of schools. Universities, colleges and other post secondary schools are included on the page, but AfDs on these sorts of schools are so rare as be inconsequential. It is a fact that not a single, verifiable high school article has been deleted through the wikipedia deletion processes in the past 2 years (substubs, hoaxes, copyvios, etc. notwithstanding). As to whether or not the result is recorded as "keep" or "no consensus" is really irrelevant because policy states that no consensus is keep. In an AfD discussion is not about whether or not there is a lack of consensus to keep an article, it is about whether or not there is a consensus to delete or not. There is no consensus to delete high school articles on the basis of their being "non-notable" or "unencylopedic" or "unimportant". Since no consensus exists to delete such articles, they stay. Also, since Grider's "schoolwatch" page is also called schoolwatch, you are confusing it with the page I have linked in some senses, most editors would consider Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive to be "Schoolwatch", not Grider's old page. You may wish to review that page rather than try to dredge through individual AfDs on your own, it really is unnecessary to do so. It should also be noted that some admins routinely close high schools as "no censensus" irrespective of predominating discussion in an AfD itself. I remember a VfD from last year where there was a solitary delete vote and about 25 keep votes and the closing admin still closed "no consensus" on the basis that school deletions are contentious. For the record, could you please point to the "at least a dozen high schools that in the past few months only survived because of a lack of consensus."??? I would like to see the specific "dozen" you are referring to. I can only find 2 such high schools since January, which were 9-5 and 9-4 in favor of keep - hardly "no consensus" by the traditional intrepretation on Wikipedia. A clear majority to keep is generally considered a consensus by most closing admins.--Nicodemus75 07:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, that was very informative. I wish that had been the link that was originally posted! As for the list I referred to, I decided I had better things to do in real life than re-create the wheel, but did save a list (on a different computer). I'll try to dig that up as soon as I can. Agent 86 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Not notable Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so sick of debating this point...  ALKIVAR™ 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This statement does not contain a reason for keeping this article. It might contain an implicit reference to an argument that all schools should have an article, but the community has long since rejected that argument. GRBerry 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — My preference would be for most schools below the High School level to be merged into the school district articles, where possible. It looks like this school is already mentioned on the school district page and there doesn't appear to be much else of note worth merging. — RJH (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You people have ruined what was a well-intentioned attempt at writing an article. If this is the type of reception an article gets during it's first stages, then there is no reason to even write on Wikipedia. Mikeeilbacher 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable article about a real world institution. Piccadilly 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a school, its existence has been noted in Westfield Public Schools. Catchpole 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have decided that this article is not worth the debate that it has received. I realize that schools are not notable, and feel that this page should be deleted, as to not cause any controversy. Although I am not going to revoke my vote of "keep", I will not longer try to debate my point. Mikeeilbacher 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Listen, let's sit down and have a nice cup of tea. While I disagree with the encyclopedic value of this specific article, my nomination is not an attack on the quality of the article or the editors who have contributed to the article (including you). If you think there is merit in this article, say your piece and stand for what you believe in. If the nomination succeeds, you've held true to yourself, and if it fails, you've managed to preserve what you think is important. I would encourage you not to throw your hands up in the air and give up, especially before the discussion is closed. If I were the closing admin (and I'm not an admin), I'd certainly still consider what you had to say despite your waving the white flag. Agent 86 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, but I clearly see your point. In the beginning I was fighting this purely on the fact that I don't want anyone deleting my work. This page is not necessary to for people to learn about education, but I still believe that it should have a place in Wikipedia. I propose a solution that should not anger everyone: I suggest creating a page ( perhaps titled "Notable Schools in New Jersey"), and letting anyone write about a school that they want to schowcase. This would allow for schools to express themselves, without compromising the encyclopedic values of Wikipedia. It may sound stupid, but I truly think this could be a solution.Mikeeilbacher 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Geogre has it in one. This article is nothing but a bare phonebook entry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important and verifiable too Yuckfoo 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the usual justifications for keeping schools with verifiable information, the nomination states "I'd say that this article, based on its own merits, has no encyclopedic value and must go." As much as I try to understand the deletionist mentality, I fail to see why the solution is not to improve the article. Given that the nominator acknowledges this possibility, what on earth is lost by letting it evolve into a more encyclopedic article. I have added information to this article in the past, while others stand idly by. Instead of adding to and improving articles, I lose far too much time each day dealing with both vandals and deletionists. Sometimes it's hard to tell who's causing more damage: the ones trying to screw up Wikipedia or the ones trying to clean it up. Alansohn 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:Assume good faith. The nomination was made in good faith and I stand by it. I should also add that the (apparently derogatory) use of the word "deletionist" is indeed "prejudicial" (per your edit summary). I will "vote", and have "voted", to keep school articles which are in fact encyclopedic. You may also wish to read WP:NOT and tell me why this is not indiscriminate information (and why arbitrarily keeping all schools would not be indiscriminate) or why this is not simply a directory entry. Agent 86 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would love to assume good faith. But your nomination starts by saying While it seems that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong and as a result high schools have this false patina of "notability".... Which part of "false patina of notability" demonstrates good faith? Indiscriminate would be List of items I ate for lunch today, TV shows I don't like or Items John Smith bought at the supermarket on June 12, 1943. This is not an indiscriminate bunch of information. If you believe that this article is no different from these two proposed article, I think we have a fundamental bit of confusion on what Wikipedia is about. (P.S. see extreme prejudice for a definition of the term, especially the final definition). Alansohn 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I prefer my Oxford or Webster's to a reference needing a citation. Agent 86 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's the problem: You still have a mentality that "real" information is what's in Oxford or Webster's. This is the Information Age now, and we find things on Wikipedia. Try it. Alansohn 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • List of items I ate for lunch today, School of little interest save to those who live in its district...I see little difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • List of items I ate for lunch today, number of potentially interested parties = one (zero, if you saw what I ate today); Franklin Elementary School (Westfield, New Jersey), number of potentially interested parties = 29,644 people who live in the Town + all those who attended the school and moved out + people (like me) who have an interest in education. Still don't see a difference? Next look at the contents of these two articles: Lunch (indicriminate items); School (useful, verifiable information). You may not be interested in this particular article, but that doesn't justify deletion. Alansohn 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hm. 600 or so students, so each of those students has 500 parents? Where is 29K coming from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I thought it would be clear. See Westfield, New Jersey for the source of the number. Alansohn 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Even assuming every single person in the district was interested in this school, that town has four elementary schools. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Would you PLEASE research your information before you make accusations? If you even listened to Alansohn, you would know that the town has six elementary schools. There is not point debating against someone who doesn't even know the subject matter. Mikeeilbacher 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    See, I'm blind in my left eye. Can't see a thing. Could you help me out and quote where Alansohn said that there are six elementary schools? I just clicked that nice little link he gave me, and, lo and behold, that article said that there are four.
                    That said, that cuts the pool of potentially-interested people even thinner. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on books that only sell 5000 copies, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on people who know 5000 people, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on stores that have 5000 customers, and I don't think it should have an article on a school that, in the entire world, 5000 or less people are going to care about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • On the "nice little link", it says, in pretty clear english, unless of course you are illiterate, "The public schools on the north side consist of Franklin Elementary School with 586 students, Washington Elementary School with 334 students, Wilson Elementary School with 531 students and Theodore Roosevelt Intermediate School [1] with 737 students.

Schools on the south side are Jefferson Elementary School with 583 students, McKinley Elementary School with 311 students, Tamaques Elementary School with 479 students and Thomas Alva Edison Intermediate School with 710 students." I'm pretty sure anyone with a first grade education can add three and three and get six. Second, where are you getting this number of 5,000? I know that all 29,644 people in Westfield would care about this page. Plus, I'm sure the more than 5,000 alumni of the school would be interested. Mikeeilbacher 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. Please read WP:Assume good faith instead of assuming that the term "deletionist" is "derogatory". Re-citing WP:NOT in this manner may express why you think school articles are not inherently noteworthy, but it doesn't make it so. Those of us who hold that schools are inherently noteworthy would suggest (and often have suggested) that articles about schools are not indiscriminate information for precisely the same reason that articles about cities, towns, municipalities, etc. which in some cases have a smaller population than most schools nominated for AfD are not indiscriminate. That would be the belief that schools are as inherently noteworthy on the basis of their being schools, as such towns or municipaliies are inherently noteworthy on the basis of their being municipalities.--Nicodemus75 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article could clearly be improved, but it's verifiable as it is. --Myles Long 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin, this article should not be deleted as it was already been merged per the GFDL, try to count the deleted votes as Merge and redirect. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge as always is not a good vote since it gets counted as a keep. Until that changes, Delete is the correct vote for cases like this. Of course since it was merged already. This should be changed to a redirect and the discussion closed. Vegaswikian 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, this school is notable. Bahn Mi 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep purposeful article on worthwhile topic. AFD is pointless waste of resources. I won't accept random deletions of articles, with total disregard for precedent, and thereby disregard for consistancy. Such a random approach discredits Wikipedia. --Rob 23:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are worth writing about, because they give kids something that they can identify with on Wikipedia. We should make all efforts to educate youth on how to be good Wikipedians. --Elonka 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article which helps expand our knowledge and understanding of education in Westfield, if we happen to be interested, and does us no harm if we are not. Kappa 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Westfield Public Schools or Delete. I'm ok with high schools, but elementry schools is pushing the limit of random collection of information. Kevin_b_er 23:08, 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 I reviewed and accepted the speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 00:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn haney[edit]

WP:BIO claims notability (so no Speedy), but I don't think these achievements are sufficient for notability Rklawton 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and failure of WP:N. Mattisse 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Geogre's Law violation, and I didn't see any claim of importance at all. She's feared 1) locally, 2) in the speech and debate circle, 3) of high schools. That Venn diagram has a pretty small population. Geogre 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, hey! I thought everyone except you was supposed to cite Geogre's law. A little, uh, egotistical, no? Fan-1967 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I came back to AfD after a two month absence, expecting a victory parade, and everyone's new, so I figured I needed to establish my bona fides as Archangel of Deletion again. :-) Geogre 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can assure you that you have been repeatedly cited during your absence. Fan-1967 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Geogre's law holds true. I wish her well, but having coached a team to second place in state debate finals just doesn't do it for me. Fan-1967 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (I think a speedy would have been appropriate. Agent 86 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. It is a borderline speedy delete, but delete nonetheless as this fails WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, no notable in the slightest. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:56, 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 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Berkovits[edit]

Non-notable candidate for city councillor in 2006 Toronto municipal elections. YUL89YYZ 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take exception to the notation "Non-notable". As the Executive Vice-President of the York Centre Provincial Liberal Association and a Past President of the Ontario Women's Liberal Commission, Magda Berkovits is a notable person not only in York Centre, but in Ontario. This page provides biographical information linked to the reference to Magda Berkovits on the City of Toronto 2006 Municipal Elections page for those people who want further information on the candidate's political experience and background. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gcrann (talk • contribs) .
  • Does not appear to meet guidelines in WP:BIO. Delete. --Skeezix1000 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Given the edit history of the user who created the article, it may also violate WP:Vanity. --Skeezix1000 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Not the case. User did inadvertently create an article about himself (see User talk:Gcrann), so this article would not be aWP:Vanity issue.--Skeezix1000 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with Skeezix1000, doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. Page little more than advertising for a municipal election. --Atrian 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Skeexiz1000 and Atrian as the article does meet the guidelines because it consists of verifiable biographical facts. It does not try to embellish upon such facts as one would in election advertising.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gcrann (talk • contribs) .
Verifiability is not the same thing as the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. And please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; the software automatically converts it to your username and the date. --Skeezix1000 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet either WP:N or WP:BIO criteria. Mattisse 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Candidates for office are not notable. Recreate the article if she wins. Resolute 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Skeezix and Resolute. Agent 86 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability isn't the primary issue here — notability is. Local council candidates are not notable; political party apparitchiks are not notable. As of right now, there isn't a single criterion by which she could be deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Delete, but do so without prejudice against recreation if she wins. Bearcat 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policy is not to that candidates automatically do not receive a Wikipedia article, while incumbents do. WP:C&E states in part: "As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, this guideline states that articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written."

    WP:C&Econtinues on to state:

    "Articles on elections fall into two categories: elections in which candidates are as important as parties (such as nonpartisan races and all American elections) and elections in which parties are more important than candidates (such as parliamentary elections in the UK and Canada). For the first type of election, each individual race should receive its own article."

    Municipal elections in Toronto are non-partisan races in which candidates are as important as parties. Therefore, municipal candidate articles are allowed by the Wikipedia guideline dealing specifically with Candidates and Elections.--Gcrann 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline refers to the provincial/state/federal level of politics. Our inclusion guidelines explicitly spell out that the municipal level of politics is not automatically entitled to the same policy status. Bearcat 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, it is not a guideline, but rather a proposal that has been put forward for discussion. --Skeezix1000 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETAIN I cannot believe how much time and effort is being spent on attempting to have an informative yet harmless article on one of the candidates running for election in Ward 10 in the City of Toronto. I would rather have articles for all candidates so that we, the voters, can make a more informative decision, and not delete those articles that do exist. Juveboy 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to post campaign materials. It's here to reflect things that are already notable, not to help publicize people who want to become notable. Wikipedia doesn't even have an established consensus that elected city councillors deserve articles; our inclusion guidelines clearly state that the bare minimum level for automatic notability is the provincial or state legislature. Helping you decide who to vote for isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bearcat 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see any campaign materials in the article, and to me, anyone running for public office is notable. Please accept MY opinion as is. Again, I state, why is there so much time and effort being spent on this one small article? Juveboy 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard process (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). --Skeezix1000 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a standard process, then why are we focusing only this one candidate? Looking at the list of challengers in the various wards, there are at least a dozen candidates that have their own personal pages, yet you seem to attack only this one, leaving the others alone. Is it that the others are more in line with your own political views? Juveboy 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone nominated it, thus the discussion. No one is attacking anything. If you believe that there are other articles on candidates that do not meet Wikipedia criteria, then nominate it for AfD, keeping WP:POINT in mind. --Skeezix1000 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to point out that this long debate was started literally minutes after the article was initially submitted by the person who authored an article on another municipal candidate running in the same ward. --Gcrann 21:06, 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 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Duchovny[edit]

Delete. NN, only famous for being the mother of David Duchovny. Google searches for her name alone turn up nothing. Ckessler 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BIO WilyD 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being related to a notable person does not make one notable absent any other criteria. Agent 86 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since the information is already in the David Duchovny article. SliceNYC 12:55, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime Laser[edit]

WP:CORP - too bad there isn't a speedy tag for this sort of advercrap Rklawton 18:08, 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. Wickethewok 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prc player and PRC Player[edit]

WP:SPAM more advercrap. Product hasn't even been released yet, so how can it be notable? Rklawton 18:16, 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 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon of Laplace (computer game)[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable but I'm happy to be guided by you game experts. BlueValour 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; popular enough for one set of fans to translate it ([40]) while another fan thought it worth a Wikipedia article. I'd say that any video game that has multiple apparently-independent fan followings in countries it was never even officially released in is probably notable enough for a short article like this. — Haeleth Talk 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While I truly appreciate Aeon Genesis' excellent translation efforts, they often choose cult and virtually unknown games. This game was never officially translated, and (I'm not sure honestly) it seems to have been unpopular as well, never having a sequel nor been made by a notable developer (Hummingbird Soft?). I'm open to hearing new information that could prove otherwise. --SevereTireDamage 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even listed on GameFAQs. As far as I'm concerned any game that got a release on a major console in an English-speaking area is sufficiently notable. However, this didn't and has no apparent ties to anything that is notable in the Anglophone world, so delete. Ace of Sevens 04:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a game released commercially on a major system. It doesn't have to be more notable then that. Aren'r wikipedia supposed to be a "complete" encyclopedia? Well, for that to happen we'll need this game too. Also, the game is featured on GameFAQs as "Laplace no Ma", due to the fact that the L doesn't exist in the Japanese language and a few other language rule that can be found on here, the exact correct Japanese title is ラプラスの魔 which in romaji is written out Rapurasu No Ma. The reason why it's not listed as that is because it's reference to this man, thus we know that it's supposed to be Laplace, they just can't write it. (Djungelurban 11:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Keep but definitely needs cleanup. I'm not sure why this game is referred to as "Demon of Laplace" since the usual translation of ラプラスの魔 is Laplace's demon. -- Buuneko 11:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name issue is, however weird it might sound, up to Gideon Zhi to decide. This is after all the English Wikipedia aimed towards English speakers, thus whatever title that game will have upon release of the patch, that is the name the game will have in it's English version, it's the name that English speakers will be most familiar with and also the name that the game will carry on the site. (Djungelurban 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I've seen Gideon Zhi refer to it both ways on agtp.romhack.net. -- Buuneko 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's supposed to cover the whole world, not just the Anglophone parts of it. More sources would be nice, as always... Ziggurat 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that we need to look beyond the Anglophone world. However, just because a game has been launched on a platform doesn't make it notable. The article, despite this AfD, has not been expanded to assert notability which leads me to suspect that there probably is none. BlueValour 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not being released in English is irrelevant. Any game officially released on a major games platform such as the SNES is notable. Proto::type 15:17, 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.

...But I'll edit it anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.96.25 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - There is only one clear 'delete' vote, in addition to the nomination, which is an implicit 'delete' vote. I take Kenthicken to be in favour of 'keep'. There is a minimum of discussion here, and I would ordinarily relist the item. However, the article is clearly a candidate for speedy deletion and I exercise some prerogative in deleting, so that this matter may be finished off. - Richardcavell 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic blade[edit]

WP:SPAM more advercrap Rklawton 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is this considered "advercrap?" There is no advertising here. (Kenthicken 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Why else would you post a non-notable product in Wikipedia? Are you now going to tell us you have no connected interest in this product? Rklawton 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who determines if a product is notable or not? This particular product was a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomercial. Does that not make it notable? If that is the case, then some serious editing would have to be done on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomercial page, since over 50% of the "notable infomercial products" listed there link to nothing, and should be considered non-notable as well. Personally, it makes no difference to me if this particular product is removed or not, but you should really look at removing the other "non-notable" products from the referring page as well. (Kenthicken 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
        • We do. And that sounds like a GREAT idea! Rklawton 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Dark Shikari 18:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dessarae Bradford[edit]

Self-published author and stalker - this falls miles below any sane notability standards. Phil Sandifer 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I believe deleting it now would be premature. She is bound to be revived as an article pending future escapades. I say we wait and see how this pans out.--Metron4 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figure we'd want to wait until she manages to actually get a future escapade that's notable. Phil Sandifer 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn person (I censored myself -- didn't want to run afoul of the lady in a federal court in Trenton, New Jersey). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this thing could be a sourcing nightmare. Daniel Case 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. We can't give every crazed Hollywood sycophant their own article. Crabapplecove 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I edited out ad-links to her products in this article originally, but I was just being nice. I'd rather see this woman not get any notice from her desperate pleas for attention. Nate 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I added the prod tag in the first place because this article was only created after the incident with Colin Farrell and all of the information in it mirrored her information there. Nothing that has been added since then is worthy of a wikipedia article. Ultimately, this person is only famous (and I use that loosely) for her interactions with a single person which means information on her should go into that person's article and not a seperate one. - Kuzain 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey now. She also fucked Alec Baldwin in his ass, apparently. Phil Sandifer 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dickaround[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary; also likely SPAM for nn band Rklawton 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Benji64 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletearound per nom. --Kinu t/c 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, anyone can merge it as an editorial decision at their leisure. - Bobet 13:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Renaissance[edit]

redundant article, contains no new information, see Renaissance Benji64 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possibly add a redirect to Renaissance, or Italian Renaissance. --Porqin 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I disagree, it should not be simply deleted with a redirect. --HResearcher 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article doesn't add much, but there's an immense amount of room for someone to expand upon it. This to me is exactly the sort of thing that stubs are for. Vickser 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Renaissance, when someone does expand the section to a point where it can stand on its own, it can be split off. At this point, the small amount of information in this stub would be more at home in the main article. --Wine Guy Talk 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect immediately – No controversy is there? It was on my todo list for a while, I was just about to do it, but I'll wait now until a decision is reached here. The person who started this poll would have saved himself and all of us time by being bold. There is too much talk at wikipedia and too little action. Piet 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Vickser, or as Wine Guy suggests, merge to renaissance and later (when it has expanded enough) it can be moved to it's own article. --HResearcher 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 04:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Juice[edit]

Non-notable internet film. Wildthing61476 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this survives AfD (unlikely), we need a disambiguation between Apple juice and Apple Juice. Dark Shikari 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete.

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

The result was DELETE. Rje 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rosser[edit]

First of all, the only edit to the article was by a user who appears to be Dave Rosser himself. Second, Google yields about 1000 results... of which all the top ones are Wikipedia and its mirrors. Appears to violate WP:BIO. Dark Shikari 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. no claim of notabilityand per nom. Benji64 18:57, 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. Rje 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism in Syria[edit]

Original research, POV, and inflammatory. Indrian 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree - Absolute nonsence, the entire artcle is a cut an paste from State terrorism so that we can organize the state terrorism article better to avoid edit wars. Again it says its a stub hence we need to fix it not delete it Huracane 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:State_terrorism#Organizing_this_article
    • The title itself is POV, because may of the incidents are only alledged to have been carried out by Syria. The article is original research because it relies primarily on primary sources for its claims. The article is inflammatory (though probably not intended to be) because of the current Middle Eastern tensions. How do you respond to this? Note that I have no particular axe to grind on this issue and do not really care for purposes of this debate whether Syria sponsors terrorism or not, the issue is whether it conforms to wikipedia policy. While the concept of such an article is not a bad one, the current article fails to be neutral and verifiable (verifiable in the sense that many of the acts are only alledged state terrorism without documentary evidence to back up the claim). Indrian 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article desperately needs a good scrubbing, but
    • While it may contain some original research, it also has at least one good reference, thus the whole article cannot be label original research. Sections that are original research should be edited out, but the need here is a need for editing, not deletion.
    • While there may be some NPOV violations here, the focus of the article is not irredeemably POV, and thus again the solution is editing, not deleting.
    • Inflammatory is not a criterion for deletion, nor is it really a big deal.
Just get out your gloves and start cleaning. WilyD 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article requires clean up not deletionRaveenS 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The current tone of the article seems mostly neutral, but perhaps it's been cleaned up? At any rate state-sponsored terrorism is widely-accepted to be the standard policy of several nation states, so an article of this nature is not unreasonable. It looks like a fork of the State Terrorism article, which itself is getting fairly long. I don't see a merge as an option. :-) — RJH (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not an expert on the topic but a read of the entry seems fairly neutral and well cited. So I would not call for complete deletion, but perhaps those with better knowledge of the subject could verify some of the claims and help improve the article in general.--Realstarslayer 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a girl got[edit]

Article appears to be a complete hoax. Searching IMDB gives 0 hits on movie, searching the actors/actress listed in the movie on IMDB gives no link to the movie. Google turns up 0 hits as well. Wildthing61476 19:18, 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. JIP | Talk 07:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pokemon Tower[edit]

Fancruft, no useful information. I tried to put a WP:PROD tag on, but it was deleted Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "is a large pokemon fanfiction and fanart website" WP:NOT. --Porqin 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the tag it said we can remove it. My bad if thats not what it meant. I got confused.

And it depends on your idea of useful. If your someone looking for a site with fanfiction on it then it it is useful for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCF (talk • contribs)

Sorry I'm new to this I didn't know.

  • That sounds cool. What can I do?
  • Re-judge After performing a cleanup and leaving out all of the vanity content, I feel the article is in need of a re-judgement on it. Also on User:Porqin's comment, what about the article for fanfiction.net then? -- (十八|talk) 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article doesn't assert notability and with a google test of 633 hits and a page rank of 4, it doesn't meet WP:WEB --TheFarix (Talk) 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —Minun Spiderman 10:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-judge I made a small cleanup. The article is now concise and informative. Citations are difficult because the website is constructed with a windowed format using HTML so direct links are hard. TheFarix: On the subject of WP:WEB when Pokemon Fanfiction is typed into the google search bar it is the first link to come up. It was also the first for AskJeeves and MSN and the second for Yahoo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talv (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. In response to the previous vote, that doesn't qualify under the criteria. Anyway, anything made by fans is considered fancruft and that could not be incorporated as a basis of notability into the article. PCEevee talk 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Richardcavell 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YourRadioCast[edit]

Spam, advert, corp, whatever, delete. Dark Shikari 19:32, 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 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenfolio[edit]

A web hosting service. Original article was spam, I removed the gross POV (leaves not a lot). Alexa rank >120k, ~200 unique Googles. No evidence of innovation, user base, significance, no cited sources, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to meet WP:WEB. --Porqin 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the talk page, author claims it's trying to define a new term, in which case it fails WP:NEO. But let's face it, it's spam. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully disagree. A brief definition and the origin of the term can be important to communicate. For example, not many people know that Acura is a made-up word, which does not exist in Japanese language. In no way I'm trying to spam wikipedia - just sharing the knowledge about the word I came across.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs) .
  • Yes, I did copy/paste from the site. I agree that it should not be there. Defining the term and its origin is all that should be on the page..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs) .
  • Except that there is no indication whatdoever that the term is notable in any other context except referring to this website. Fan-1967 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you admitted to a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copyright violations. --ColourBurst 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right -- they came up with the word and use it as a company name, so it is not as widespread as "google". A person coming to wikipedia with the question "what is zenfolio?" (just like I did) should be able to get a quick answer. From a quick look, there seems to be a fair number of people using it. Now, as I learn more, I consider using Zenfolio instead of my current provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs)
  • It is not as widespread as google by a factor of millions. Nice try, but let's face it. If the website is not notable enough to deserve an article, the name of the website, invented by the owners of the website, and only used to refer to the website, doesn't qualify. Fan-1967 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry... not convinced yet. Simple searches on wikipedia for other services often (but not always) return results. Jobster and zillow show up, while trulia does not. The criteria is not very clear. Anyways, someone will try to add Zenfolio sooner or later. I thought I'd start, others will pitch in if they feel like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs)
  • PLEASE read the standards at WP:CORP, which are not unclear. Google, Jobster and Zillow are notable corporations under those standards. Zenfolio is not. Fan-1967 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I watched this page a few hours ago, and noticed it was very POV, and bordering on an advert. However, I was going out, and didn't have time to file for deletion. What can basically be groomed from that article is one line, of an insignificant webservice of low notoriety. Unimportant, hardly any information. Why keep? M0RHI 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete in spite of Vkuznets' compelling arguments. Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found a review of Zenfolio on Sydney Morning Herald. Maybe it is not as insignificant as originally thought, although it is a newcomer. Here's the link:

Sydney Herald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.248.102.82 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Doesn't come close to meeting the standard of "multiple non-trivial published works". Fan-1967 21:50, 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, it was a copyvio. - Bobet 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoji Biomehanika[edit]

tagged db-bio, contested as: hardstyle has him listed under 'Notable DJ's and artists' but nobody wrote anything about him. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, unencyclopaedic in tone - is it worth cleaning up? Just zis Guy you know? 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Air Command Missiles[edit]

This appears to be a CSD-A1 case: it lacks context to make it understandable. Nevertheless, it is long and detailed, so it has encyclopedicness (it's a word!) on its side. It might need to go, to clean-up, to be renamed, to be merged... and the original nominator didn't know as s/he left it orphaned. I'd like the community - and experts in the subject if possible - to decide on. Thanks. No opinion from me, obviously. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft. Is possibly a copyvio given the first line of the article and if wikipedia hasn't received such a notice. -- Koffieyahoo 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How do you know it is a copyvio? --HResearcher 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful and encyclopdedically notable list. but drastically clean up. Stubify if there are copyvio issues Bwithh 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Missiles of the Strategic Air Command. As far as I know, there shouldn't be a copyright issue, as this is only raw numbers. It obviously needs cleanup and some proper table markup, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we've got a duplicate article here. I'm pretty sure the content is the same; only one copy should be kept, obviously. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill (I think Missiles of the Strategic Air Command to be a better title, so I'll be supporting keep [and cleanup and/or stubify per Bwithh, et al.] at its AfD). Joe 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I observe that each article has been tagged for speedy (correctly, I think), so I suppose someone ought to undertake to retain whatever information isn't subject to copyright in a stub at one of these two names; at which title would one think such stubification to be appropriate? Joe 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Kirill Lokshin's suggestion. --HResearcher 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy A. Tangen[edit]

WP:AUTO, tagged as db-bio but notability is asserted. Just zis Guy you know? 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. SteveHopson 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The article does assert some notability, but does not provide citations that satisfy WP:V. --Satori Son 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Rose Levesque[edit]

Baby girl born on July 24th, has done nothing noteworthy other than being born to famous wrestlers, PROD removed by anon IP with no explanation.

  • Delete for now the kid needs to be a kid and is not important yet. Maybe when she becomes a part of a storyline maybe then but just put something on both Paul Levesque (HHH) and Stephanie's articles not by itself for now. Let the kid be a kid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhall4 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I nominated it, so of coarse I support deleting it. She hasn't done anything noteworthy. I would support making it a re-direct to Stephanie McMahon like what happened with Brad Pitt's kid though. TJ Spyke 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not suprised that this page has been made. Let the kid be in an angle, and then maybe I'll give support, but not now. --Shaunvader 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shane & Marissa's kids don't have a page, so Hunter & Stephanie's kids shouldn't have one either. 24.7.217.221 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why should she get a article for being born? Perry 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People less than 24 hours old should not have their own Wikipedia article, unless, oh, I don't know, they come out fully grown or something. That, I'd support keeping as an article. ekedolphin 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she was importent enough to a have her birth anounced on live tv then she's importent euough to have her own wiki. Plus in 50 or so years she'll own the WWE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.159.16.96 (talk • contribs) .
    • Right now, Declan James McMahon would have a better claim to the WWE lineage than Aurora Rose Levesque, for being older... kelvSYC 05:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And learn to spell next time, it is a very "importent" skill to have, over. --Shaunvader 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless she becomes a wrestler herself or she is used in some real notable storyline where she is effectively her own distinct entity, we shouldn't have an article just for association (being related to someone notable does not make one notable, that's a WP guideline). Besides, we wouldn't be able to write anything much about her anyways. kelvSYC 05:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hasn't done anything important, shouldn't have a page. --Chrysaor 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete only notable thing about her is her parentage.i dont mean it in an insulting way though.07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect to Stephanie McMahon, as per the reasons stated by other users. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Keep She's the daughter of two famous people, and her birth was announced in the media. I say that meets the qualifications. And if it’s not kept (which it should be) at least merge this article with Stephanie’s. --Oppy1984
  • deleted its completely pointless a day old baby doesnt need its own page. She isn't at all important to be entitled to her own page. Lil crazy thing 11:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep İ agree with --Oppy1984 it should be kept or merged with her mother's --Devletbek 14:08, 25 July 2006(UTC)
  • Delete. We can't have an article for every child of a majority stockholder, that would be ludicrous. McPhail 14:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe one day when she has accomplished something she can get her own article. A while back, I successfully nominated this baby's cousin, Declan James McMahon, for deletion because his only claim to fame right now is being a grandson of Vince McMahon. This should be deleted on the same grounds. ErikNY 14:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maddox Jolie-Pitt and Shiloh Jolie-Pitt and Suri Cruise all have one— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.114.251 (talk • contribs)
Actually the ones your mentioned are merged with their parents, making your case false. Perry 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do we have an article on this. She might not even become a wrestler.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.108.250 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF STEPHANIE McMAHON AND TRIPLE H FOR GOD SAKES— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.131 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete While it's a pretty name, a mention in her mother/father's page is sufficient. Wildthing61476 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, babies do not get entries in WP unless they've been trapped in a well. (or somehow otherwise become notable other than parentage or family relations) hateless 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mothers of famous people are not notable, great uncles of famous people are not notable, and sweet lord, one-day-old babies of famous people are sure as hell not notable. -- Kicking222 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I love her name, but the fact remains, she's a baby. She hasn't done anything noteworthy. If she "owns the WWE" 50 years from now, THEN she can have an article. There's nothing to write about her and being a baby with the possibility of being rich and famous in 50 years is not notability. We're all born with the same possibilities and opportunities, so being born to the most famous celebrities in the world doesn't make an ounce of difference. Srose (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, relatives and descendants of famous people do not have any inherent notability, and she's a baby for cryin' out loud. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - Have it redirect to Stephanie McMahon's page--Jdrouskirsh 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - leave as redirect to the mother. Info is in both parents' articles. Gimmetrow 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parents. The baby is barely 24hrs old, for pete's sake! --DarkAudit 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No indications of divine origin, unusual astronomical activity, royal blood, or any other distinction to differentiate this baby from the thousands of other babies born on the same date. --Allen3 talk 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes the google and name recognition tests laid out in the biography guidlines. The recognition is largely limited to a niche audience, but it is a large niche as measured by cable ratings and by wikipedia entries. Many professional wrestling wikipedia entries have a section devoted to current activity, not all of which will be noteworthy in itself, but is important in relation to the character the entry is build around. This is a current event and can be marked as such. Time will tell if a deletion is necessary, but for the time being it fits in with the other professional wrestling articles. -- Honkus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.206.230 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't think it does fit in, I am a big wrestling fan(WWE/TNA mostly) but I don't think she needs an article on her. She has done NOTHING noteworthy, hell she's only about 23 hours old. While i'm sure she will do something noteworthy eventually, right now the only thing she's "done" was had her birth announced on TV. She should be treated like all these other celebrity births and have her name be a re-direct page to her parent(s). Also, if she's anything like her cousins(Shane McMahon's kids) we won't hear anything more about her for quite some time. TJ Spyke 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any useful data can be merged into the parent's page. I REALLY don't want to see new pages any time a Hollywooder or similar has a kid. Does anyone hear really want to see wikipedia turn into an expanded promotional family photo album? Badbilltucker 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Stephanie McMahon-Levesque --- Lid 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't redirecting to one parent over another showing a point of view? -- Longhair 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, namely that since she did all the work, she should get the credit. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I GOT 2 WORDS FOR YA! Romeo Beckham! (Please note: that was not meant as a personal attack, only to show that women are not asexual).DonMEGĂ|60645 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Why should she get her own page when she hasn't done anything at all? There isn't even a picture of her anywhere. At least Shane's kid was on TV before therefore if she gets one then he should too since he at least was on TV once and all she did was have her name mentioned on TV while we actually got to see Shane's kid on Wrestlemania which is a bigger event then RAW is and he got to actuallty be shown on it. Besides even if she is in a storyline, she still shouldn't be on TV unless Rey's son also gets a article dedicated for him.--69.107.90.14 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn. - Longhair 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Stephanie McMahon or Triple H. --NeoChaosX 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stephanie McMahon. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Listen here: SHE'S APART OF HISTORY ITSELF- A MEMBER OF ONE OF THE MOST RICHEST AND POWERFUL FAMILIES EVER IN HISTORY, HAS A RICH HISTORY OF WRESTLING HANDED DOWN TO HER- FROM BOTH STEPHANIE AND TRIPLE H'S POINT OF VIEW, AND MORESO, SHE'S A McMAHON! THAT SHOULD END THE CONVERSATION THERE- THE MCMAHON FAMILY IS INFLUENTAL IN BOTH SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, AND THE WORLD
She hasn't done anything noteworthy.: yeah, good one. Do you expect Aurora to run the WWE minutes after exiting her mother's womb, just so she could have a page on wikipedia?
Shane's child had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but appear on a video package of WrestleMania 20- IN WHICH HE WASN'T EVEN AWAKE IN! Yet, for a couple of months, he has his own Wiki page with an image of him asleep. Nobody complained about that, yet AS SOON AS STEPHANIE'S DAUGHTER IS BORN AND HAS HER OWN PAGE, EVERYONE COMPLAINS AND SAYS THAT SHE'S DONE NOTHING. So what! They're McMahons and they've already got their place in history...even if it was handed down to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.187.61 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete for the same reason why I nominated her cousin a while ago. --Oakster (Talk) 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stephanie McMahon as per Maddox Chivan Thornton Jolie or Romeo Beckham. Keresaspa 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or in the alternative redirect to one of her parents (presumably Stephanie). Suri and Shiloh's births got much, much more press coverage and their separate articles weren't kept either. See here for my proposal that WP:BIO should specifically provide that celebrities' infant children should not have separate articles. --Metropolitan90 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all babies. bd2412 T 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails wikipedia policies & guidelines, this isn't Wikinews. No reason for an article on her, yet.--Andeh 18:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:i say keep it becuase it gonna eb created in about 20 years anyway because of the fact HHH is her dad she will be a WWE diva one way or another plus ina bout 50 yearas hse will own WWE anyway. but take it into consideration that someone posted an unlikely rumor about the baby dying wich is untrue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DipsetBG (talk • contribs)
    That's a pure guess, remember WP is not a crystal ball.
  • Merge any relevant info (if it's not already there) into Stephanie McMahon (and/or Triple H ) and then redirect. Tromboneguy0186 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tromboneguy0186. DonMEGĂ|60645 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mikeeilbacher 15:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the information into BOTH Stephanie McMahon and Triple H's pages. The baby was born last week, therefore does not need it's own page here.--sonicKAI 21:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of coarse I think the info should be merged into both(although the info has already been added into Steph's page). But who should the re-direct be to? I say make it re-direct to Stephanie. TJ Spyke 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be consistent with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's child, who briefly had her own page Tromboneguy0186 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect/Merge not only has she done nothing noteworthy, her page offers little of importance that doesn't belong on the pages of her parents -WikiFew 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP*/ - If Shane Mcmahon's wife Marissa gets her own page, why shouldn't the little girl. She is already more famous than shane's wife!! LOL It's not doing anyone any harm, and when there is more information on her, someone will update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avouroudis (talk • contribs)
Marissa has a page because she is noteworthy. She is the director of public relations for WWE, hosted WWF LiveWire, has acted in a big movie, and made various other appearences for WWE. Aurora hasn't done anything not worthy and WP's guidelines are very clear on this, until someone does something noteworthy they should not have a page. It will be several years before Aurora does anything to deserve a page(unless she does something like fall in a well like Baby Jessica did). TJ Spyke 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything you need to know about her is on pages on the McMahon family. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:04, 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. J Di talk 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Vedas[edit]

Brandon Vedas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Brandon Vedas is not in of himself notable. This page is not appropriate and the arguments given in the previous nomination for deletion do not give significant justification for a page dedicated to this individual. I argue that while Brandon Vedas might be appropriately mentioned as a case study in a scholarly sense, he is not notable outside of high level research in sociology and is not notable at an encyclopedic level. I use an analogy based on a situation described on the AfD page:

- An article about a band and three articles about its members, none of whom has done anything else notable outside of the band.

The previously given arguments identify the sociological context of Brandon Vedas but no notable individual contributions. mikebutterfield —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebutterfield (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 22, 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- overwhelming consensus to keep in last AfD, and the arguments still hold. Haikupoet 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Articles like this are the reason I come to Wikipedia. If I need to know the year the Peloponnesian War started, or need to know about the ecosystem of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, I'll fucking look in a REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA! Deleting the Brandon Vedas article is a transparent attempt to ape your intellectual betters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfs boner (talk • contribs) 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - The guy has had enough news coverage to be considered notable. The incident caused a semi-great moral panic. - Femmina 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The incident has notability with regards to news coverage and in particular it's the sort of contemporary article that gives Wikipedia the edge over old and rapidly outdated book encyclopedias. Robert Mercer 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically, the nominator isn't listing a specific good reason why we should delete the article and goes straw-manning. Yeah, the guy didn't do anything remarkable in life. No one's denying that. However, his manner of death was remarkable, and has caused tons of interesting discussion, all of which is notable in itself. Now allow me to go straw-manning: Billy Foghorn, 25, was the first victim of the Great Andromedan Invasion of 2009 as the UFOs blasted him to bits on his field. His last words, captured by the automatic video monitoring system black box of his combine harvester, shocked the world. ("Oh darn it. Not again.") Sure, you could cover that in the GAIO2009 article, but the newspapers happened to talk about the poor guy to death so that's whom they are looking up, even if he was just an ordinary farmer. And we don't have a specific "big picture" article like that in this case; There's no article about the Great Told-You-I-Was-Hardcore Moral Panic of 2003. I'm staying by my previous recommendation. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Rje 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End Time[edit]

This doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. It reads like someone's own personal interpretations of biblical prophecy. There are already articles on "End times" and "Eschatology" that nicely cover the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knighterrant (talk • contribs) .

Delete as original research. --Huon 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to offer in terms of scholarship. The author is entitled to believe what he/she chooses, but an encyclopedia is not the place to express personal views, especially those of a prophetic nature. Delete.--PeadarMaguidhir 17:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteEdison 01:50, 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 redirect to Chorus (Erasure album), nothing to merge. - Bobet 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Song (Erasure song)[edit]

Very nice song, but not notable. No single release, no music video, no remixes, no chart action, the band rarely even performs it live. Article is a one-line stub with no tags or categories. -- eo 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the Chorus album article. They do perform it live, though... remember The Tank, The Swan, and The Balloon? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on Chorus. I'd suggest a merge, but there isn't anything in the article sentence to merge. GassyGuy 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't imagine someone typing Siren Song (Erasure song) into the search box, but I suppose a redirect wouldn't hurt if you'd rather. MarkBuckles 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rje 00:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X[edit]

Delete Very unlikely this will ever become encyclopedic. Just look at the mess that is Comparison of Windows and Linux; constantly tagged as NPOV for months. This will just attract rabid fans for each platform constantly editing the article no way or the other... AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. You just think it'll be a mess? First, lets establish actual problems with the article first, and not just projected ones. Next, you need to justify why these problems make this an invalid topic for WP. WP should never cower from controversial topics nor should it use controversy as a justification to not cover them. hateless 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you try reading the article as it stands now? It is already a mess. And I'm not saying Wikipedia should avoid controversial topics. If people make notable comparisons between these two operating system, that should be indicated (with sources) in the articles for the OSes themselves (for example, see "Criticism" in Windows Vista). AlistairMcMillan 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's a mess, it can be cleaned up. Sources are necessary, but there's plenty of info in the article that should be simple to find sources via Google, and the cruft can be easily removed, after discussion on the talk page. You haven't touched upon why the topic is outside of WP's bounds, and I don't believe your lack of faith of WP editors to create a balanced, sourced NPOV article to be enough. The article is less than 48 hours old already, at the very least give it some time to justify your lack of faith. hateless 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you really think there is something worth salvaging perhaps you would like to demonstrate? And if you seriously think this article will develop into a "balanced, sourced NPOV article" any time soon, would you mind explaining why, after 23 months, the similarly themed Comparison of Windows and Linux hasn't? AlistairMcMillan 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think I have the burden of proof in this regard, and you demonstrated only non-fatal issues with another article, not this article, nor the genre of articles they are a part of. Besides, WP:DEL clearly states the preferred remedy for bias in articles (heavy or not) is tagging the article with a {{npov}} or {{POV check}} or listing at WP:PNA. hateless 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is basically empty, eventhough it's very long. All what happens is that features of both systems are summed-up and those are well covered by their respective articles. All parts of the article that really get into the comparision seem inherently non-NPOV to me. For the same reason I suggest AfD'ing Comparison of Windows and Linux. -- Koffieyahoo 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - While still in beginning stages, this article's argument is a common and interesting one among computer users, and will soon depict many more refined comparisons between the two systems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alegoo92 (talk • contribs) .
    • I would also like to have this looked at before a decision is made. Thanks. --Alegoo92 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I more or less rewrote the whole article today, which amounted to me lobbing off half of the prose that was there. I'm a bit cynical of the chances of this article developing into something great, because it attempts to cover an extremely broad subject, and the next versions of both Windows and OS X are going to throw the whole thing into further chaos. IMO, the only hope for this kind of article is to focus on specific issues, like differences between the user interfaces of the two operating systems. That would at least be closed-ended enough that it wouldn't spiral way out of control. -/- Warren 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment after reading this updated version, I still stand by my vote cast above. -- Koffieyahoo 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want more sources to cite and to work from (Unsourced material should be mercilessly excised from articles that are original research magnets.), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows vs. Mac, where I gave hyperlinks to 10. Uncle G 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and develop. Good piece of work. --Guinnog 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Let the article grow and develop. —Viriditas | Talk 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Premise of a very important article. Though might be a source of heated issues, if developed properly(as it indeed is being, evident from its history), it will become of high encyclopaediac value. --soumসৌমোyasch 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for thge second time today - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton York[edit]

Article about a non-notable person, with demonstrably false information (e.g., no Nobel Peace Prize winner has been named Clayton York). —Bkell (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I may have messed up a bit in this nomination, calling it the "second nomination", when the previous deletion may have been due to a speedy deletion request rather than an AFD. —Bkell (talk) 20:23, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden of Ludmir[edit]

This page has almost no content, is not notable, and does not cite any sources. --רח"ק

I rescind my delete vote. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of her. Hoax? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a hoax, she existed and this would make a fascinating entry, if someone has the time to go through all that the web has on her. She might even be in the 1911 EB, if there's a link to it. Yossiea 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the book on her (added to the article). Good stub. Suggest withdrawal. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is now adequately sourced, clearly notable, no reason to delete.--Shirahadasha 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it is close to a copyvio from the book discription at amazon which mostly bothers me because it show that the author of the article didn't read the book! There is no context given on how she was accepted by mainstream movements or who she really way. It is clear from the book summary that she was far from accepted, but it is impossible to know to what extent just from a book summary. The article implies that she was well accept but I doubt very much that this is true. This is the type of thing that would remain a stub for years with no one ever bothering to accutally read the book. Unless someone is willing to put in the effort to expand this I think that keeping a stub is harmful and misleading. Jon513 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep she did exist and was is an important historical figure in chassidic judaism.JJ211219 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep- she is quite notable. There have been books, plays, and stories about her. She realy did exist. --Jayrav 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because she is, if anything at the least, a figure of Jewish literature. Wikify what is in it so far. Those above who claim that "they have never heard of her" need to be more careful. A simple Google search for Maiden of Ludmir yields many important sources, articles, and material to help any editors who wish to improve this article. IZAK 08:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is notable, unusual, the stub could easily be expanded, and its existence helps counter (in a small way) Wikipedia's systemic bias.--Sepa 10:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Cúchullain t/c 02:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glazed Expressions[edit]

Article reads as a blatant advertisement. Page was originally prodded, however User:BigNate37 did a GREAT job cleaning the article up. Author has reverted back to the original form unfortunately. Wildthing61476 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the author wants a blatant ad, find somewhere else to put it. Fan-1967 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form I'm afraid I can't support the existence of this article as it is unencyclopedic advertising. My edits were an effort to conform to the MoS and remove weasel words/advertising, though they did nothing with regards to verifiability or notability—concerns which are valid regardless of which version of this article is being considered. BigNate37T·C 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes[edit]

This article describes a book, which has no reasonable and apparent claim to notability (WP:NN). I've been fighting the author of this for about a day. The professor who originally posted this empty article removed the speedy tag 4 times, saying that editing this article would be a class project (you can check the talk page). That's great, but Wikipedia is not a free host. She has since added enough to merit an AfD (and been blocked). Alphachimp talk 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It should also be noted that it's Amazon Rank is "#495,939 in Books" Alphachimp talk 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No vote yet. Amazon sales rank 10,562 in Books is reasonably impressive. However, whoever created it was asking for trouble by not developing it to at least the good stub stage before creating the article. The class should be encouraged to hurry up and cite some sources that show that the book is important and influential. If the article is in quarter-decent shape before the end of the AfD discussion I'll vote keep. I'll want to see something more substantial than, say, a plot summary, and any statements of opinion should cite a published source. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. Apparently the rank depends on the edition! I was looking at [41] Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been in place only 18 hours. It seems reasonable to allow for opportunity to improve it. Whether a class project or the efforts of a lone editor, we can't expect instant perfection. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. But we can expect an instant assertion of notability. That's the issue in question. Alphachimp talk 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, notability is an important issue, but I'm not sure that we can fairly expect instant anything. I respect your position, I was just willing to allow more time. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There's nothing in the article that makes this book particularly notable...until something is presented (bestseller, award, TV movie, banned book, etc.) as to why this book in particular is deserving of an encyclopedia article, I must vote delete. I'd suggest to the professor that there are free wikias out there that could be used for such a project, and the final product could then be added to Wikipedia.[42] I'd even support an external link from Chris Crutcher to such a wikia. -- Scientizzle 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chris Curtcher has a page on Wikipedia and is a very well known author of young adult fiction. The book is noteworthy because so many schools have banned it, along with many Chris Crutcher novels because they deal with real issues facing teens. Chris Crutcher is a very well respected author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.116.21 (talk • contribs)
    Comment. This vote was this IP's first edit on Wikipedia. Alphachimp talk 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW The whois for this IP is St. John Fisher College. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Expect more first time editors since this article is a "class project" and the Deletion Notice on the page is bound to get their attention :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment For the benefit of those new editors: inserting almost any material into the article that cites a source that meets the reliable source guidelines will be more effective in getting the article kept than anything they can say here in AfD. That is not to say they should not express an opinion here. But it would be best to concentrate on improving the article first. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If this book was banned (and someone can cite verfiable and reliable sources that confirm such a statement), then I might change my vote as my problem was no assertion of notability. -- Scientizzle 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That's a very good suggestion. I'm not quite ready to say "me too;" it would depend on the details. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick Googling turns up a number of references to the book as being "controversial,"[43] "frequently challenged,"[44], etc. and Crutcher is often identified as an "author of banned books," but, so far, I haven't been able to find anything that says this particular book by Chris Crutcher has actually been banned anywhere. Crutcher says vaguely "I think they've all been banned somewhere. Usually they get banned in middle schools. I know they've all been challenged many times."[45]
  • Crutcher's website says that, according to the School Library Journal, "The Westmoreland Central School District has denied a parent's request to remove Chris Crutcher's novel Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes (Greenwillow, 2003) from the high school curriculum."[46]. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the book itself sounds like it's tiresome issues melodrama, and unlikely to improve its readers' prose style, its Amazon.com page notes Kirkus Review, School Library Journal, and several other professional reviews, and 117 user reviews. [47] The book was written by an author notable enough for a page here. This seems to meet several of the proposed criteria at WP:BK. Smerdis of Tlön 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, a book from a real publisher still in print 20 years after its original publication. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current incarnation of the page is much more encyclopedia appropriate than previous ones, which were definitely deletable. With the issues about possible banning, while they need to be run down and cited properly, even leaving the article as a novel stub would be ok. I'm not saying the article is going to be an Uncle Tom's Cabin one day, but as Doc Tropics pointed out above, I'm ok with letting it grow. — MrDolomite | Talk 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious Keep Seems just about acceptable enough, if more info on the banning can be given. However, does the literature class understand that how Wikipedia works? It's an imaginative class assignment, but perhaps a bit misguided about what Wikipedia is. Will this page be the repository for 10 to 20 (or more?) class homeworks on this book? (And I assume that if this assignment is to be substantive - this is apparently an assignment for a graduate-level class, despite some high school-like writing here - these have to be homeworks of significant length). Will these homeworks be written in an encyclopedic fashion, or will they be typical student essays or will they be POV literary criticism guides or how-to teach this book guides? Those last three will raise alarm bells. Does the class understand that any Wikipedian can come along and change their homeworks freely? How will the class and teacher feel about that? Will they say that that would be disrupting their use of technology? Do they understand that Wikipedia is not a free resource for people to use any way they see fit? This response from the article creator is not very encouraging. Bwithh 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... I am the professor and this was not a homework assignment, but rather an in-class endeavor. As a class when we used Wikipedia to look up information about Chris Cruthcer and about his text Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes we were in shock to find that the Crutcher entry was quite short and that there were no entries for his novel. We decided to break into four groups: one to prvide informaiton on why the text is noteable, one to provide the plot information of the text, one to provide information on characters, and one to provide information on internal links. There is not 10 to 20 homework assignments being posted. We have blackboard and web-hosting technology of our to do that. This 'assignment' was a choice to provide the encyclopedia type entry information for a text that as a group we felt was worthy of more mention than Wikipedia had on it. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a space that users, when noticing a lack of informaiton should feel free to add. No one here offered opinion on the text saying it was a 'must read' or trying to sell it, but we want readers, educators, writers, and others to have access to the information about the text that they may seek. When looking at other pieces of fiction, the entires were rather short and provided less information than we did. We are in the process of editing, but felt rushed to get the information up since we were not given even a reasonable amount of time to get information up before the slew of delete tries came through. I think that in 2 hours, which is what we spent on it, we did a fine job of providing a decent entry, which leaves rooms for others to add to. A part of me is happy to know that Wikipedia is a self-policing community because as a professor when I tell students to use Wikipedia I am more assured of the quality of information they are seeing. I am really sad, however, that Wikipedia, or at least the people that have been somewhat brutal on here, have been so impatient. As educators we want to encourage our students to contribute in communities like the Wikipedia community, but how would they ever feel confident when they woudl not be given the space of 24 hours to work on an entry. I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR that we were not creating a webpage on the Novel or tyring to ge free hosting --- OUR COLLEGE PROVIDES THIS FOR US --- we were and are trying to provide a valuable entry that others can reference when looking at young adult fiction! Litclass 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation This entry is not a homework assignment but a tool to inform others about Chris Crutcher's work. It was an in class assignment in which we created a site to support a book that has been challenged in many schools. We believe this book is worthy of recognition and have written a page to provide readers with information on Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes. This is a book that adolescents can relate to and benefit from reading. If one person reads this book due to this posting then the purpose has been achieved. Rugby15 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Rugby15Rugby15 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)| 21:03, 25 July 2006|149.69.82.245}}[reply]


  • That's great - but your class did not "create a site". You guys created a page on wikipedia, which is not a free webhost Bwithh 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I'd suggest giving the class enough time to write the article and learn about Wikipedia as they go. Since the length of their class is fixed, they have a deadline to worry about; Wikipedia on the other hand, does not. If necessary, other editors can clean up later. In the meantime, if we let the class learn about WP in a positive manner, maybe maybe some of them will stay and be good contributors. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup - Chris Crutcher is notable, and so are his books. Make sure the final artcile meets standards and keep some sort of warning on the page until it meets Wikistandards. Jessamyn (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is really sad is that we are not even being given in a chance. In 24 hours we have gone through and created a full entry for this novel, a novel which is recognized as a popular piece of young adult fiction from a well known young adult fiction writer. Wikipedia claims to be a space where members create and work on the entries. If we look up MANY pieces of literature, the pages do not have nearly as much information as this page has. Furthermore, 'tone' is a matter of persepctive. The information in this entry, was written by educators who work with young adults, and is written in a format that will be 'reachable' for both adult and young adult. Young adults should be able to make the best of Wikipedia as an ency. resource with which they can access information, for example here, about text. There is plenty of information on this page which now alerts viewers to why the text it self is notable, the plot and characters are provided, along with a multitude of external links to guide viewers of the entry to more information about the text. This entry is quite informative, and is of equal value and style to many entries on pieces of literature. Thus, please stop trying to delte and get rid of this page. It is a good solid stub that others can continue to contribute to. Litclass 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "trying" to delete anything. You brought this on yourself by creating the article prematurely. Deletion discussions run for a full week. I don't think I've yet seen a case of an article being deleted if the topic was halfway reasonable and if the article creators put a halfway reasonable amount of good-faith effort into it. You just have to endure the ugly AfD tag. Remember that the guideline for administrators is that a two-thirds majority is normally required for deletion, although administrators may use judgement in ignoring things like "sockpuppet" votes. People regularly change their votes as articles improve.
In retrospect, it would have been better to concentrate on improving the Chris Crutcher article first, put individual book descriptions into that article, put redirects from the individual book titles, and only break out the individual titles when there were several paragraphs about the title.
As things are now, yes, you will have to endure seeing the ugly AfD label on the article for a few days. Tough it out. Concentrate on improving the article and resist the temptation to follow this discussion too closely.
I'm still not voting yet, but there's very little chance that the article will be deleted now. That's not to say the article is in good shape. The section on why the book is noteworthy is excessive but understandable. The entire article needs sources, sources, sources! Have your students read WP:V and WP:CITE. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually looks a lot better now and a quick review of this debate indicates it will probably be kept. Good work :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, highly notable young adult author in Chris Crutcher, highly notable book. Obvious keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chris Crutcher, without the original research. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge and redirect to Chris Crutcher, because AfD is a judgement of the suitability of the topic, not the quality of the article in its present state. I think it would have been better to start work on Chris Crutcher first, then on Crutcher books apparently more notable than this one, but that's also irrelevant. The present article establishes notability, and there's convincing evidence the article is being worked on and is improving. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've further rewritten the article, getting rid of a lot of the OR stuff and needless character studies. It needs more, but at least it's a viable, encyclopedic stub now. I'll work on the Crutcher article proper tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious keep in present state. Close to a perfect stub. Well, more than a stub. To whomever wrote the previous section on why the book is notable: don't worry about its being chopped down. The bar for notability isn't really all that high, and badlydrawnjeff included all the important points concisely. On the removal of the long sections on characters and plot, it's probably better to start from scratch. My $0.02 is that we don't want a detailed plot summary, and we don't need anything but short descriptions of the major characters... and anything that's said should be backed up by source citations. Don't be afraid to add to or change the present article... see the "be bold" policy... and don't be upset if other people change your changes. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P. S. Don't worry if you don't understand the reference apparatus, like the <ref> tags and the {{cite web}} template. Just put the reference in in any sensible way, other Wikipedians will be happy to do technical cleanup. For a web reference, just type the url within square brackets like this [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060094893/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/102-8929316-0800935?ie=UTF8] and it will come out like this [48]. That's more than good enough. For a book reference, try to get in the author's name, year, title, ISBN number, and page number. Just do it any old way, others will get it properly formatted and into the references section. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established via awards and praise by critics. --Huon 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the way it was - We need infromaiton about plot and characters and why the book is noteworthy. The format now up is (the way it was last night) is meant to be freindly to the target audience of the novel -- young adults. When looking up reference information characters, plot, and why the book is noteworthy is quite important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litclass (talk • contribs)
    I'm not sure that you fully understand the concept of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit the article. If you don't like their changes, you can't just revert them. Badlydrawnjeff worked hard to improve the article. Please stop undoing his work. αChimp laudare 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and I am not sure you fully aware that WE TOO worked hard on this to make it freidn;ly to both adult and young adult viewers of the entry. We have read the book and as educators are BEST prepared to make decisions about how to make this readable to many audiences. Litclass 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure how you're coming to the assumption that we are not prepared to make an educated decision. Most Wikipedia users have a college education. αChimp laudare 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not fun, you all are making this process disgusting. It is meant to be a fun experience where community can build, not tear down others works. just leave the page alone -- you haven't read the book and thus you don't know what it needs. Many people said KEEP our version and by the way Badlydrawnjeff keeps reverting so he too is in violation. Let the entry be, it is what young adults and adult readers need in terms of reference information! Litclass 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough book, but Litclass needs to understand that they have no "ownership" of the article. Anyone can, and will, edit it, and it's not grounds for reversion that the Litclass is "more qualified" to edit it. NawlinWiki 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Results so far: Litclass has pointed out that Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes is a reasonably notable young adult book, has managed to get an article started. Due to missteps on the part of Litclass the article was created prematurely and nominated for deletion, but under the pressure of AfD notability was shown, and the article is in no danger of deletion. The outcome of interactions with others, particularly BadlyDrawnJeff, have resulted in the cleanup of the article and its transformation into a good short article. The material Litclass assembled has obviously been used and drawn upon by others. Litclass has also raised my own awareness, and probably that of others, that Chris Crutcher is definitely notable and the article could use expansion. A pity that the process has not been as much fun as it could be and that revert warring is currently in progress. Material about the plot, characters, and themes would be appropriate but not in the form Litclass presented it, which was clearly in the nature of original research. Wikipedia articles are founded on the synthesis of published material, not on original contributions by authorities. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from Nominator. I actually don't think anymore that this article deserves to be deleted. I'm sure it's easy to understand, however, why I nominated it in the first place. If you check the original page, you see that the article is a clear case of db-empty. It's a shame that the author wouldn't allow wiki-process to take place, but I guess it's somewhat understandable given her inexperience. Anyway, if nobody has any objections, I'll close this afd (I think I can close it as nomination withdrawn). Thank you all for your good feedback. I think it's really improved this article. αChimp laudare 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're a good man..er, um..chimp :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: : I think it is interesting how little patience people have had with us. I am thankful to the handful that have had patience. We have been trying to do something that we would encourage educators and students alike to do -- contribute to Wikipedia. The real shame here is that threats and warnings are what is thought of as the first response instead of trying to let us participate with it and learn about it. I have gone to pages that some of our critics have contributed to, and am myself not overly impressed - so we ALL have room to grow. In 2 hours -- which is the amount of time that a majority of the entry was put together, we did a fantastic job that of course is open to editing. Cutting it down like badlydrawnjeff did, to nothing, and changing it so much that it lost important information about the book that a potential reader or anyone looking for a citation or reference would need was uncalled for. Huon's attitude has been so much more appropriate in dealing with this, and trying to make it a good page that others can use. Alphachimp has done nothing to contribute to the viability of this page, yet in his own page he seeks to be an editor and someone with control at Wikipedia. Learning comes from teaching and doing, and while we have most def. learned a lot in this process, I wonder how much others who have been outright mean to us have learned about dealing with others. As much as you may think or try to be 'objective' no encylopedia or other reference is truly objective --- any author brings a piece of herself or himself to the project. If you have nto read the book, read the book before lodging mean attacks that are meant to discourage us from participating in the Wikipedia community.
    See WP:NPA. αChimp laudare 21:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't a personal attrack Alphachimp. It was a call that we all have 'stuff' to learn, not just us. And...you refer to me as a woman, but nothing ever referenced me by gender. In fact I shared my name very early on which is Kenny -- a boy's name. We all make mistakes -- our class has done good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.69.116.21 (talk • contribs) .
    Sorry for calling you a woman. That's my mistake. I'm not going to engage in this discussion any more, as the above (not your rebuttal, but the one above my see NPA statement) paragraph appears dangerously vitriolic. Quite frankly, the purpose of WP:AFD is to critique the merits of the article, not those editing it or debating it. I'm not going to comment on you, and I would certainly hope that you would exercise the same courtesy. αChimp laudare 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. If the consensus is to redirect back to the author article (doesn't look like it though), that would be reasonable, but I feel that in its current form, it is certainly keepable and encyclopedic. And let's not forget WP:OWN, as implied above. --Kinu t/c 02:03, 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 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball entrance music[edit]

The article itself is unencyclopedic and violates Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is also full of original research. The few footnotes within the article are mostly original research also. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its interesting nature, could you please explain how this article satisfies Wikipedia policies in regards to original research and verifiability? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR defines original research as "material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source." Almost every song now has a link to a reliable, mainstream news source. It seems more like source-based research. It doesn't fall into the seven categories of original research either: no new or irrelevant theories or thoughts (i.e. "Player A should play this song because...) are being proposed. SliceNYC 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . too much info which is unverifiable. --Ageo020 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is such listcruft. A more sensible approach would be a category. Alphachimp talk 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a category would help, though. In a list, the player and song can be matched up together. Categorizing them all wouldn't show who uses what song and it couldn't link to an article explaining why that song is used. SliceNYC 21:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. The "original research" policy can be satisfied by eliminating the footnotes and explanations, which were superflous anyway. 2. The claim that music changes rapidly is incorrect for the much of the music listed on the page. Players with rapidly changing music are omitted. 3. This seems like a strange place to enforce the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Consider the Wrestling entrance music page? What about the vast lists of interstates? This page belongs here as much as those. Not worth the time deleting this one, when there are many better areas to direct our attention towards. 04:13 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How can the original research policy be satisfied by eliminating the footnotes? Furthermore, just because there are similar articles doesn't mean that this one should be kept ("two wrongs don't make a right" is what I'm getting at). Those articles' problems simply haven't been addressed yet. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes are where the "original research" is -- ie "player x uses song y because he's friends with the band" and such. The point of the other examples was to counter the charges above and to illustrate that the suggestion that this article be deleted was misguided. 07:13 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have done a lot of work on this article and, obviously, would rather not have those contributions go for naught. I am willing to improve the article to satisfy the concerns of some of the other Wikipedians, such as verifying and citing music and deleting the lesser, anecdotal contributions (mostly of non-registered users who add songs that have come out in the last couple of months). I have done some verifying as a start, which I hope is a step in the right direction. SliceNYC 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest saving the information on your computer and then posting it on a baseball message board where your work will be able to be displayed and appreciated. Also, feel free to userfy this article and recreate it once verifiability has been established. As the article stands now, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. Yes, this article contains original research, but it doesn't contain personal views, political opinion, interpretation, or any of the other elements that are stated to justify excluding original information. It's a collection of facts that so far as I can tell don't exist elsewhere. And I've been looking. 2. It's also not "an indiscriminate collection of information." It's a very specific list of baseball players and the songs played when they come to bat. 3. If, however, your policy forces you to exclude this information, please help the creator find a Web site that will host the information. Fans want this info.
AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Please explain why you think the article should be kept hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep Interesting and notable enough for me to refrain from a voting delete. Really needs some kind of verification though, since WP:V is a non-negotiable core policy (and notability is not - there I said it). Do the article creators think that given a couple of months, they can find good (i.e. not blogs/personal websites etc.) sources for verification purposes? If they think they can, I will change my vote to keep, just to give them the extra time. And I'm not even a baseball fan. Cricket is better. So there. Bwithh 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Authors seem to be making a honest-to-goodness attempt at verification, and the spirit of baseball melted my deletionist heart etc etc etc. Changing my vote to Keep Bwithh 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be userfied for that period of time and then recreated hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sportscruft. -- GWO
  • Delete unmaintainable list of arbitrary enterteinment medium used in connection with another arbitrary entertainment medium. There is no underlying encyclopaedic topic baseball entrance music. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is anyone suggesting the list is complete and includes every single baseball player? We have many incomplete lists on Wikipedia and they are not considered "unmaintainable". Instead, we ask everyone to pitch in and add if they can, not delete the page. SliceNYC 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have an entire category about football/soccer culture and all the minutiae that goes along with that sport (don't get me wrong, I love that category), I fail to see why a single article about a facet of baseball culture that has been around for decades and shows how some players choose to present themselves to their home fans is problematic. It is not a catch-as-catch-can grab bag, as SliceNYC has noted, but rather a list of the players and music that have made themselves notable in the sport over time. What can be done to make it more "appropriate" for an encyclopedia, if that has to be done to keep the article? BigKahunaMan BigKahunaMan 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For better or worse, entrance music for hitters and pitchers is becoming a huge part of the sport's culture. J-Red 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Outtaherephils[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ViridaeTalk 05:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --JJay 12:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referenced (although not the right format) and interesting --Astrokey44 13:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to note that interesting does not necessarily mean encylcopedic. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No matter how interesting this article may be, it's not encyclopedic. If people really need to know that, say, Mariano Rivera always comes onto the field with "Enter Sandman", then they should just put that in each players page. Mikeeilbacher 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an encyclopedic merit to music in baseball. Baseball, for 150 years, has been a major part of American (and Caribbean and Asian) society, something that has been reaffirmed by thousands of essays, museum exhibits and movies. The game has constantly come in contact with various aspects of daily life -- film, politics, etc. An article about one of these connections is encyclopedic and relevant, even if it is a more modern phenomena. SliceNYC 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The list is has little to do with baseball as a game. Furthermore, while baseball has been around for a long time and is "America's Pastime", entrance music is quite new and rather trivial. A list of entrance music is nowhere near on the same level as articles on baseball films or a list of ceremonial first pitches (which have relevant historical and encyclopedic contexts outside of baseball). The list is irrelevant trivia about a minor aspect of player's tastes and ballpark atmosphere and as such, unencyclopedic hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:16, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Triple Crown of Car games[edit]

Seems made up. No results with a Google search. Messy. ---You'reMyJuliet 14:24, 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 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotr castle wars[edit]

Tagged for speedy on the entirely accurate grounds that "Advert for non-notible (0 Google hits) fancruft add-on for Warcraft, speedy notice removed once.". The only problem is, that is not a speedy criterion. So: we have before us a Warcraft II fanmod of absolutely no provable significance, original research from beinning to end and citing no (0) sources, a count which apparently neatly matches its Google hits. As an added bonus, it also violates WP:VAIN since the article, like the game, is the work of User:Emperor_Jackal. Just zis Guy you know? 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; although I was able to find two Google hits, it still is about a non-notable Warcraft III custom add-on. Besides, not claiming notability is even a reason for speedy deletion. --Huon 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So why vote delete because it isn't as popular as something. (look up) -Emperor Jackal
  • Delete and Comment It has nothing to do with popularity, but with notoriety. (If you've noticed, we have an article on Gigli. 'nuff said.) Even though it's not yet Wikipedia policy, WP:SOFTWARE pretty much follows the established notoriety guidelines like WP:BAND and WP:BIO which mandate that the article's subject must be in the public eye. A grand total of two Google hits, neither of them a review or write-up by a moderate-to major media source, comes nowhere close to this threshold. Pat Payne 14:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AQStats.com[edit]

A site which exists to get stats for an RPG which scores a whopping 83 unique Googles. That's the game, not the stats server. The stats server gets 73 (of only just over 500 total). Alexa rank is >400,000 Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 12 whole site linking in, about 200 more and it might just be notable enough for an article. tmopkisn tlka 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for failing WP:WEB rather miserably. VoiceOfReason 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I strongly disagree with the nominator - Adventure Quest is actually quite popular (I get 163,000 google hits for "AdventureQuest" and 1,100,000 for "Adventure Quest"), reasonably well known in lunchbreak-RPG community, is advertised regularly, and so on and so forth. However, this website is most definitely not notable... Would make just about as much sense as listing the site that makes last.fm signatures, or any other dynamic signature pic site - who needs that stuff? The content isn't very encyclopedic either, if that was trimmed, it'd not help much either... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Weird. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truck balls[edit]

Article lacks any useful content, is probably mistitled and is of doubtful value. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google search for "Bulls Balls" returns nearly 42,000 hits, and a similar one for "Truck Nuts" gets 52,300. They've even been mentioned in several newspaper articles. The article could use a clean up, and a couple more sources, but it's definitely notable. tmopkisn tlka 23:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Dumb but fairly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have multiple independent coverage, Keep per WP:BALLS WP:CORP. Kappa
  • Keep As notable reference. - Should also cross-reference to Bulls Balls and possibly Bumper Nuts. Article describes a new phenomenon that has also become a popular phrase throughout the world. Multiple companies provide the product under similar names. 'Truck Balls' is the most general and wide-spread label for this item, as is 'Truck Nuts'. Article should become more generic with synonymous labels/brands listed. References to web sites should be complete only to show the varieties, popularity and to reference usage examples. Example of comparisons, though obviously biased but factual, could be source for some information. Article needs significant rewording to maintain definition orientation instead of specifics of one vendor. --Jrbeaman 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 07:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Stupid but verifiable. Verifiably stupid? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:59, 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. Wickethewok 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nude chat[edit]

This article actually seems to have been at Votes for deletion in March 2004 and reached a consensus to delete. However, about 7 hours after the last comment on VfD, it was instead kept by User:Jwrosenzweig. I would have prodded or speedyed it, but I'm not quite sure where exactly this falls under process (might even be a DRV case), so I figured here was better safe than sorry.

Basically, it's a dictionary definition of a self-explanatory term (starts out "Nude chatting is...chatting on the internet while they are nude"), with what I see as very little hope of it becoming anything more. This lack of hope is evidenced by the fact that in the 2+ years since the original VfD debate, it has seen no considerable edits except vandalism and the removal thereof, and anything that does currently exist beyond the original dicdef is original research with no reliable sources. -- NORTH talk 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A Google search returns 479,600 unique hits. Although alot of these seem to be links to advertisements on porn sites, it still affirms the fact that the subject is notable and prevelant. Additionally, it seems that the last time this was nominated there wasn't any particular consensus, and that's probably why it was kept. tmopkisn tlka 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tmopkisn. -ScotchMB 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree 100% with the notability claim made by Tmopskin. However, never in my nomination did I claim that this phenomenon was non-notable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and what little of this article exists beyond a dictionary definition is original research. -- NORTH talk 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not saying the article is in the best of shape, and it could use a cleanup and some sources, but there's no reason for it to be deleted just to create it again. I don't think a lack of sources is enough of a reason to kill an article, that's what the {{unsourced}} tag is for. tmopkisn tlka 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to cyber sex. The article is WP:OR and it is unlikely to be expanded having existed in its present state for as long as it has. A redirect is in order. -- Alias Flood 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dictionary definition of a neologism. -- Koffieyahoo 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contains nothiung whihc is not inherently obvious from the title (not even a dicdef, as such). Just zis Guy you know? 11:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to cyber sex but do not keep. If redirect is not an acceptable vote, then count this as a Delete vote. Vegaswikian 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Self-explanatory dicdef, has no references. --Zoz (t) 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect MarkBuckles 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress (band)[edit]

Does not seem like a very notable group; all the external links provided are either from Yahoo! GeoCities or MySpace, and only three Wikipedia articles link here. In addition, only two authors have made any edits to the page, furthering my suspicions about the subject. Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable group (release 3 albums), Dave Hunt (but not the one linked) is reasonably notable for his work with Benediction (band) and Anaal Nathrakh. Spearhead 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the band may be somewhat notable (two of its albums are listed on Amazon), the article itself is blatant POV, and at times quite laughable. While I'm sure the band and everything related to it is really "extreme" this fact probably shouldn't be expressed so many times. Additionally, sentences like "The band's clear talent..." and a complete lack of sources only add to the long list of reasons it should go. Weak Keep. Due to sources and some POV removal. tmopkisn tlka 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made a few edits to make the article more NPOV. I left in the two uses of the word "extreme" because they were referring to the term Extreme music. They meet WP:MUSIC easily for touring all over the UK, having one album released and two more reissued by Earache Records, and having been featured in Kerrang, Metal Hammer, and Rock Sound. They also have a biography on allmusic [49], but ignore the chart and awards section, as it applies to different bands. --Joelmills 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I also removed all the myspace links except the band's, and added allmusic.com, which is a more reliable source. --Joelmills 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just did a little cleanup on the article myself, but I'm wondering what band called "Frost" is being referred to, with relation to Mick Kenney? Under Frost (disambiguation), there are three bands named "Frost." --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another frost: this one Spearhead 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There're no reasons to delete it. If you think the article is not in NPOV, [Edit it] --Neo139 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joelmills and Spearhead. Prolog 09:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please! I wrote this article and whilst it may have been amateurish (my first effort), the band are well known enough to have all their full-length albums listed on Amazon. Also Spearhead has found the correct Frost, which I shall attempt to create a more professional page for in the near future. Thanks for the help! OrKid 14:17, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Latest Novel[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia music notability guidelines

Despite having originally created this article, I now accept the argument that it does not meet the WikiProject Music criteria for importance. For guidelines see the Wikipedia music notability guidelines. Unfortunately, I cannot find sufficient sources and references to meet the criteria. This article is premature.--Wastekiller 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like their press page lists coverage in multiple reputable media like the NME, The Times and Scotland on Sunday, in which case they pass WP:MUSIC. Kappa 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I've found coverage by MTV and the Scottish Daily Record so I doubt if their press page is making it up. Kappa 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - speedy if nom withdrawn. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, passes WP:MUSIC due to the band's large amount of critical coverage. tmopkisn tlka 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above. They also played live, supporting the Pixies, Teenage Fanclub and Idlewild last year at the Meadowbank Stadium in Edinburgh.--Foureggomlette 16:18, 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 oh look delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Studioz[edit]

Oh look a website! Oh look 1 Google Hit! Oh look no Alexa ranking! Oh look no notability! Prod removed by author as well Wildthing61476 21:38, 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 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controller Theory[edit]

Possible hoax. Is anyone able to verify any of this? (it is believed that it was established by a 16 year old high Australian school student named Brendan Penn. The date of the supposed discovery was July 5th 2006 during a Faith and Values class) — NMChico24 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might also note, along with the "attribution" above the name of the page creator is User:Brendanpenn, which is all the more suspiscious. 68.39.174.238 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure how it could be a hoax, since it's a theory. If Brandan Penn wants to create a theory, then fine, he's created a theory. But it's obvious original research, and, of course, I echo what Fan-1967 said. -- NORTH talk 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research; no sources cited. I personally think it's a prank, or some kind of WP:POINT, because the resemblance between "it is believed that it was established by a 16 year old high Australian school student named Brendan Penn. The date of the supposed discovery was July 5th 2006 during a Faith and Values class" and WP:NFT is just too good to be accidental. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. tmopkisn tlka 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original non-research. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please this is original research no sources Yuckfoo 04:26, 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. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Riley[edit]

Article as it stands right now does make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I really don't see how she's notable either. It seems to me that Raven Riley is just another dime-a-dozen internet nude model. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we apply the WP:PORN BIO standards, 8 DVD's available on her website don't come close to the required standard. There are just so many of these, that I don't see how you can single this one out as notable. Fan-1967 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:PORN BIO, which is not policy, seems to be skewed towards "traditional" porn models and away from online models. No vote. 23skidoo 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: Why would you? The DVD "required standard" stuff is antiquated. The girl is a legitimate sensation in that corner of cyberspace. Why NOT offer a bit of background information? Isn't that what reference materials are for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.156.246 (talk • contribs) 20:27, July 27, 2006
  • Don't Delete. 4,060,000 results at Google for a search on Raven Riley. I guess she must be of note. AND wikipedia comes in at number 5. Daskunt
  • Dont Delete: Keep it. She is one of the first online porn celebritys. She deserves to be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.162.14 (talk • contribs) 01:29, July 28, 2006
  • I don't know how to vote on this. Let me just give you some facts. She has no entry at imdb, so she doesn't seem to have any DVD sales of note. However, her name comes up with over 2,500,000 Google hits when done right. And her ravenriley.com website has an alexa ranking of 17,000. So that does show some notability. No vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: Who is being petty about this and nominating it for deletion anyway?? This chick is definately top tier and is notable enough to have a damn entry christ...205.188.116.9 20:20, 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 no consensus. JYolkowski // talk 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red arrow camp[edit]

I don't believe that having some famous people go to it as children makes this camp notable. The google results that I found were large relating to price lists and potential jobs. ViridaeTalk 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: I think this is a legitimate claim to notoriety, certainly much more immediate than many entries which delve into the obscure, yet maintain an intellectual nature and are therefore unquestioned. Furthermore, the longevity of the camp is notable. I'm really not sure why you want to eliminate this entry... I'd say it's far more notable that Loituma Girl, but I see no reason to eliminate that post either. In my opinion, and this may not be the stated policy of Wikipedia, something is not notable if its greatest claim to fame is a Wikipedia article; if the average reader can only relate to the subject by reading about its existance. In this case, "some famous people" make the subject notable on a higher level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.31.177 (talk • contribs)

Keep

http://www.chrisfarleyfoundation.com/chris/index.php?category_id=1654

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/features.php?story=104

http://www.racalumni.org/index.php

http://www.athleticnetwork.net/site74.php

horribly long link - shortened to stop it stretching the page.

The preceding were found by use of google. Of note is the ebay link for sale of a book written about the history of the camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.31.177 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep and move to Timeline of non-sexual public nudity. Listing on WP:CP since there's no indication that it's used with permission. - Bobet 13:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of significant non-sexualized public nudity activities[edit]

Interesting article that might be encyclopedic, but not salvageable in it's current form. Possible copyvio of http://bodyfreedom.org/guide/timeline.html, although it is possible that the copyright is owned by the original editor User:Dandelion as part of the Body Freedom Collaborative. Lists several first-party sources as proof that these events occured, but no reliable third-party sources to show why these events are significant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, and the inclusion of 40-some Baring Witness style events from January to March 2003, as well as the founding of two Yahoo groups (?!), is clearly indiscriminate. -- NORTH talk 22:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. If kept, it will need massive cleanup. Some on the list are pretty notable (the 1969 Denmark "wade-in", Burning Man) some are not "Terri Sue Webb Fountain incident in Portland". Possibly keep if majorly cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move as long as the copyright issues are addressed. The use of the term "significant" may also need addressing, since it reeks of POV, so I'd suggest moving to something like Timeline of non-sexual public nudity, which would cover a slightly wider topic area. But this could be a fairly interesting list - the ones mentioned by Andrew, for instance, and also the mass public photography shoots by ...um...can't remember his name, damn. A lot of things on this list shouldn't be, but a lot of other things should, relating to first nude appearances uncensored in mass media (e.g., the release of the Lennon-Ono "Two Virgins" album). Grutness...wha? 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move as Grutness suggests Fastifex 08:38, 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 as original research. Yanksox 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive shopping streets in Europe[edit]

No Original Research, there are no sources and entire article is complete opinion/assumption. See Discussion as many people have questioned the validity of this article.--Shrek05 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research and a very subjective way of measuring the expense of an area. ViridaeTalk 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list cannot be relied on, and if that is taken away the article is pure speculation. Piccadilly 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, purely predicted, unreliable. UKWiki 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:52, 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. JIP | Talk 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive shopping streets in the Americas[edit]

No Original Research, there are no sources and entire article is complete opinion/assumption. There have been no research in this area. See Discussion as many people have questioned the validity of this article.--Shrek05 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:OR, no criteria is given for the list. hateless 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewing this related AFD, it seems this site is the actual source. Personally I don't know how valid the methodology of this survey is but it seems it's not OR anymore. Change my stand to neutral. hateless 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. tmopkisn tlka 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is the Las Vegas Strip which should be on any list of this nature. Seems to be very subjective and without objective criteria. Unmaintainable maybe? Vegaswikian 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JYolkowski // talk 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Elway[edit]

This article was kept as a result of its first nomination last year (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Elway). It had four keep votes and 6 delete votes, plus a vote to abstain; one keep vote was from an anon, and another was based on her future potential in college basketball. She played one season of college basketball two years ago for Stanford, left the team before this past season, and hasn't played since. (She is not listed on their active roster [50], and this would be her junior year.) I recommend deleting the content and possibly setting up a redirect. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to John Elway. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Normally I'm not an inclusionist but this quote from the article struck a chord with me for some reason.. Jessica made history by becoming the first woman to ever introduce somebody into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Clearly a weak reason to keep, but I'm going with it. DrunkenSmurf 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to daddy. -- GWO
  • Merge/Redirect to John Elway. The QB's article has very little personal information, so this would make an interesting seed for a section on his family. — RJH (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and I'm not convinced that we ave to put details of everyone's relations in their articles.--Runcorn 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Though I'll agree that the bit about being the first woman to make an introduction for the Hall of Fame, gave me pause, it ultimately wasn't enough for me to justify a separate article. The information should definitely be merged into her father's article though. --Elonka 22:13, 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. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism in Sri Lanka[edit]

  • DeleteYou can't challenege a democratically elected government's actions on a credible web page. If these are criminal acts, somebody must take the government to International courts but nobody has challenged so. Please remove, iut is a disgrace to wikipedia. Sri lanka government is not a terrorist group.
Hitler was democratically elected in Nazi Germany too. His regime was tried in international court only after he was defeated. This argument is weak. Milton Obote was democratically elected in Uganda but his regime commited war crimes against its own people.Democratically elected does not prevent governments from misbehacing, commiting war crimes or even attempting genocideRaveenS 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is a disgraceful article, has not factually correct. Most are not related to any terrorism but the government's reaction to terrorists atrocities, in protecting the country's people.

JJ

Again a weak argument, 1983 pogoram Black July was not protecting the country against teerorist. It was about slaughter of civiliansRaveenS 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this voter, is this someone who has voted here already ? I raise the question as this person has not revelaed his/her identity, it should be discountedRaveenS 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by Jillball, who strangely enough had the opposite to sat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LTTE massacres WilyD 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis article consists of a mixture of factual inaccuracies and historical material not related to its title, "State Terrorism in Sri Lanka". Most incidents described here are historically inaccurate and/or cannot be defined as state terrorism defined by Wikipedia as follows

State terrorism is a controversial term (see:State terrorism. Confines and definition), which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state.
Care should be taken to differentiate state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not considered state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action.
Similarly your edits on LTTE should be looked at in the same light. Were certain controversial incidents comitted by the LTTE or not ? Was it LTTE policy or was it members of the LTTE doing it on their own. You seem to have one set of arguments for sham democracies and another for non-state actors. Trincomanb 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All this material is covered by State Terrorism page and relevant hyperlinks in Sri Lanka section. This is a POV fork containing material covered in other articles but done to maintain a particular POV. Ref: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. Ruchiraw 00:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sole incident of proven state terrorism (involving violence against civilians with sanction of the government at the time) is the entry relating to July 1983 riots.This is covered in entry on Sri Lanka in State terrorism page which hyperlinks to Black July page. Sole purpose of this page appears to be to portray Sri Lanka as a terrorist state by creating a huge list of falsities, irrelevancies and distortions(which I have highlighted on the talk page). The POV of the whole page is against Sri Lanka. Ruchiraw 23:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other proven incidents of state terrorism and ethnic cleansing - namely the chasing of Tamil civillians from Manal Aru (now called Weli Oya by the govt. assisted Sinhala settlers). It was stated govt. policy to empty the corridor between North and Eastern province of Tamils. Trincomanb 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt meet the agreed wikipedia definition of statet terrorismRuchiraw 02:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is true that most of the incidents before 1981 cannot really be called "terrorism". This, however, merely points to renaming the article rather than deleting it. A listing of grievances by Tamils against Sri Lanka is a legitimate subject - we have an entire article, Notable attacks by the LTTE containing the reverse.
Hi Tyronen. What do you propose renaming this article. The hyperlink from state terrorism would need to be reviewed if it is not dealing with state terrorismRuchiraw 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:::Thinking about it, I propose the article be split into two. The first could be called "Beginnings of ethnic tension in Sri Lanka" and should be linked to from Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka as the main article of its 'Background' section. The second should deal entirely with 1983 and after incidents, and that should stay as is, in the state terrorism section. Tyronen 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:::: By now, the article has been sufficiently cleaned up that most of the earlier concerns have been addressed. The material on events that weren't violent, or weren't the direct doing of the state, has been removed. Tyronen 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am changing my position. Some of the users editing the page do not appear to be receptive to anyone's edits but their own. A page that a user seems to regard as their property can never be a legitimate page on Wikipedia. Tyronen 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is about the AFD of the above said article not about any editors conduct. In WIKI there is a dispute resolution process to solve those problems. Although a reasonable discussion secession has been opened to discuss the merits of edits to this controversial article. If we are to delete articles for alleged conduct of editors then this will not be wikipedia at all. Book burning is not the solution for personal flare ups. Anyway this article still might be deleted and all what I am doing is to make it more NPOV to keep it. If you have a problem with that you can discuss that with me RaveenS 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No proper argument given for Delete of the article hence discount abouve voteRaveenS 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if reliable soucres are not cited. Apart from the post 1983 incidents, not a single source has been cited. This violates WP:V. Of the sources that have been cited, I'm not sure they adhere to WP:RS. Even if article is renamed as suggested above, it will still violate WP:V and WP:RS . In any case it's certainly not WP:NPOV. --snowolfd4 08:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are cited - such as Amnesty International ... the article does most assuredly not violate WP:V - sections may, but that's an issue for editing, not for AfD WilyD 12:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think any reasonable person will consider websites such as tamilnation.org, wsws.org relaible sources? (I'm looking at the curecnt headline on wsws.org "Appeasement 2006: Europe capitulates to American-Israeli aggression" ???) Besides do stuff like "Descriminatory Unversity enrolment laws passed" constitute terrorism? Most instances cited are similarly either not terrorism to any strech of the word, or there are no reliable sources cited that say the government was involed in order to make it state terrorism. --snowolfd4 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the BBC is a reliable source. I think UNESCO is a reliable source. I think WSWS is a reliable source for their own allegations. If you'll read the article and look at how references are used, you'll see that although a few questionable references are used, they're used in appropriate contexts, and other more reliable sources are used in other contexts. Since the facts in the cases are generally disputed, of course you can trapse about saying The allegations of group X are not proven and this is made clear in the article - if you have a problem with the wording, that can be addressed. If you say Every article that contains any disputed or unproven allegation should be deleted, Hume would tell us we need to delete the whole encyclopaedia. WP:NPOV covers pretty well how to deal with these situations, and the article is doing a reasonable job thus far, and is still working towards perfection, which is acceptable for a new article. If you have a problem with a specifc citation bring it up on the talk page, but to suggest that the BBC is not a reputable source is disingenious. WilyD 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that out of the pro-Tamil sites tamilnation.org does a very good job of citing neutral or third party sources to backup their arguments, with all the articles that I have read there anyway. the only problem I have is that many of the incidents are so old that the reference material cannot be easily obtained, other than by ordering through news archives etc.--Realstarslayer 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is in keeping with the consensus in the State terrorism page to peel of individual sections so as to keep edit wars in the main page to a minimum. Also keeping with the definition of State terrorism this article is not NPOV. If this is NPOV then Armenian Genocide and Holocaoust all are NPOV. It is contraversial subject but needs to be improved with proper discussion and reference. Huracane 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Millions dies in Rwanda, Holocaust, Armenian genocide. Yet it has a smaller section on state terrorism than Sri Lanka where at maximum a few thousands may have died. hmmmmmmmmmm, POV or NPOV is driving the section on Sri lanka.Ruchiraw 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Battle of Tours is shorter than the article on Seinfeld. The article State terrorism doesn't have an undue emphasis on Sri Lanka. The article State terrorism in Sri Lanka has a due emphisis on Sri Lanka. The depth of Wikipedia's coverage is pretty uneven, but that's not a reason to delete content, but rather to add the missing content. WilyD 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is apparently just spun off from the State terrorism due to size, but let's reiterate:
    • The articles does cite some reliable sources. Thus the article passes WP:V, the penultimate criterion. Sections may not, but that means the article needs to be improved not deleted
    • Sections may violate WP:NPOV - this again is a cause for editing. Articles that are irredeemably unNPOV might be argued for deletion, but that isn't the case here - a few choice edits can easily reduce the violations of NPOV to less than the average article, and way less than the average article on a contraversial subject.
    • If the title is poorly choosen, that's not an appropriate rationnal for deleting the article - it's an appropriate rational for moving the article.
    • If specific sources are deemed unreliable, most likely new ones can be found. Not all of the sources are unreliable.
In general, the bringing of this article to WP:AFD is a mistake. The article has issues, but no issues that should be addressed here. Articles should only be deleted if they contain no information worth preserving, unless an appropriate merge target can be found. Since the State terrorism article is quite large, there really isn't an appropriate merge target, so the proper course of action is to keep the article, and clean it up. WilyD 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per above arguments. There are at least some references in the text, so parts of it are credible. It should be listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup. — RJH (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the arguments and references need to be cleaned up. But otherwise I think this article is necessary to preserve history. Johnathan1156 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There maybe some controversial statements here and there but I believe with some effort the proper references could be in place. This is whole procedure is an attempt to muzzle vast amounts of human rights abuses comitted by the SL government and I do hope people can see through this. Trincomanb 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the article was spun out of State terrorism because that article is getting too large. So if you think the material is appropriate for state terrorism, the only reasonable position is keep. WilyD 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article peels of the from the main State terrorism page and black july is just one amongst the line items. RaveenS 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also dont mind chamging the title of this article to Notable human rights violations attributed to Sri Lankan governmentsRaveenS 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page itself should exist, it makes more sense to have a separate page than to have all this crammed in with the general State terrorism page. However we can discuss indivdual items.--Realstarslayer 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As others have commented I see no problem in renaming the article, either that or creating a stub that covers more general human rights violations and only leave those acts that have been positively deemed 'state terrorism' on this page.--Realstarslayer 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This violates WP:NOR (the application of a term (state terrorism) which is controversial (POV) in itself and not well defined; and most important: a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position"), WP:V (lack of sufficient reputable citations) and WP:NPOV (this article will always be POV as its topic name is POV, if it would have been called "Sri Lanka Conflict" or something it could have been NPOV (on the condition it would have been completely rewritten). Sijo Ripa 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOV - Disagree, BBC, Red Cross, Human Right watch and unesco are not credible sources ? Armenian Genocide is an articlable subject even if the title is smacks of not NPOV, hence I disagree with your WP:V also. WP:NORAlso disagree that State terrorism is not a well defined term. There is consensus on the article as to what it is currently. RaveenS 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at best it should be renamed such as Notable human rights violations in Sri Lanka just like the notable LTTE attacks article. State terrorism does makes it inflamatory.Kongan 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Some version of the contents is worth retention, but the title is POV.--Runcorn 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename i agree with kongan. --trueblood 09:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the content is factually accurate (as far as possible considering the information and media situation in SL) and important. I am under the impression that Raveen has put a lot of work into this article; he tries hard to be impartial; he is always open for criticism and suggestions. It is a good idea to rename the article and to watch the language used very closely in order to avoid POV and yellow press-like phrasing. Krankman 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to users not familiar with the Sri Lankan situation: You have to understand that with all articles touching the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, you can expect radicals and nationalists from both sides to edit and take part in discussions, talking about WP policies, sources and NPOV, etc., often disguising their actual motivations very cleverly. Don't let yourselves be fooled. Krankman 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest merging with Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE under the title "Notable human rights violations in Sri Lanka" (see Kongan's suggestion above), in the process cleaning up (and out) a lot. Krankman 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable human rights violation in Sri Lanka versus Notable human rights violations by Sri Lanka are 2 different articles. Let's first keep this article as is then decide on a proper name if need be and based on that name, the resultant article can be left alone or merged with another one. Thanks RaveenS
Well, I think that by putting those articles together, it would be less likely to be seen as pov because you would have the cruelties commited by both sides on one page; thus no reader would be tempted to think that one side is much worse than the other if he or she only stumbles upon one of the articles. All the facts would be there in one place, and everyone would be able to read and make up their own minds.
Of course, we all have to admit that--as Ruchiraw said--the length and detail of this article (as well as Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE) are due to a certain amount of pov (or personal involvement in the conflict) in most of the contributors; but I think that is not a problem because the facts are indisputable and no one is to decide what number of victims makes a single killing "encyclopedia-worthy". Krankman 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point too, but unless we come to an understanding of what is a notable human rights violations, what is a war crime, what are state terrorism, what are attempted genocides, what is ethnic cleaning with respect to both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the combined article is going to huge. In my view if we restrict this list to State terrorism by Sri Lanka to mean the government then it requires 2 more entries and we are done, that is the Eastern university massacres in which the military arrested 158 refugees from the University and killed them and the Chemmani mass graves where supposedly 600 disappeared people from Jaffna were buried. Off all listed items here, most can be argued that the perpetrators assumed impunity and inmost cases did enjoy impunity. Per the definition of State terrorism a government can sanction State terrorism through policy or conduct. Granting impunity to perpetrators after perpetrators is pushing the limits of State terrorism. RaveenS
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdangiusca (talk • contribs)

I kill you[edit]

prod removed, looks like hoax. no relevant google results in english or russian. author of the article who has made six total edits claimed to be head of history at preston university on my talk page, is also responsible for this edit --Astrokey44 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - the nominator did not in fact add the AfD template to the article. I've added it now, but there is no indication of vandalism anywhere, just a lack of template. I vote delete for hoax reasons. BigHaz 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, I've done a spot of source-checking and two of the books originally listed ("Russia For Dummies" and one about tennis) don't actually come up as existing, let alone saying what the article claims. BigHaz 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete - nonsense page. author of article has made two other vandalism edits; the one mentioned above and this one. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete hoax. Author simply copied the "references" from Russia. The words "я убивать ты" are also a literal and grammatically incorrect translation (most likely using an online translator) which make no sense whatsoever in Russian. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 23:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy nonsense. ViridaeTalk 00:35, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Consulting Group[edit]

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, no external sources —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Creation and edits to this page are the user's only contribs, this is plainly an advertisement. VoiceOfReason 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, but it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Hence the Prod/AfD route. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree too, but as someone relatively new to this I've seen people use speedy delete on AfD pages where the failure of the article to meet standards was particularly obvious; I apologize if it was inappropriate. VoiceOfReason 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of the first paragraph alone. Egregious marketing bullshit. Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consultancy is notorious for tiny outfits with grand names. Piccadilly 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original prod: Spammy, reads like an advertisement, doesn't seem to be notable, site has alexa ranking of 3,776,154, few google hits, the article doesn't seem to contain anything encyclopedic/salvagable. --Zoz (t) 21:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert for non-notable company.--Runcorn 21:55, 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. Kusma (討論) 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic SEO URL for phpBB[edit]

I have to admit right at the top that I don't really know much about such things, but this has only been out for two months, and the second Google hit I find for it says, "Magic SEO URL for phpBB" is really nothing more than a mod_rewrite solution, similar to those freely available on vBulletin.org - The Ultimate vBulletin Resource!. There are six Google hits for it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You have found "Magic SEO URL for phpBB" is really nothing more than a mod_rewrite solution on the Google, because Magic SEO URL for phpBB is competitive product to vbseo.com (it is for vBulletin and is in Wikipedia). Also, Google have 13,900 results so this product is used quite often. RAY 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how you get your numbers. Did you see the link I supplied? Only six websites even mention this product. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tako a look on the page with results on the Google to the right top corner of the screen. RAY 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhuh. And yet there are only six unique websites with references. All of those thousands of hits are to the same sites, over and over again. Note: User:RAY is the initial editor of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot: Try to search for "Magic SEO URL". There are 172,000 results on the Google. RAY
      • Oh, so it's a search engine optimisation thingy that optimises its own visibility in Google, too. How utterly unamazing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. Magic SEO does not use backward text links, but only add small image to the footer of generated page. Most internet software do this with text links, which are better for backward links building... RAY 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising.--SarekOfVulcan 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author of this product also made free and open source CMS called United-Nuke (see Google for results) so I think this entry is not ads (if yes, than vBSEO in wikipedia is advertisment too). RAY 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this modification deserves a wikipedia entry then shouldn't phpBB's Attachment modification, the Categories Hierarchy modificiation, etc? Those are among the most frequently downloaded modifications at both phpbb.com and phpbbhacks.com. 194.247.239.180 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is simple: vBSEO is the similar product for different internet forum software and is listed in wikipedia too. RAY 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you see equally nonnotable related thingy in Wikipedia, the correct course of action is not to use it to justify your own actions. Instead you're free to nominate that stuff for deletion, which I just did. Let's discuss this plugin's notability here, and that plugin's notability there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's see: I read the article, and get hit by Search Engine Optomatisatisativition language (widely known as "sounds cool, just tricky to figure out what it actually means"). Then I try to think like the Apache monkey who tries to do what the SEO consultant says. And as an Apache monkey, I know the holy mantra, "mod_rewrite is like XML: if it doesn't work, use more." And then, I was shown a revelation: Oooo, so this article is about a hack that sits atop Apache that makes phpBB URLs actually look like they should have looked like in the first place. So it's a proggie that maps http://forum.example.com/viewtopic.php?t=12345 to http://forum.example.com/topic/12345... Stated that way, this software just doesn't sound notable at all; we don't even have articles for various different rewrite engines of web servers, just a generic article that describes this arcane technical practice, and I believe that's all that's warranted; why should we have an article about a separate product that does something even more arcane?
    In short summary: Sufficiently advanced mod_rewrite is indistinguishable from Magic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay... but why is vBSEO listed in wikipedia? Because vBSEO (and Magic SEO too) are not only mod_rewrite rules as you have described. Both products only use mod_rewrite to properly handle nice-url - mod_rewrite does not cover the way how are nice-url generated on the page. RAY 11:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Long story short, Vbseo is listed here because someone made an article - we don't get the articles pre-approved or anything, someone just made an article, whee. The reason it was kept so far was that no one asked whether or not the thing should be listed. Now that you've pointed it out, I've listed it on AfD too. We'll discuss vbseo's merits in its own AfD. Thank you for pointing it out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your clarification. I now understand why someone want to delete this article. I have only one note: it will be fair to keep both articles (vBSEO and Magic SEO) or delete both. RAY 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to say following idea: vBSEO and Magic SEO are not about rewrite rules for mod_rewrite. These products are about a techniques how are native URLs generated in the output of an internet software transfered to nice-keywords-urls - they does not require to make any changes in original internet software. It has nothing to do with mod_rewrite rules. This is the reason why can be listed in Wikipedia. I hope you understand me. RAY 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert.--Runcorn 21:54, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek356[edit]

Not encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfReason (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB,WP:OR. Yomangani 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hopelessly nn. I only get 16 Google hits So this is definitely not a "but he's popular on the internet" sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Suitable content for the users talk page but not for an article. DrunkenSmurf 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments.--SarekOfVulcan 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Tuspm(C | @) 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per being unencyclopedic nonsense. However, I may be biased by my strong policy of voting delete for any article that uses more than one exclamation mark in a row. Double, triple, and quadruple excalamation points are clearly the work of the devil. Vickser 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just some random cartoonist on the Internet. Danny Lilithborne 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the nominator; probably not necessary for me to opine but I wanted to throw in an apology for failing to sign the nomination and a thank you to User:Yomangani for correcting my error. VoiceOfReason 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. AgentPeppermint 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO.--Runcorn 21:52, 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. JIP | Talk 07:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javapedia[edit]

FAILS Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Reliable sources BobDjurdjevic 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See my comment below in the meatballwiki nomination - much of that applies. ViridaeTalk 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I reviewed a number of the wikis in the list a while back, and checked this one out. It is referenced quite often in the developer community and there is some evidence that it is considered a good resource. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with something. Not sure which related article to merge it with. If it can't be merged then delete. --Phoenix Hacker 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per Phoenix. Anomo 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability criteria.--Runcorn 21:47, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MeatballWiki[edit]

FAILS Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Reliable sources BobDjurdjevic 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have heard of meatballwiki somewhere. That is beside the point. Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are not reasons for deletion - the greater percentage of articles here will fail that. Just because the sources aren't cited doesn't mean they don't exist. Judging by the edit history, It was Vanity when it started, but it may not be now - its notability and therefore inclusion will obviously be decided here. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms doesn't seem to apply considering we do actuually have an article on barnstars - though that doesn't include the internet form. ViridaeTalk 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and Meta often refers to Meatball. --Metropolitan90 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to Metropolitan90 I now know where I had heard of it. Keep per above. ViridaeTalk 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ...but it meets my "heard of this thing outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects a few times" got feeling criterion, which means that it's probably notable and can be improved. The criteria cited aren't deletion grounds (just grounds for severe cleanup), aside of web notability, which I think is more than marginally established. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is notable for being one of the oldest wikis in existence. The article is low on verifiability from reliable sources, but that can (and should) be improved. Relist in 4 weeks if there is no improvement in this regard and I will vote to delete. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Notable according to the people above, but article should list sources. If it really has existed for over 4 yours, it must be mentioned somewhere. --Peephole 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wikipedia namespace While I personally love the MeatballWiki, it just doesn't have the sources (or at least I couldn't find any). I could see this being transferred to the Wikipedia namespace, however, as it is of considerable relevance to those of us working in the sausage factory (but not to the world at large). Ziggurat 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I googled and found one business weekly article. Still, someone more familiar with the subject should find and add more sources. --Peephole 03:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a good source, but really just a passing mention (one sentence?). If this were any website but another Wiki it would have been deleted without question as failing verifiability, and it's that bias that I'm concerned about. Although I'd love more, and more complete, sources to be found so I can withdraw my suggestion to transfer... Ziggurat 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MeatballWiki was founded in 2000, so it's really six years old [51][52]. It is also contains a wealth of information about social software and online communities. Read it before you delete it.
  • Keep. 93,000 hits on Google, and many references from the Meta pages on this very Wikipedia, seems notable to me.
  • Keep Seems to pass notability criteria. Not convinced by the "You can go see it yourself" argument below; that would be original research.--Runcorn 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it may have been self-serving to have created the article, given that Meatball were the ones who wrote, designed, and adapted the original wiki software that Wikipedia ran on, and then were involved in abitrating many social disputes within the Wikipedia community, it was a Wikipedian who wrote the original article, so I think Vanity is unfair.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by citing sources and claiming you have found only one trade magazine article. The site is public. You can go see it yourself. You can also see how the site is used by others on the Internet, and it has been notable at such events as Wikimania, WikiSym, WOZ3, ASIST'04, etc. Besides, I've been in the New York Times, too, so there. Blphssst. -- SunirShah

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

The result was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethean[edit]

non-notable band with no published music Travelbird 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band has a CD called "Letheanners" and 5 published music: The Passion Of Werther, Letheanners, Black Rose, Freezing Wind and Seeds And Dragon Fang.

For that, I don't thing it is a good reason for deletion (you can see this information by reading the article). Static Skillo Smigol 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User's only edits are to the article in question. -- Kicking222 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make mine the words of Static Skillo Smigol. If the band actually recorded songs, of course there's no need to delete the article.

--Corvones 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article itself states "Now they are preparing to record their first CD, and brand new the unheard of music: Seeds And Dragon Fang.". The songs listed are appartently not yet published. If and when they do so, the artcile could be reposted. Travelbird 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User's only edit is to this AfD. -- Kicking222 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Absolutely no assertion of notability of any kind in the article. The article simply states, "This band formed, performed a lot of covers, had a lot of members leave and come back, and is (this part is an exact quote from the article) preparing to record their first CD." Of course, this article should (and will) be deleted, but the fact that the page makes no mention of why this band could possibly be significant makes it an easy {{db-band}} candidate. -- Kicking222 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability found in the article or a google search. --Joelmills 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kicking222 I've just corrected this part. Sorry that I am new in Wikipedia, but I just want to help, and I am doing my best.
I want you to please don't delete this article, I will try to correct everything that is not correct. Thanks. (added by Static Skillo Smigol)
Comment I don't think there is anything to correct in the article - the problem is that the band has not yet published any significant albums and is therefore not sufficently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Refer to WP:Notability for more information. Travelbird 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete There is a big relativity in being notable or not, in Brazil, where the band came from, they are very notable, but in the world it can only be recognized if the information goes on. That's my opinion of why this article could stay here. --Static Skillo Smigol 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for English Wikipedia.--Runcorn 21:42, 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 merge, seemingly acceptable to the vast majority no matter what their second choice would be. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obstructive sleep apnea following pharyngeal flap surgery[edit]

Article summarizes linked papers without providing sufficient evidence that this deserves its own article. Delete (or maybe merge to Sleep apnea) SarekOfVulcan 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 'Wikipedia is not paper.' As long as it's sourced and not promotional, why not? Tom Harrison Talk 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge It could probably easily fit in the Sleep apnea page, and is probably a bit too specific to ever really be very significant on its own. Badbilltucker 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Article has inline citations, thus satisfying WP:RS and WP:V, and I see no basis for questioning its notability. Whether this topic deserves a separate article or not is debatable and the long name indeed indicates it may be better as a section of sleep apnea, but this is a minor issue that should be solved by the {{merge}} rather then AfD. If there is consensus for merge then let's merge it by all means.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Term is notable (in fact my dad suffers from something similar) but probably not enough for its own article. It would make a very good addition to the Sleep apnea article, and would work just fine in the "OSA" section. tmopkisn tlka 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sleep apnea in agreement with the previous three commenters. I'll be worrying about these technical details in a few years, given my family history, but it's overly specific (and hopelessly overtitled) for a general encyclopedia. Barno 05:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim Merge to Sleep apnea, or Delete. Wikipedia is not the Journal of Sleeping Disorders. -- GWO
  • Merge to sleep apnea. Distinctly overspecialised as-is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteor Merge Way overspecialized. Reads exactly like it was taken from a medical journal without citation, or like it was written for a medical journal. Also, it never says who gets the pharyngeal flap surgery, and claims there is an article for same, but there isn't!Edison 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Good info, but doesn't seem to need its own article.--Runcorn 21:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_25&oldid=1116775179"